Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Communicating emotion through a haptic link : a study of the influence of metaphor, personal space and… Smith, Jocelyn Darlene 2005

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_2006-0110.pdf [ 7.41MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0051512.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0051512-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0051512-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0051512-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0051512-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0051512-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0051512-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0051512-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0051512.ris

Full Text

Communicating Emotion Through a Haptic Link a study of the influence of metaphor, personal space and relationship by Jocelyn Darlene Smith B . S c , The University of B r i t i s h Co lumbia , 2003 A T H E S I S S U B M I T T E D I N P A R T I A L F U L F I L M E N T O F T H E R E Q U I R E M E N T S F O R T H E D E G R E E O F Master of Science in The Faculty of Graduate Studies (Computer Science) The University O f B r i t i s h Co lumbia November . 2005 © Jocelyn Darlene Smith 2005 Abstract The world is more and more connected and yet we are often physically distant from people we care about. Technology increasingly supports remote inter-personal communication but has yet to integrate our sense of touch into this interaction. Researchers in the field of haptics (touch and technology) have started exploring computer-mediated touch interaction. T h e question is how should a computer-mediated person-to-person touch interaction be designed. In this thesis, we concentrate on how the design of a haptic interaction model influences performance and subjective experience of a dyad. Specifically, we examine the effect of using different metaphors to develop and explain the haptic interaction model, creating interaction models w i th and without a haptic display of personal space, and the type of relationship shared by the dyad using the device on abi l i ty to communicate emotion haptically. We also explore how dyads use these interactions to communicate emotion. We ran a structured study, in which participants communicated emotion wi th a haptic device and found that participants were able to communicate some emotional content through the haptic interactions. A significant effect of the interaction metaphor on performance was found. Partic ipants preferred interactions wi th a haptic indicator of personal space, and participants ' reported metaphor preferences depended on their relationship. F inal ly , we found that common actions were used to express each emotion, even though this is a new media unfamiliar to participants. Contents Abstract ii Contents i i i List of Tables v i i List of Figures v i i i Acknowledgements l x I Thesis 1 1 Introduction 2 1.1 Mot ivat ion 2 1.2 Objectives 3 1.3 Research Approach 3 1.4 Thesis Structure 4 2 Related Work 6 2.1 M e d i a 6 2.2 Co-located Communicat ion 7 2.2.1 Touch 7 2.2.2 Personal Space 8 2.2.3 E m o t i o n 9 2.3 Haptics Overview 9 2.4 Computer Mediated Person-to-Person Hapt ic Interactions . . . . 11 3 Interaction Design 15 3.1 Role of V i s u a l Representations 16 3.2 Metaphors 16 3.2.1 Metaphors for the User Study 19 3.2.2 Implementation Details 20 3.3 Personal Space Indicator 25 3.3.1 Init ia l Spatial St imul i - Vibrat ions and Evaluat ion . . . . 26 3.3.2 F i n a l Spatial St imul i - Vibrat ions and Evaluat ion 28 3.4 Relationship 30 3.5 Summary 31 4 E m o t i o n Communication Study 32 4.1 Objective 32 4.2 Hypotheses 34 4.2.1 Factors and Performance 34 4.2.2 Interaction between Factors and Performance 35 4.2.3 Subjective Experience 35 4.3 Metrics 36 4.4 Design 36 4.4.1 Physica l Setup 37 4.4.2 Equipment 40 4.4.3 Protoco l 40 4.4.4 P i ck ing Emotions 42 4.4.5 Recruit ing Subjects 42 4.5 Analysis 43 4.5.1 Emotions Conveyed Statistics 43 4.5.2 Explorat ion 43 5 Results 44 5.1 Partic ipants and Study Sessions 44 5.2 Order ing Effect 45 5.3 A b i l i t y to Communicate Emotions 45 5.3.1 Overal l Performance 46 5.3.2 Performance by Metaphor 48 5.3.3 Performance by Space Indicator 49 5.3.4 Performance by Relationship 49 5.3.5 Interaction Between Experiment Factors 50 5.4 Strategies for Communicat ing Emot ion 51 5.4.1 Strategies for Conveying Emot ion 51 5.4.2 Strategies for Perceiving Emot ion 54 5.4.3 Strategies for Interacting 55 5.5 Subjective aspects of Interaction Experience 56 5.5.1 Preference 56 5.5.2 Connection 57 5.5.3 Comfort 57 5.5.4 Perceived A b i l i t y to Convey 58 5.5.5 Perceived A b i l i t y to Perceive 59 5.6 Performance and Strategies for Conveying 60 5.6.1 Success by Conveyer 60 5.6.2 Below Average 62 5.6.3 Above Average 63 5.6.4 Most Successful 67 6 Discussion 69 6.1 Design, Mode l , Relationship and Interaction 70 6.1.1 Metaphor 70 6.1.2 Space 71 6.1.3 Relationship 72 6.2 Communicat ing Emot ion : A c t i o n Strategies 74 6.3 Expressive Capacity of Interaction Models 76 6.3.1 Metaphor and Space - Exper imental Interaction Effect . . 76 6.3.2 Desired Expressiveness 77 6.4 Real W o r l d Influences V i r t u a l Interaction 77 6.4.1 Strategies 78 6.4.2 Relationship and Metaphor 79 6.5 Success as an Emot iona l Communicat ion Device 79 6.6 Remarks on Experiment Design 82 6.6.1 Training for D y a d Hapt ic Models 82 6.6.2 Mot ivat ion 83 6.7 Summary 84 7 Conclusion 87 7.1 Contributions 87 7.2 Future Work 89 7.3 F i n a l Words 90 Bibliography 92 A Experiment Script 97 A . l Instructions 97 A . 2 Interaction Metaphor Script 98 B E m o t i o n Strategy F o r m . 100 C F i n a l Questionaire 102 List of Tables 3.1 Spatial Study Results 29 4.1 Condi t ion Ordering 37 5.1 Sent and Perceived Emotions 46 5.2 Correct Arousa l or Valence 48 5.3 Emotions successfully communicated by metaphor 48 5.4 Emotions successfully communicated by relationship type . . . . 50 5.5 Emotions successfully communicated by relationship and metaphor 51 5.6 Emotions communicated by wi th in subject conditions 51 5.7 Often Used Act ions for each Emot ion 55 5.8 Relationship and Metaphor /Space Preference 57 5.9 Relationship and Metaphor /Space Connection 58 5.10 Relationship and Metaphor /Space Comfort 59 5.11 Relationship and Metaphor /Space Perceived A b i l i t y to Convey . 60 5.12 Relationship and Metaphor /Space Perceived A b i l i t y to Perceive . 62 5.13 Successful Couple Performance across conditions 67 6.1 A c t i o n Use and Performance 75 List of Figures 3.1 Scale of Intimacy of Hapt ic Interaction 17 3.2 V i s u a l representation of P i n g Pong metaphor 21 3.3 V i s u a l Representation of the Hand Stroke Metaphor 23 3.4 H a n d Stroke metaphor: force v.s. relative velocity 24 4.1 Experiment SetUp Diagram 38 4.2 Hapt ic K n o b 39 4.3 Experiment SetUp Photo 39 5.1 Sent vs Received Emotions 47 5.2 Act ions Used to Convey Emotions 53 5.3 Actions Used to Convey Emotions T w o 54 5.4 Number Correct by Conveyer 61 5.5 Strategies of Below Average Conveyers 63 5.6 Sent vs Received Emotions : below average conveyers 64 5.7 Strategies of Above Average Conveyers 65 5.8 Sent vs Received Emotions: above average conveyers 66 Acknowledgements Wow, I have finished my M S c thesis, and I had lots of help along the way. I would like to thank my supervisor K a r o n M a c L e a n . K a r o n seemed to know when to let me wander and discover, and when to reign me in . She encouraged me to go to grad school and has been a mentor to me from the start. A lso I would like to acknowledge the awesome influence that my flute teacher, Cathy Dochsteader, and my high school math teacher, M s . B a i r d , have had on my life. Thanks to C r i s t i n a Conat i for being my second reader and attending my presentation. Thanks to Kel logg B o o t h and Mich ie l van de Panne for being on my thesis committee and to Joseph L u k for proof reading. M y family have always been there for me, and have been the sunshine in my life from the get go. Thanks M o m (Sheila Smith) , and D a d (Ron Smith) . M y sister has always been my closest friend, and even helped pick apart my experiment ideas unt i l I had one that made sense. Thanks Rachelle for being such a great sis! I have been lucky to meet and befriend many magnificent people but would like to thanks here those who fed me and kept me sane during the past few months: Cecile Leung, Stacy Langsdale, V i a n n C h a n and Micheal Lee, M a r k Crowley and L i l y Hue, Greg Kempe, M i k e Klaas , and Warren Cheung. Thanks also to my labmates. Especial ly to C o l i n Swindells, and M a r i o Enriquez who have been friends and accomplices of mine for the past year and a half. F ina l ly , I would like to acknowledge everyone in my grad class. Never before have I met such a fun, intelligent and interesting group of people. P a r t I Thesis Chapter 1 Introduct ion 1.1 Motivation In an increasingly connected world, we often find ourselves physically separated from those we care about. A plethora of electronic communication devices including the telephone, email , cell phones, instant messengers and blogs provide us wi th means of connecting wi th people who are not physically present w i th us. However, these devices do not enable us to use our sense of touch during remote interaction. Touch is an important aspect of person-to-person communication in face-to-face situations. Research has shown that touch can have a profound effect on our mood and behaviour. Furthermore, touch plays an important role in establishing and maintaining intimate relationships [21]. For many years, researchers in computer science, engineering and psychology have been working to better understand our sense of touch and to bui ld , eval-uate and understand systems that allow us to interact w i th computers through our sense of touch. This field of study is known as haptics. The majority of haptics research has focused on interaction between one person and a computer. However, several research projects have started to look at using touch for com-puter mediated communication between multiple people. Some of these projects study the possible benefits of adding touch to existing interactions, while others create new touch interactions. 1.2 Objectives The "computer" in computer mediated communication means that the inter-action is no longer direct. Therefore, it is possible to design and create new interactions. Communications researchers tell us that people think of and use new media interactions as new communication channels w i th their own strengths and weaknesses, rather than as deficient face-to-face communication [17]. G iven the flexibility to design computer mediated haptic (touch) interactions, and knowing that such interactions wi l l be judged by their unique strengths and weaknesses, how should an interaction designer proceed? The challenge is to create a compelling interaction model. In this thesis, we examine several aspects of a computer mediated dyadic (two person) haptic interaction, and t ry to assess their influence on the emotional expressiveness of the interaction and on the subjective experience of the pair engaged i n the interaction. We explore three aspects of computer-mediated haptic interaction: 1. Metaphor used to design and explain the interaction 2. Presence or absence of a haptic display of interpersonal space 3. Relationship shared between the people in the dyad engaged in the inter-action 1.3 Research Approach O u r approach to the problem of discerning essential affordances for emotionally communicative, mediated haptic interactions was to concentrate on the inter-action model. Specifically, we used an existing one-degree-of-freedom device to allow us to concentrate on the interaction on the device rather than the form and function of the device itself. Moreover, we decided to concentrate on dyad interactions , which encompass many of our relationships and are technologically and socially easier to explore. There are many ways to design a computer mediated haptic interaction for non co-located dyads. Our approach was to base our interactions on metaphors of haptic interaction engaged in by dyads who are co-located in the real world. We wanted to find out i f the metaphor used to design and explain the interaction affected the abi l i ty of dyads to communicate emotion using the haptic device. We were also interested in the effect of the metaphor on the dyads' subjective experience. Dur ing face-to-face interactions, people use personal space as part of their nonverbal communication. Before a dyad can engage in real-world touch interac-t ion , they must be sufficiently close together. Since our metaphors are based on face-to-face interactions, we wondered what effect providing a haptic indicator of personal space would have on performance and subjective experience. F inal ly , the relationship a dyad shares affects the kinds of touch interactions that are used to communicate. We wanted to see if this was also true for computer mediated haptic interactions. To study these three aspects of computer-mediated haptic interaction (metaphi space and relationship) we first designed several haptic interactions that varied according to metaphor and created a haptic indicator of personal space to add or remove from these interactions. The second phase of the research was to design and carry out an experiment to test whether metaphor, space and relationship had an effect on abi l i ty to communicate emotion or the subjective experience of the dyad using the interaction. 1.4 Thesis Structure Throughout the remainder of this thesis we describe in more detail our research process, results and the implications of our findings. In Chapter 2, we present an overview of related work and its relevance to the current work. In Chapter 3, we discuss the design of the haptic interaction models that we created and in Chapter 4, we describe the experiment we designed to use these interaction models to test the impact of metaphor, spatial awareness and relationship on the interaction. In Chapter 5, we present the result of the experiment and in Chapter 6, discuss the meanings and implications of these results. F ina l ly , in Chapter 7, we conclude wi th the contributions of this work and suggestions for future work. Related W o r k This thesis examines the effect of the haptic interaction model and the relation-ship shared by a dyad on their performance and subjective experience when they are engaged in an emotion communication task through a computer-mediated haptic interaction. We briefly present the findings from the communications, psychology and sociology literature, which motivated and directed the current work. We then discuss the relevant work in the haptics l iterature, beginning w i th an overview of some of the major areas of haptics research, and followed by a discussion of research in the area of computer-mediated haptic communication. 2.1 Media Steuer [37] encourages communications researchers to use the knowledge they have gained from studying existing media to make predictions about and fa-cilitate the design of new media. Similarly , we can make use of some of this knowledge when we design and evaluate new media interactions. C o m m u n i -cation events can be classified according to three factors: the nature of the audience, the relationship between sender(s) and receiver(s) and the medium used to communicate [17]. We can use a similar structure to define the types of communication for which we are interested in designing. In the current work, we are interested in dyad interaction without an audience and in seeing the effect of relationship on the interaction. The medium we are studying is a computer mediated haptic device but w i th various models of interaction. New communication technologies can be compared to face-to-face communi-cation or viewed as improvements to existing channels. However, users view new communication channels not as improvements on existing channels but rather as unique channels to be judged and used according to their own uses and characteristics [17]. Thus there is value not just in comparing communication technologies to face-to-face communication or to each other but also in study-ing the characteristics of a particular communication technology. Furthermore, since we are interested in the use of a computer mediated haptic communica-t ion device to communicate emotion, it is important to look part icularly at its suitabi l i ty for this use. 2.2 Co-located Communication In their introduction to a compilation on nonverbal communication [39], W i e -mann and Harrison make the following observation about nonverbal communi-cation, "Non-language messages generated by movement, unlike their language counterpart, are unique in that they convey responsiveness on a moment-by-moment basis to the others present in face-to-face interaction." A s technology strives to enable exchange of such real-time non-language messages, face-to-face communication often serves as a starting point. We look to the ways people use touch and personal space in face-to-face communication to inspire and direct the design of our haptic interaction models. 2.2.1 Touch H a l l and K n a p p observe that "Touch is a crucial aspect of most human rela-tionships. [21]" Touch is the first sense to develop [25] and is unique among the senses in being reciprocal, w i th both sensing and actuation [14]. Touch can convey many meanings and the how or when of touch is largely based on culture and social-ization [10]. Hosti l ity, sexual interest, nurturance and dependence, affiliation [1] and the level of intimacy in a romantic relationship [10] are some of the social messages that can be conveyed through touch. How touch is interpreted depends on the situation and the perceived appropriateness of the touch for the s ituation [12]. For example, touch can raise anxiety in physically or emotionally distant situations and is positively perceived if it is deemed situationally appropriate and the level of intimacy is not higher than that desired by the recipient. The meaning of a touch is influenced by many things: part of body touched or touching, length of touch, amount of pressure, movement after in i t ia l contact, the social s ituation including who is present, and the relationship of those i n -volved in the touching event [18]. One specific example is that the comfort level of the recipient of a touch is related to the relative intimacy of the touch and the relationship between the two. We explore the use of touch in computer-mediated interaction, and specifically, intimacy of touch and relationship. 2.2.2 Personal Space Interpersonal distance is one of the elements of personal expression that can only occur in the presence of another, unlike for example, facial expressions, which can be made by an individual alone. The aspects of communication that require the presence of two or more individuals are often used to express attitudes and intimacy [10]. Four levels of distance were experimentally defined by H a l l [16]. These levels, in increasing order of distance, are intimate distance, personal distance, social distance and public distance. M a n y factors influence the distance at which an interaction occurs. These factors include sex, age, culture, topic, interaction setting, physical and personality characteristics, attitude and emotional orien-tat ion, and relationship [21]. Closer distances are used during discussion of a pleasant topic than during discussion of an unpleasant topic [21]. More intimate relationships result i n closer distances, and encounters that occur at intimate distance can be very negative i f they are not intimate [10]. In general, violations of expected use of personal distances carry messages [6]. Th i s thesis examines whether the notion of personal space in a v i r tua l haptic space can be uti l ized in emotional communication. 2.2.3 Emotion There are two aspects of emotional expression: the physiological changes that occur simultaneously wi th the feeling of the emotion, and the intentional com-munication of an emotion [10]. Studying the intentional communication of cog-nitive emotion does not capture the full emotional experience but is a good first approximation [10]. In our experiment, we study intentional communication of cognitive emotion. 2.3 Haptics Overview Researchers have been working on creating devices and algorithms to facilitate human computer interaction through haptics (our sense of touch). To date the majority of haptics research has focused on device design, control , rendering real world haptic sensations and the psychophysical properties of our sense of touch. A wide range of haptic devices have been developed and used. One of the most well known is the P H A N T o M [24], which is a point-contact, stylus-based, 3-degree-of-freedom (3-DoF) , force feedback device and was the first commercial haptic device. A point-contact force feedback device that operates in a plane (2DoF) is the Pantograph [32]. A more recent device in this category is a low cost I D o F device designed for teaching students system dynamics and embedded control [15]. Other force feedback devices range from elaborate exoskeletons, for example [3], to one degree of freedom force feedback knobs, for example [23]. Some examples of non-force feedback devices include passive haptic devices and tactile devices. A n example of a passive haptic device is the Tango [30], which is a physical , deformable object that senses how a user is holding and manipulat ing i t . Several different types of devices have been designed to display tactile information including S T R E S S [31], which uses lateral skin stretch to give the i l lusion of vertical deformation. A greater understanding of the human haptic (touch) sense facilitates the design of devices, renderings and interactions that communicate information to humans more appropriately and effectively. Haptics researchers have been ex-ploring technology and the human haptic sense to further our knowledge about what types of haptic signals and changes in haptic signals humans can detect. Th i s includes investigations into aspects of human perception such as the degree of pressure change required for objects of varying surface areas before the change is detectable to human subjects, and joint angle resolution [38], and the effect of spatial and temporal differences between two vibrotactile taps on the perception of the physical distance between the two taps [9]. Sensitivity to temperature changes in materials w i th high thermal conductivity is an example of investi-gations into human perception of temperature[19]. M a c L e a n and Enriquez [22] examined vibrotactile signals of varying frequency, amplitude and wave shape and found that people mapped these signals to a two dimensional perceptual space. The effect of visual or auditory st imul i on haptic perception have also been explored: visual and audio cues have been shown to alter perceived haptic properties. A study involving different visual renderings of a physical spring, as participants compressed it , found that the visual representation affected the perceived stiffness of the spring [36]. Sound has also been shown to influence perceived stiffness, though the effect was found not to be as strong as the effect of visual cues [11]. In summary, haptics researchers have been exploring everything related to touch and technology from device design to human haptic perception. We are interested in exploring how this haptic technology can be used to facilitate computer mediated person-to-person haptic interaction. 2.4 Computer Mediated Person-to-Person Haptic Interactions Recently, more projects are being done to begin to examine person-to-person computer mediated haptic interaction. Th i s research has introduced the idea of connecting people remotely through touch, looked at device design for dyad haptic games, and employed haptics in collaborative tasks. In this section, we discuss the research in computer mediated person-to-person haptic interaction. Mot ivated by the lack of touch interaction in remote communication, Brave and Dahley designed inTouch [4] [5]. The device consists of two sets of three rollers and communication is established through the sense of interacting w i th a shared object that is created by both sets of rollers moving as if both users are acting upon them. D u r i n g informal user feedback, some users thought the i n -abi l i ty to convey concrete information would be a problem while others thought this was the strength of the interaction. Users suggested that this device would be most suited for intimate relationships; however, this was not systematically studied. In our research, we take some of the ideas from this work and do a more systematic, structured evaluation of the interaction and experience of the dyad using such a haptic device. Th i s includes looking at the effect of relationship on the interaction and experience. Another device built for interpersonal interaction is HandJive [13]. The focus of this work was on designing a device for a purely haptic two player game i n an environment where audio is inappropriate. The individuals involved in the interaction are co-located but not necessarily in view of one another. HandJive uses two orthogonal axes so that each person controls the horizontal position of their own device, which translate into the vertical position of their partners device. Several possible games and a possible haptic language are described by the designers of HandJive . The focus of HandJive was on device design and play; whereas, we focus on the design of the haptic interaction model and communicating emotion. The " H u g Over a Distance" is a device designed to support unobtrusive, haptic interaction between intimate couples [26]. The prototype device consisted of a vest w i th air pockets for receiving a v i r tua l hug and a koala to rub to send a v i r tua l hug. The device was presented to users in a workshop format. Users were unable to de-couple the sound of the air compressor used to inflate the pockets from the interaction, and d id not feel that they would use it in their dai ly lives. However, it stimulated discussion of ideas for n e w interaction devices. A framework facil itating the use of haptic icons in the context of instant messaging is presented in Hapt ic I M [33]. The authors discuss the idea that hapticons (iconic haptic signals) could be used as a form of non-verbal commu-nication cues in the instant messaging context. There have been several projects that examine whether the presence/absence of haptics in a v i r tua l environment affects task performance or the sense of interacting w i th another indiv idual in a collaborative task performed wi th users located remote from each other. In one study, two people worked together to hold and move a v i r tua l r ing along a v i r tua l wire without bumping into it [2]. The interaction was through two P H A N T o M s and two monitors connected to the same computer. A visual-only and a visual-plus-haptic condition were used. One of the two users was always the same "expert" user. The results showed slightly increased performance and sense of presence of the other in the visual -plus-haptic condition. Salinas et a l . [35] conducted another study showing similar results involving a visual + audio condition and a visual + audio + active haptics condition. The task involved using a P H A N T o M to move blocks around i n a v i r tua l space. Task performance and sense of presence were somewhat higher w i th the active haptics. Transatlantic touch [20] is another similar study were two participants collaborated to lift a cube. In this study, participants were on opposite sides of the At lant i c . A n increase in sense of presence w i th haptics was again reported. We are interested in examining interaction when only haptics is available for a communication task. Non-colocated collaborative application environments are often seen as lack-ing awareness and cues provided by nonverbal communication in face-to-face situations. In a collaborative editing environment, in which each user has their own cursor, haptics have been proposed as a way to try and increase aware-ness of where the other editor is in the environment [29]. In this paper, several haptic interactions between cursor "avatars" are discussed. A n observational evaluation in which pairs of users created U M L diagrams in either a visual + audio or a visual + audio + haptic condition found that some users d id make use of the haptic interactions when they were present and that there was high variabi l i ty among participants in the use of the haptic interactions. One of the haptic interactions between the two cursors is a resistance to movement of the workspace or a small v ibrat ion when one approaches the other. The goal of these haptic cues is to provide a haptic proximity sense. In this thesis, we look specifically at how the presence of a haptic proximity sense influences haptic interaction during an emotion communication task. In a collaborative editing environment, in which there is only one cursor that users share, haptic signals have been purposed as a way to provide a non-verbal mechanism for turn taking [7]. A n in i t ia l study, in which groups of four had to arrange furniture on a map according to difficult constraints, suggests that more equitable turn- taking may occur wi th a haptic mechanism than wi th only a visual mechanism. Overal l , participants in the study preferred to have access to both the haptic and visual mechanisms. ComTouch [8] examines the use of a simple bidirectional haptic signal combined wi th audio, in dyad communication. The idea of a haptic device that allows users to send messages through pressure and receive them as a vibrotactile stimulus coupled w i th the audio channel was tested through two experiment tasks. The first task was to use the device while having a conversation w i th no view of the other. The second task required cooperation in a survival game wi th use of the audio channel discouraged. In the conversation task, participants used the device for emphasis, mimicry and turn-taking . They were not always aware of having used it in these ways. The results of this research suggest that there is potential for haptic signals to play some of the roles in remote communication that nonverbal cues provide i n face-to-face interaction. We explore the use of haptics in emotional communication. To show the benefit of haptic interactions, many studies compare them to visual-only and /or visual and audio-only interactions. Our approach is to con-sider haptic-only interactions to be a unique, and potentially useful medium worth studying in their own right. We are interested i n exploring how a haptics-only device is used in remote computer-mediated interpersonal emotional com-munication. A d d i n g vision and/or audio creates a different interaction medium, and we are interested in concentrating on how different haptic interaction mod-els affect the communication rather than on different modalities. Interaction Design In this thesis, we examine how the haptic interaction model and the relationship shared by users affects interaction between dyads given the task of communicat-ing emotion through a haptic model. We look at three different aspects of the interaction: intimacy of the relationship between the dyad, the metaphor used to develop and explain the haptic interaction, and whether a haptic indicator of personal space is present in the v i r tua l haptic interaction. In this chapter, we describe the design of our interaction models and choice of relationship types. These models were designed to be used in an experiment (described in the next chapter) that manipulates metaphor, support of interpersonal spatial awareness and relationship, and measures impact on performance and subjective experi-ence, during an emotion communication task w i th a haptic device. In this chapter, we first discuss the role of visual representations in explain-ing our haptic interaction models. Next we briefly describe several interaction metaphors that we developed. We then discuss our rationale for choosing two of these metaphors for our experiment, and the implementation details of these two models. Next we present the haptic signals we designed to act as indicators of personal space, and the pilot studies we d id to choose an indicator that people could use. Then we discuss the role of relationship in,the interaction. F inal ly , we summarize the interaction models and relationship factors that we used for the experiment. 3.1 Role of Visual Representations Our interaction models are designed and explained using metaphor, and this strategy makes it easier to explain the force mapping between the haptic input and output. It is not possible for a user to feel how his actions affect the output his partner feels. Thus , to help users develop a mental model of the interaction, we also develop simple visual representations of the interaction models. Being able to see what the other is doing helps a user to map the haptic st imul i they feel to their own and their partners' actions. These visual representation are de-signed to explain the haptic mapping and are not used during the experimental trials. 3.2 Metaphors Init ial ly we defined four levels of haptic metaphor int imacy that we were i n -terested in studying(Figure 3.1). The least intimate interaction between two people involving touch is through a shared object that is touched by one person at a time, for example a soccer or ping pong bal l . The next level of intimacy is through a shared object that is manipulated by both people at the same time, for example a table being carried, a tug-of-war rope or a two person crosscut saw. The more intimate levels involve direct touch. Less intimate direct touch includes shaking hands or patt ing on the shoulder. More intimate direct touch includes massaging, stroking and holding hands [18]. Using this int imacy scale, we developed four interactions based on four touch metaphors that span i t : playing P i n g Pong, cutt ing down a tree w i th a crosscut saw, shaking hands and holding hands. P i n g Pong The P i n g Pong interaction metaphor is of two people playing a game wi th a bal l and two paddles. The haptic knobs become the paddles and the motion of a v i r tua l ba l l determines the force on the paddles. E a c h person Metaphor Intimacy Type of Touch With a free shared object1 Through a stiff shared object Direct touch Direct intimate' touch Figure 3.1: Scale of Intimacy of Hapt ic Interaction controls the horizontal position of a P i n g Pong paddle and a bal l moves back and forth between the paddles. H i t t i n g the bal l speeds it up and cradling i t slows it down. A v i r tua l net separates the two players. A player running into the net feels a strong force as i f h i t t ing a wal l . Crosscut Saw The crosscut saw interaction models a situation where two people interact simultaneously w i th a shared object. The interaction metaphor is that of cutt ing down a tree using a large two person crosscut saw. The force feedback depends on the current user actions as well as the mode. There are three basic modes: 1. The saw is on the ground 2. The saw is being held /manipulated by both people 3. The saw is being picked up or put down. Th is th i rd mode actually includes multiple states involving al l combinations of one or more of the people picking up or putt ing down the saw. W h e n both people are holding the saw, they feel the motion of the other through the saw. If they move the saw in front of a v i r tua l tree and move in the same direction together, then they saw the v i r tua l tree. A rough v ibrat ion is felt when sawing. After sufficient sawing, the tree falls and a violent v ibrat ion is displayed on the knob as if one is feeling the ground shake as the tree hit i t . Shaking hands In this interaction, the metaphor of shaking hands is used. There are three modes during the interaction. 1. The approach. The hands are not in contact. 2. The contact. The in i t ia l contact stage. The in i t ia l contact w i l l be inf lu-enced by the approach. 3. The shake. Th i s is the actual handshake. A connection is modeled between the two hands. The position of each motor is mapped to the motion of the hand. W h e n the hands are apart (approach stage), then the motor position represents the horizontal position of that hand in the space; thus moving the motor towards of the other w i l l bring the corresponding hand closer to its partner. W h e n the hands are i n contact(shake stage), then motor position is mapped to the rotational position of the hand; moving the motor side-to-side then corresponds to shaking the hand up and down. H a n d Stroke Th i s interaction started out based on an interlocked handhold, wi th attract ion points corresponding to when two hands are positioned wi th fingers intertwined. M o v i n g between these points would feel like sl iding across a surface wi th friction. People using just the sliding across mode of this interaction found it compelling and we decided to simplify the interaction by dropping the intertwined mode, because it seemed to break up the connect that people felt wi th the sliding action. Furthermore, stroking is the most intimate form of face-to-face touch [27], and thus the metaphor of two hands stroking is a more intimate metaphor than that of two hands holding each other. 3.2.1 Metaphors for the User Study After designing these four interactions, we decided to concentrate on the P i n g Pong and H a n d Stroke interactions for our user study (described i n the next chapter). We decided to use only two interactions because we expected there might be considerable variation among users, and thus wanted a wi th in sub-jects design for the metaphor factor. It was not realistic to test more than two metaphors in a single session: using two metaphors allowed sufficient time for training, an appropriate number of trials for each condition and for part i c i -pants to answer questions about their interaction experience, dur ing a two-hour session. The P i n g Pong and H a n d Stroke metaphors were chosen for several rea-sons. The pr imary reason was their location at opposites ends of our intimacy scale, thus providing the greatest difference i n intimacy. Another reason was because the relatively straightforward mapping from the metaphor to the inter-action model allowed users to quickly understand the haptic model through the metaphor. The crosscut saw and handshake metaphors both involved several modes, and it was not always clear to pilot subjects which mode they were in . It may be possible to create haptic signals that would provide a better indication of mode, but we did not find a way to do this without creating more complex interaction models , which could make it more difficult for users to understand the mapping between the haptic metaphor and the haptic interaction. Another option would have been to simplify the crosscut saw and handshake interac-tions; for example, by restricting users to always hold the saw in the crosscut model. However, we felt this might create interactions that were too close to being simple push /pu l l interactions, which Fogg et A l found led users to fight for control [13]. 3.2.2 Implementation Details In the following sections, we describe the haptic and visual implementation of the two interaction models that we chose to develop further and use for our user study. P i n g Pong Implementation Th i s haptic interaction is based on a physical rendering of a model of a bal l in a horizontal plane. The bal l has a mass and an in i t ia l velocity. W h e n it is not in contact w i th either paddle it continues moving in the space w i th only a l ittle friction applied to its motion. The pad-dle is modelled as a spring w i th an anchor point that moves w i th the user's knob. The spring constant determines how quickly the bal l changes direction. M o v i n g the paddle after the bal l has come in contact w i th it changes the posi-t ion of the spring and thus influences how fast the bal l leaves the paddle. For example, "swinging" your "paddle" towards the other player, after the bal l has contacted, it sends the bal l faster in their direction. A faster bal l w i l l hit a paddle w i th a greater force. In the middle of the v i r tua l space, separating the two players is a net, which is modelled as a wal l . If a user crosses the net, then a constant force wi l l push them back towards their side of the net. The visual representation of the P i n g Pong interaction (Figure 3.2) consists of two rectangles whose positions correspond to the position of the paddles as determined by the positions of the two knobs. In the middle of the screen, a line representing the net divides the space. A circle representing the bal l moves back and forth across the screen as the bal l moves around in the space. The force on the bal l is used to update the bal l position. W h e n the bal l is moving through the space between the paddles, only a small amount of force " fr ict ion" is applied to the motion of the bal l slowing it down. If the bal l is in contact w i th a paddle, the force on the bal l is determine by how far " into" the paddle the bal l has travelled(Equation 3.1). The paddle is modelled as a point w i th a small spring attached. The bal l makes contact w i th the paddle by Figure 3.2: Screen shot of visual representation of P i n g Pong metaphor hit t ing the spring and leaves the paddle when it leave contact w i th the spring at rest position. —b±b i f Xb < xpi and Xb > xP2, fb = ' k((xpi — I) — Xb) — b i b i f Xb > xpi — I, (3-1) k((xp2 + I) — Xb) — b±b if Xb < xP2 + I. fb is the force on the bal l xpi is the position of the paddle i Xb is the position of the bal l ±b is the current velocity of the bal l Xb is the current acceleration of the ball k is the spring constant I is the spring length b is the damping constant The force on the bal l is used to update the ball 's acceleration (xb), velocity (ib) and position (xb) during the i t h t ime step of durat ion T. Xbi = fbi/rrib (3.2) ±bt = XbtT + Xb^! Xb = Xb,T + Xi-i (3.3) (3.4) Thus , if the bal l is in contact w i th a paddle during a given time step, then there is a force on the corresponding knob. Th i s force is the opposite of the force applied to the bal l plus a small constant, Equat ion 3.5. The constant is used to ensure that a slow moving bal l w i l l s t i l l be felt when it comes into contact w i th the paddle. In addit ion, i f the paddle has moved into/across the net, then a strong force wi l l push the paddle back towards its side of the net. fp2 = -fb + c if Xb > xpi -I and xpi > Pw, -fb + c + w if Xb > xpi -I and xpi < Pw, (3.5) 0 if Xb < xpi -I and xpi > Pw, w if Xb < xpi -I and xpi < Pw -fb + c if Xb < Xp2 + 1 and xP2 < Pw, -fb + C + W if Xb < Xp2 + 1 and xP2 > Pw, (3.6) 0 if Xb > Xp2 + 1 and xP2 < Pw, w if Zfc > Xp2 + 1 and xP2 > Pw c is a small constant added so that a slow moving ball w i l l s t i l l be felt w is the net constant pw is the position of the net H a n d S t r o k e I m p l e m e n t a t i o n If the v i r tua l hands are in contact then the force felt on the knobs is determined by the relative velocity of the knobs and the area of the v i r tua l hands that is overlapping. Metaphorically, slow movements are like the two hands being pushed more against each other and fast movements are like the hands gently and quickly brushing across each other. The visual representation of the Hand Stroke interaction consisted of two rectangles whose position corresponds to the position of the hands in the space as determined by the position of the paddles(Figure 3.3). Figure 3.3: Screen shot of visual representation of the H a n d Stroke metaphor; (a) "hands" not in contact, (b) "hands" in contact Figure 3.4 and Equat ion 3.7 shows how the force varies according to the relative velocity of the haptic knobs. To increase the richness of the interaction model at slower velocities a strong force is used at low to medium relative velocities. A s the relative velocity becomes high, the amount of force gradually decreases. A lso as the area of contact decreases, the force decreases. six if x < Slow Velocity, / f c i = i fbig if Slow Velocity < x < M e d i u m Velocity, ( 3- 7) fbig — S2X i f M e d i u m Velocity < x < Very Fast Velocity. fk! = the force based on the relative velocities of the two knobs x = the relative velocity of the knobs fbig = a constant force of large magnitude 51 = slope up determined to make a smooth transit ion to fbig 52 = slope down determined to make a continuous transit ion from fbig to fsmaii The area of the contact between the hands also affects the force. A s the area of contact decreases, so does the force, Equat ion 3.8. f k 1 ~ c * y 2 if c * y2 < fkl and y < k, 0 i f c * y2 > /fci or y > k. fk2 = the force output to the knobs fk3 (3.8) c = a constant y = relative distance between the v i r tua l hands (0 = directly on top of one another) k = distance apart at which the hands are no longer touching 3.3 Personal Space Indicator The models we created are based on metaphors of real world touch interactions that involve a physical space. W i t h these models we create a v i r tua l interaction space. The basic models make use of distance in this interaction space but do not explicit ly give users any indication of the position of their partner relative to their own position in the v i r tua l space. Since the visual representations were only used for training, everything including distance in the v i r tua l space had to be perceived through haptics. D u r i n g face-to-face interactions, peoples' use of personal space correlates w i th the intimacy of the interaction and emotional orientation, among other things [21]. Furthermore, when using our prel iminary interaction models w i th both the visual and haptic representation present, people seemed to make use of the concept of relative distance that the visual provided. Thus , we were interested to see i f a haptic display of personal space would affect either how well emotion could be communicated or the interaction experience of users, when there is no graphical feedback present. We decided to use two values for the factor haptic personal space indicator: haptic display of personal space present or absent. Th i s required first designing a haptic means of signalling relative distance between two people in the v i r tua l space. We decided to use a haptic v ibrat ion modulated by distance to indicate interpersonal distance and thus developed several possible haptic vibrations to indicate how far apart the two people involved in a haptic interaction were from each other i n the v i r tua l space. We did two pilot studies to test these candidate vibrations and to identify the one that people could best use for a sense of distance in the v i r tua l space. 3.3.1 Initial Spatial Stimuli - Vibrations and Evaluation In a pilot study w i th four subjects, we tested four haptic vibrations for indicating interpersonal distance in a haptic space. These test were done in a v i r tua l haptic space that d id not contain any other signals, but these vibrations were all designed to be subtle so that they would not overpower the interaction models that we would later add them to. Vibrations We created four haptic vibrations that depended on the spatial distance between two objects in the v i r tua l space. A l l were sin waves that were continuously displayed and the distance affected the amplitude and /o r frequency of the wave. 1. Frequency increases linearly w i th distance 2. Ampl i tude decreases and Frequency increases wi th distance 3. Ampl i tude decreases wi th distance 4. Ampl i tude decreases quadratically w i th distance. Experiment Task In this study, the subjects held on to the haptic knob as a haptic v ibrat ion was displayed according to the v ibrat ion being modelled and the position of a simulated second person moving towards or away from them in the space. For each t r ia l , subjects were asked to indicate, w i th the mouse, where in the space (along a horizontal axis) they thought the other had started and stopped and to indicate, by selecting a labelled key, what speed they thought the other was moving at: slow, medium, fast. Subjects were not to ld the mappings as we hoped that one or more of our mappings might be intuitive to the subjects. Subjects Four subjects d id 20 trials for each of the four conditions. The subjects were a l l computer science students: three males, one female. The subjects were a l l 20-29 years old. Results and Discussion Overal l , subjects were not able to determine the absolute or relative start, or end positions and the results were almost exactly what would be expected if subjects were picking positons and speeds at random. Furthermore, there was no pattern to suggest that subjects had understood our vibrations but mapped them in the reverse direction, for example mapping an increase in amplitude to greater rather than smaller distance. The only excep-t ion to these random results was wi th the v ibrat ion wi th amplitude decreasing w i th greater distance. In this condition, one subject was able to determine d i -rection (i.e. selected end position was on the correct side of the selected start position) in 90% of the trials. Discussions wi th subjects revealed that they were unable to successfully make a mapping of what was going on. Furthermore, when asked about the mappings every subject seemed to have been looking for something different. The various models that subjects were looking for or formed during the experi-ment were quite varied. These models included a model similar to that of a race car approaching and receding, a mapping of intensity to velocity and length to distance, acceleration, and a step function. Several subjects seemed to assume that there were separate indicators of distance and speed. Th i s may be an artifact of the tasks that subjects were asked to do which involved separately locating the starting and ending locations of a simulated other and indicating the speed, or it may suggest that is appropriate to separate the velocity and position cues. Implications The results of this prel iminary study led to two conclusions. F i r s t , there does not appear to be a common intuitive mapping that subjects were expecting. It is possible that there is a haptic signal that intuit ively maps to distance but we did not find it either among the four we developed or by asking subjects directly what they would expect as a haptic signal to indicate distance. This suggests that some in i t ia l training to help subjects understand our v ibrat ion mappings is necessary. Given that several subjects seemed to be assume that there were separate indicators of distance and speed, we may want to try haptic vibrations that separate the velocity and position cues. 3.3.2 Final Spatial Stimuli - Vibrations and Evaluation After our experience wi th the first study we designed and ran a second small study to evaluate potential haptic indicators of spatial awareness. Some changes were made to the st imuli as well as to the study design. Vibrations Three of the st imul i used were based on the comments from the subjects in the first study, one wi th discretized intervals, one wi th separate velocity and position cues, and one w i th separate velocity and position cues and discretized distance intervals. We tried the discrete intervals because one subject i n the first pilot had indicated that he was looking for a step function. The fourth stimulus was the most promising from the first study. 1. sin frequency decreases at discrete intervals w i th distance 2. sin frequency increases wi th velocity of partner and amplitude decreases linearly w i th distance 3. sin frequency decreases at discrete intervals w i th distance and amplitude increases w i th relative velocity 4. sin amplitude decreases linearly w i th distance Experiment Task Similarly , to the first pilot the subjects held on to the haptic knob as a haptic v ibrat ion was displayed according to the v ibrat ion be-ing modelled and the position of a simulated second person moving towards or away from them in the space. For each t r ia l , subjects were asked to ind i -cate, by selecting a labelled key, where in the space (near, mid-distance, far -along a horizontal axis) they thought the other had started and stopped and to indicate, by selecting a labelled key, what speed they thought the other was moving at: slow, medium, fast. Th i s time there were five training trials for each condition during which the subjects saw a visual representation of the other moving towards or away from them in the space at the same time as the haptic stimulus was played. For each condition, after the five training trials w i th the graphic representation on, there were 20 test trials during which only the haptic stimulus was played. Results and Discussion The results of this study showed that after training, subjects were able to reliably use the two haptic vibrations where amplitude depended on distance, vibrations (2) and (4), to determine speed, direction, start and end position (see Table 3.1). (1) (2) (3) (4) chance speed 5 1 % 74% 50% 73% 33% direction 89% 85% 80% 90% 50% start position 75% 75% 59% 80% 33% end position 66% 78% 56% 79% 33% Table 3.1: The mean percentage of correct trials for each space v ibrat ion con-dit ion. Implications W i t h training, subjects were able to understand and use the space indicators where the amplitude varied according to distance. We decided to use the v ibrat ion w i th only the amplitude varying (4) to indicate space in our metaphor implementations. Overal l , subjects were the most accurate using this model, and also it is simpler than the v ibrat ion w i th both the amplitude and frequency varying. 3.4 Relationship In the social sciences and communication literature, it is recognized that the relationship between individuals is an important part of what defines a commu-nication event [17]. In particular, relationship influences touch protocols and the meanings associated w i th a touch. The gender of those involved in interper-sonal touch is also found to influence how the touch is interpreted and received. Anecdotal reports suggest that the same may be true of computer-mediated touch. One of the first computer-mediated person-to-person touch interactions involved two sets of rollers. E a c h user moved a hand across her set of rollers and felt the motion of her partner through the motion of the rollers. W h e n peo-ple interacted w i th the device, they thought that it would be most appropriate for intimate relationships [4] and not as appropriate for less intimate relation-ships. Th i s preference suggests that relationship may influence appropriateness of computer-mediated haptic interaction models as it does in face-to-face touch interactions. To begin a more structured investigation of the effect of relationship on computer-mediated touch interaction, we varied the relationship of those inter-acting. We wanted dyads whose relationship to each other varied in intimacy. Therefore, we chose to use dyads who were either strangers or who were ro-mantic partners. The intimacy levels of these dyads are dist inct ly different and thus we believe that their interactions are most likely to show relationship dif-ferences. In a l l cases, the pairs were cross gender - one male, one female - in order to avoid any differences in same/opposite gender interactions. 3.5 Summary In this chapter, we described the design of the values of the factors we developed for our user study. These factors are the metaphor used to design and explain the haptic interaction model, a haptic display of interpersonal space, and the relationship of the users. The metaphors we considered for our user study ranged from game-like i n -teractions to very intimate interpersonal touch interactions. We chose the i n -teraction models based on the least intimate metaphor (Ping Pong) and the most intimate metaphor (Hand Stroke). We designed several haptic displays of interpersonal space and based on the results of pilot studies chose a sin wave wi th amplitude varying according to distance. In our study, half the interaction models (one wi th each metaphor model) had this interpersonal space indicator and the other half (one wi th each metaphor model) do not. We chose two re-lationship types (strangers and couples) based on the difference in int imacy of these relationship types. E m o t i o n Communicat ion Study 4.1 Objective The objective of this study was to examine the effect of the design of an inter-action model on computer mediated communication through a haptic l ink. In particular , we were interested in the effect of the interaction design on peoples' abil ity to intentionally communicate cognitive emotion using the device, their patterns of communication and subjective experience of the interaction. Since our focus was on the design of the v i r tua l interaction model rather than on the device itself, a simple pre-existing device was used. This study also looked at the effects of the relationship between the peo-ple using the device on their abil ity to communicate emotion, communication patterns and subjective experience using the haptic device. We looked at the effect of relationship because we believe that the relationship between users w i l l influence how the interaction model for such devices should be designed. The haptic interaction model, in the context of computer-mediated-person-to-person haptic interaction, is how the computer maps the input by the users into the haptic devices to device output to those users. It should be noted that both users provide input and receive output forces. Th i s mapping is entirely up to the interaction designer and may range from a direct l inking of force feedback devices to a complex function based on the state of both devices i n the past and present. There were three controlled experimental factors in our study design: two relating to the interaction model and one relating to the participants. 1. Interaction Mode l Metaphor - 2 levels 2. Hapt ic Display of Interpersonal Space - 2 levels 3. Relationship of Pairs - 2 levels The first factor is the metaphor used to design the interaction model. T w o metaphors suggesting different levels of touch intimacy were used: a game metaphor (Ping Pong) and an intimate touch metaphor (Hand Stroke). The interpersonal space factor had two values: a haptic indication of interpersonal space in the v i r tua l space and no haptic indication of interpersonal space. The levels of relationship were stranger pairs and romantic couple pairs. These three factors are described in detail in previous chapter (Chapter 3). Th i s study looked at intentional communication of cognitive emotion. Specif-ically, in this study users were asked to convey various emotions using the haptic interactions but there was no attempt to make the users feel the emotion that they were conveying. Since users were intentionally conveying emotions that they were not feeling, the methods they used to convey emotion were a cog-nitive approximation of how they might convey actual felt emotion. Thus our results do not say anything about how well felt emotion could be communicated without intentional action; however, Coll ier suggests that looking at emotions as being intentionally conveyed is a good starting point for examining emotional communication [10]. 4.2 Hypotheses In this section, we present three sets of hypotheses that we had about the results of this experiment. The first set had to do w i t h the effect of our pr imary factors on performance. The second set had to do wi th interaction between these factors. The th i rd set had to do wi th the reported subjective experience of the participants. 4.2.1 Factors and Performance Our pr imary hypotheses had to do wi th the abil ity to convey emotion in the different conditions: 1. Metaphor : The metaphor used influences the abi l i ty of pairs to commu-nicate emotion through a v i r tua l haptic space. Specifically, pairs would be able to successfully communicate emotion in more trials w i th the hand stroke metaphor wi l l than wi th the ping pong metaphor. 2. Space: The level of haptic support for awareness of interpersonal distance influences the abi l i ty of pairs to communicate emotion. Specifically, pairs would be able to successfully communicate emotion in more trials w i th a haptic indicator of personal space than without a haptic indicator of personal space. 3. Relationship: The type of relationship the pair shares influences their abil ity to communicate emotion. Specifically, romantic partners would be . successful at communicating emotion in a greater number of trials than strangers. We hypothesized that pairs would be more successful at communicating emotion w i th the more intimate metaphor because it involves direct touch in the v i r tua l space. Thus we thought it would be easier for users to control and understand how their actions affected what their partner felt. We hypothesized that pairs would be more successful at communicating emotion w i th a haptic indicator of personal space because it would give them more ways to differentiate the emotions. We also thought that it would possibly enable people to br ing spatial methods used in face-to-face communication into the v i r tua l haptic space. Final ly , we hypothesized that couples would be more successful at commu-nicating emotion through a haptic device than strangers since they have more knowledge of their partner's communication patterns. We believed that couples would be able to use their knowledge of how their partner communicates emotion face-to-face and through other media to understand their partner's strategies in this new media. 4.2.2 Interaction between Factors and Performance We had one hypothesis about interactions between factors. 1. There wi l l be an interaction between relationship and metaphor. Specif-ically, there w i l l be a stronger effect for metaphor for romantic partners then for strangers. It was our hypothesis that couple would be more comfortable w i th the H a n d Stroke metaphor and so would be better able to make use of this metaphor. 4.2.3 Subjective Experience The final set of hypotheses involved the participants ' self reported subjective experience of the interactions. Partic ipants were asked which interaction they preferred, felt most connected to their partner through, felt most comfortable wi th , found the easiest to use to convey emotion and found the easiest to use to perceive emotion. For each of these questions we had the following hypotheses about which interaction users would choose. 1. Romantic partners would choose the more intimate metaphor, hand stroke. 2. Strangers would choose the more game-like metaphor, ping pong. 3. B o t h romantic partners and strangers would choose interactions w i th a haptic indicator of space. We made the hypotheses about metaphor because we thought the more game-like metaphor was more appropriate for interaction between strangers and the more intimate metaphor was more appropriate for interaction wi th in a cou-ple. We made the hypothesis that everyone would select interaction models wi th a haptic indicator of space because it would provide them wi th a better sense of their partners intentions. 4.3 Metrics The hypotheses about performance were tested based on the number of trials in which pairs successfully communicated emotion in each condition. The hy-potheses about subjective experience were tested based on participants ' answers to a questionnaire given at the end of the experiment (Appendix C ) . 4.4 Design In this study, we used a mixed design to test our hypotheses. To test the hypotheses about the effect of metaphor and personal space on abi l i ty to com-municate emotion, a within-subjects design was used. E a c h pair of subjects used each metaphor and space combination. Thus each pair used four inter-action conditions. Since the relationship between the individuals in each dyad is predetermined, the hypotheses relating to relationship where tested between subjects. A Balanced L a t i n Squares design (Table 4.1) was used to l imit order effects while using a manageable number of subjects. Ordering 1 P i n g Pong , P i n g Pong, H a n d Stroke, H a n d Stroke, N o space Space N o Space Space 2 P i n g Pong Hand Stroke P i n g Pong H a n d Stroke Space Space N o Space N o Space 3 H a n d Stroke H a n d Stroke P i n g Pong P i n g Pong Space No Space Space N o Space 4 H a n d Stroke P i n g Pong H a n d Stroke P i n g Pong N o Space N o Space Space Space Table 4.1: Condi t ion Orderings: The four orderings used in our balanced L a t i n square design. Each ordering was used for two stranger pairs and two romantic partners pairs 4.4.1 Physical Setup D u r i n g the experiment the two subjects were located in the same room; however, they were unable to see each other or interact physically(Figures 4.1, 4.3). Th i s was achieved by using a physical part i t ion. Each subject had a haptic device, Figure 4.2, wi th which they interacted. The two subjects were able to see the same monitor. This monitor was used during training and to give directions during the experiment. The monitor was used to communicate procedural information the experiment trials , but no metaphor or model information. Figure 4.1: The participants sat on either side of a part i t ion and communicated emotion through a haptic device. Figure 4.3: A picture of two users using a haptic interaction model in our experiment set up. 4.4.2 Equipment The haptic devices used in this experiment were two single degree of freedom force feedback devices (one for each member of the pair) . The input to the computer from the motors is the motor position. The output from the computer to the motors was a voltage, which was conveyed as a force. T h e motors used were M a x o n R E 025s wi th 1024 count /revolution optical encoders, H E D M - 5 5 0 0 . Each motor is configured in direct drive and has a circular polycarbonate handle connected to its shaft. A single computer running Windows X P was used to run the haptic inter-actions. The target update rate was 2kHz; however, since Windows X P is not a realtime operating system there was some variation in the signal update rate. For these interactions the noise introduced by this variation was not a problem. 4.4.3 Protocol In this section, the experiment protocol is described. Partic ipants were taken into the experiment room one at a time. In the strangers condition, one participant is instructed to come 15 minutes before the other to prevent the participants meeting i n the experiment room before the experiment. The same instructions introducing the experiment were read by the experimenter to each pair of subjects after they had both arrived (Appendix A ) . For each of the four conditions the following protocol was followed 1. The condition was described using a common script. 2. Tra in ing (Visual and Hapt ic Interaction Models On) (a) The haptic interaction and the associated visual representation of the interaction was switched on and participants tried it out. (b) Part ic ipants were to ld the four emotions that they would be using the interaction model to convey and were instructed to t ry their ideas for communicating the four emotions. (c) Part ic ipant One is given a list of five emotions (d) Part ic ipant One conveys next emotion on list (for up to 16 sec.) (e) Part ic ipant Two indicates which emotion they believe One is convey-ing (prompted after 16 sec.) (f) Repeat (d-e) for each of the five emotions on the list. (g) Repeat (c-f) but w i th Part ic ipant T w o as the conveyer and P a r t i c i -pant One as the receiver 3. Trials (Haptic Interaction Mode l O n - no visual model) (a) Part ic ipant One given a list of 10 emotions (b) Part ic ipant One conveys next emotion on list (for up to 16 sec.) (c) Part ic ipant T w o indicates which emotion they believe One is convey-ing (prompted after 16 sec.) (d) Repeat (b-c) for each of the 10 emotions on the list. (e) Repeat (a-d) but w i th Part ic ipant T w o as the conveyer and P a r t i c i -pant One as the decoder 4. Part ic ipants filled out a form indicating their strategies for conveying each of the four emotions(Appendix B ) . A t the end of the experiment, participants answered a questionnaire about their experience of the different conditions (Appendix C ) . O n the questionnaire, we asked participants which interaction model they preferred, felt most con-nected to their partner through, felt most comfortable w i t h , found the easiest to use to convey emotion and found the easiest to use to perceive emotion. We also asked them what they thought was good about each interaction model and what they would change about each interaction model. 4.4.4 Picking Emotions The four emotion words used in this study were choosen to cover the emotion space and to be distinct from one another in this space. The emotions used were Angry, Delighted, Relaxed and Unhappy. These emotions were picked based on their placement in a two dimensional affect gr id [34]. The affect gr id is a tool developed for recording subjective emotion and is based on research showing that emotions can be represented in a two dimensional affect space. The grid is based on two orthogonal dimensions of valence (pleasure/displeasure) and arousal (sleepiness/arousal). Each quadrant of the grid is represented by an emotion word in our study. Once the four emotion words were chosen, lists of these words were created for participants to convey. Lists of 20 emotion words (5 repetitions of each emotion) were created w i th the words in random order. The lists were divided in half. The first half was conveyed by one participant and the second half was conveyed by the other participant. If a l l instances of an emotion were in one half of the list , some adjustment was done so that each participant would convey each emotion at least once for each condition. 4.4.5 Recruiting Subjects Subjects were recruited using the reservax hci@ubc web site and through posters posted on the University of B r i t i s h Co lumbia campus. For the pairs to be consid-ered for the romantic pairs relationship, we asked that they be in a hetersexual, romantic relationship w i th each other for at least six months. For recruiting for the stranger pairs, we asked people not to intentionally sign up at the same time as someone they knew. W h e n subjects arrived we made sure that they d id not know the other. 4.5 Analysis 4.5.1 Emotions Conveyed Statistics In order to test our hypotheses about performance, a repeated measures A N O V A was performed on number of trials in which emotion was successfully commu-nicated for each condition using S P S S . The participants ' responses to the sub-jective experience questions that asked them to pick an interaction model were analysed using \ 2 tests. 4.5.2 Exploration Further exploration of the data provided interesting insight into how emotions were conveyed. One avenue of exploration was to look at which emotions were mistaken for one another. For example, it was possible that w i th this device conveying arousal would be easier than conveying valence. In this case, a table of sent versus perceived emotion would show that, i n general, when A n g r y was conveyed either A n g r y or Delighted was preceived. Another avenue of exploration was to look at the data, which we collected during the experiment, about participants ' reported strategies for conveying emotion. We looked for common strategies for each emotion. Results In this chapter, we discuss the study and the study results. The first sec-t ion summarizes the demographic information about participants and statistics about the sessions. Next we talk about how we checked for an effect of order-ing. The remaining sections present the quantitative results of the study. T h e first deals w i th how successfully participants could communicate emotion in the various experimental conditions. The second looks at the strategies participants reported using to communicate the four emotions in the study. In the th i rd , we present some results related to participants ' subjective reports of their interac-t ion experience. The results reported in these three sections are a l l aggregated results. In the final section, we divide the results into groups to have a closer look. 5.1 Participants and Study Sessions There were a total of 16 pairs (32 individuals) that participated in this study. Hal f (eight) of these pairs consisted of two individuals who d id not know each other. We refer to these pairs as "strangers". The other half (eight) of these pairs consisted of individuals who had been in a romantic relationship together for at least six months. We refer to these pairs as "couples". "Par tner " and "pa ir " are used to refer to any or a l l pairs regardless of relationship. " Indiv idual " is used to refer to one person regardless of his /her relationship to his /her partner in this study. The participants were between 17 and 49 years old w i th a mean age of 24. Most were university students from various areas of study, one was a high school student and the rest were employed i n different fields. The study sessions typical ly lasted about two hours. The individuals in the stranger pairs were instructed to arrive 15 minutes apart and d id not meet each other beforehand. However, i n two cases the two individuals accidentally saw each other before the experiment. Couples arrived together. In both cases, pairs d id not have an opportunity to discuss the interactions unt i l the end of the study. 5.2 Ordering Effect In the study, a Balanced L a t i n Squares design was used to mitigate any effect of condition order. There were four orderings of conditions each of which was used by four pairs (two stranger pairs and two couple pairs). Before doing our experimental analysis, we checked for an effect of order by adding order as a factor. We ran a repeated measures A N O V A on the data w i th order as a factor and found that there was not an order effect. Thus, for the rest of the analysis we d id not consider order. 5.3 Ability to Communicate Emotions In this experiment, we asked dyads to communicate emotion using a knob and a set of haptically rendered models. In this section, we look at how many emotions were successfully communicated under different conditions. Also , we examine the patterns in the communication and miscommunication of the four emotions: Angry, Delighted, Relaxed, Unhappy. Specifically, for each emotion we ask how often was it correctly perceived, and how often was it incorrectly perceived as one of the other three emotions. Further , we look at what patterns can be found in these miscommunications. 5.3.1 Overall Performance Partic ipants successfully communicated emotion in 54% of trials . If participants had selected from the four possible emotions at random then the expected mean success rate would be 25%. Thus while overall participants were not able to suc-cessfully communicate emotion w i th high accuracy they were able to successfully communicate some emotional information. Look ing at Table 5.1 or Figure 5.1, it is possible to see that each of the four emotions was perceived as the intended emotion more often than it was perceived as any other emotion. The results of the Pearson CHI-square test indicate that there is a statistically significant relationship (p < 0.01) between the sent and the received emotion. Sent Emot i on Perceived Emot ion Angry Delighted Relaxed Unhappy A n g r y 62.2% 9.4% 2.5% 6.2% Delighted 23.1% 49.2% 14.7% 15.3% Relaxed 6.6% 24.8% 56.9% 30.8% Unhappy 8.4% 16.3% 25.9% 47.6% Table 5.1: E a c h column represents the emotion that the conveyer was try ing to convey and each row is the emotion that the perceiver thought was being conveyed. The values are the percentage of trials (out of 320 for each column) that the row emotion was received when the column emotion was sent. The correct responses lie along the diagonal. It is also possible to see that of the four emotions, A n g r y was most often iden-tified correctly (62% of the time). Relaxed was next and was correctly identified 57% of the time. Unhappy and Delighted were correctly identified i n slightly less than half the trials . These results correspond wi th participant comments at the end of the experiment. Several participants commented that A n g r y was 100.00% 75.00% Angrv Delighted Relaxed Unhappy Sent Emotion Figure 5.1: This graph shows how often each emotion the conveyers sent were perceived as the intended emotion and as each of the other emotions. the easiest to convey and perceive and several indicated that Unhappy was the most difficult convey and perceive. Dur ing post-experiment discussion several pairs also discovered that they were using opposite strategies for Unhappy and Relaxed while others said Relaxed was easy. W h e n the an emotion was misidentified, it can been seen that for Angry, Unhappy and Relaxed the most common mislabel is the emotion wi th the same arousal level: Delighted, Relaxed and Unhappy respectively. For example, 6 1 % of the time that Angry was perceived as something other than A n g r y it was identified as Delighted, which is the other high arousal emotion (33% would correspond to chance). It is interesting to note, however, that Delighted is very rarely misidentified as Angry. For each emotion the perceived emotion has either the same arousal and /or valence at a rate higher than chance (75%) as can be seen i n Table 5.2. Perceived E m o t i o n A n g r y Delighted Relaxed Unhappy Chance same arousal 85.3% 58.6% 82.8% 78.4% 50% same valence 68.9% 74% 71.6% 53.8% 50% same arousal or valence 94% 83% 98% 85% 75% Table 5.2: The percentage for each sent emotion where the received emotion had arousal/valence in the same direction as the target emotion, including when the target emotion was received. 5.3.2 Performance by Metaphor There were two values of metaphor used in this experiment (P ing Pong , H a n d Stroke). We hypothesized that the metaphor used influences the abi l i ty of pairs to communicate emotion through a v i r tua l haptic space. Specifically, participants wi l l be able to successfully communicate emotion more frequently using the H a n d Stroke metaphor than the P i n g Pong metaphor. Table 5.3 shows that a higher number/percentage of emotions were success-fully communicated w i th the H a n d Stroke metaphor than wi th the P i n g Pong metaphor. Metaphor M e a n # correct out of 40 trials ± S .E . M e a n Percent ± S .E . P i n g Pong 19.5 ± 1 . 4 48.3% ± 3.5% H a n d Stroke 23.8 ± 2 . 1 59.5% ± 5 . 3 % Table 5.3: M e a n number and percent of trials during which emotions were successfully communicated. (Each cell represents an average of 16 pairs using the given metaphor, thus it is composed of 16 * 40 = 640 observations) O n average participants successfully communicated emotion for four more trials (11% performance difference) using the H a n d Stroke metaphor than wi th the P i n g Pong metaphor; this difference is statistically significant at the p < 0.05 level (p = 0.036). 5.3.3 Performance by Space Indicator In our experiment, half the trials uti l ized a haptic indicator of personal space and half d id not. We hypothesized that the presence of a haptic indicator of personal space would affect the abi l i ty of pairs to communicate emotion; specifically, that pairs would have a higher success rate w i th a haptic indicator of personal space. The data do not support this hypothesis for the indicator of personal space used in our study though other representations of space may generate different results. The means for the number of correctly identified emotions w i th the two space conditions are the same (54%). Overal l , adding the indicator of space we developed to our interaction models d id not affect the abi l i ty of participants to communicate emotion and we cannot reject the nul l hypothesis that an indicator of personal space does not affect abi l i ty to communicate emotion. However, an interaction effect between space and metaphor, which we discuss later in this chapter. 5.3.4 Performance by Relationship Hal f the pairs i n our study were strangers to each other and half were couples. We hypothesized that the type of relationship the pair shares would affect their abi l i ty to communicate emotion. Specifically, we hypothesized that couples would be more successful at communicating emotion than strangers. Table 5.4 shows a trend for couples to be more successful at communicating emotion, wi th a performance difference of 11%. However, we are unable to reject the nul l hypothesis that relationship does not affect performance at the p = 0.05 level since p = 0.124. Relationship M e a n # correct out of 80 trials M e a n Percent ± S .E . Strangers 38.6 ± 2 . 4 48.3% ± 3% Couples 47.9 ± 5 . 0 60.0% ± 6.5% Table 5.4: M e a n number and percent of trials during which emotion was suc-cessfully communicated. (Each cell represents an average of 8 pairs of the given relationship type. Thus it is composed of 8 * 80 = 640 observations. 5.3.5 Interaction Between Experiment Factors We also looked for any interaction effects among our main factors of metaphor, presence of a personal space indicator and relationship type. Metaphor and Relationship We had hypothesized that there would be an interaction effect between relationship and metaphor. Specifically, we hypoth-esized that there would be a stronger effect of metaphor for romantic partners than for strangers. The reason for this hypothesis was that we believed that couples would feel more comfortable w i th the more intimate H a n d Stroke metaphor than strangers and thus would be better able to make use of i t . The difference in the means between the metaphors for strangers is 4% and for couples it is 17%. However, there is not a statistically significant interaction(p = 0.182). Metaphor and Space A n interaction effect was found between metaphor and space. Specifically, adding the indicator of personal space to the P i n g Pong metaphor interaction improved performance (9% better with) but adding the indicator of personal space to the H a n d Stroke metaphor interaction lowered performance (7.5% lower). This interaction effect is statistically significant at p <= 0.05 (p = 0.006). Relationship Metaphor M e a n # correct out of 40 trials ± S .E . M e a n Percent Strangers P i n g Pong 18.5 ± 1 . 9 46.3% ± 4.8% Strangers H a n d Stroke 20.1 ± 1 . 0 50.3% ± 2.5% Couples P i n g Pong 20.5 ± 2 . 0 51.3% ± 5 . 0 % Couples H a n d Stroke 27.4 ± 3.7 68.5% ± 9.3% Table 5.5: M e a n number and percent of emotions that were successfully com-municated as a function of relationship type and metaphor. Each cell represents an average of 8 pairs. Thus there were a total of 8 * 40 = 320 trials for each combination of relationship type and metaphor Metaphor Personal Space M e a n # correct out of 20 trials ± S .E . M e a n Percent P i n g Pong Indicator Off 8.9 ± 0 . 8 44% ± 4% P i n g Pong Indicator O n 10.6 ± 0 . 8 53% ± 4% H a n d Stroke Indicator Off 12.6 ± 1.1 62% ± 5.5% H a n d Stroke Indicator O n 11.1 ± 1 . 1 55.5% ± 5.5% Table 5.6: M e a n number and percent of trials in which emotions were suc-cessfully communicated. Each cell represents an average of 16 pairs, thus it is composed of 16 * 20 = 320 observations 5.4 Strategies for Communicating Emotion In this section, we present participants ' reported strategies of conveying and perceiving emotion. 5.4.1 Strategies for Conveying Emotion After each condition, participants were asked to fill in a form (Appendix B ) indicating which actions they used to communicate each emotion. T h e form contained eight actions (listed below) and room for participants to add in up to three addit ional actions. • hold st i l l • move slowly • move quickly • hit gently • hit hard • move close • move far away • repeat an action We are interested in using the participants ' reported actions to see if there are any commonalities in strategies, where a "strategy" is defined as the subset of actions that participants reported using for conveying the four emotions in the various experimental conditions. Overal l metaphor, space and relationship type did not have a significant impact on the number of participants who reported using each action for a particular emotion. We also looked at aggregated results and present those here.We combine the strategies for each of the 32 participants where each participant reported four strategies for each emotion (one for each combination of metaphor and presence or absence of personal space indicator) for a total of 128 reported strategies for each emotion. Figures 5.2 and 5.3 show two views of the participants aggregated reported strategies for conveying each emotion. Figure 5.2 shows an action profile for each emotion; where as, Figure 5.3 gives an emotion profile for each action. For each metaphor and space condition, for each action participants either reported using the action or not using it for each emotion. Thus both these figures show sums of the number of times an action was reported as being used for an emotion. 100.0% I Hold Still •ft Move Slow ly Move Quickly * Hit Gently & Hit Hard Move Close ' / Move Far Repeat Angry Delighted Unhappy Figure 5.2: The percentage of times the actions were reported as being used organized by emotion, aggregated across a l l subjects and for a l l combinations of metaphor and personal space indicator. For each emotion there is at least one action that is frequently (> 50%) used to convey it and not often used to convey any other emotion. Table 5.7 lists the frequently used / potentially distinguishing actions for each emotion. Move Quickly is almost always used for A n g r y and frequently used for De-lighted but rarely used for Relaxed or Unhappy and thus differentiates Angry and Delighted from Relaxed and Unhappy. Hit Hard is almost always used for Angry and rarely used for Delighted, thus differentiating A n g r y from Delighted. The most frequently reported action for Relaxed is Move Slowly. This action is rarely (< 25%) used for Angry and Delighted but is sometimes (about 44%) used for Unhappy. However, Move Far away is frequently used for Unhappy (about 62%) and rarely used for Relaxed (< 21%). Strategies for Conveying Emotion 100.0% a « 90.0% hold still move move hit gently hit hard move close move far repeat an slowly quickly away action A c t i o n Figure 5.3: The percentage of times an actions was reported as being used for each emotion organized by action, aggregated across al l subjects and for a l l combinations of metaphor and personal space indicator. 5.4.2 Strategies for Perceiving Emotion In the questionnaire at the end of the study, participants were asked about their strategy for perceiving emotion. The haptic model is dynamic and the force feedback depends on both participants, thus when perceiving a participant could choose to stay st i l l and feel what the other was doing or could actively engage in the interaction to determine the emotion. In the final questionnaire, participants were asked if they moved or remained st i l l in order to feel the emotion being conveyed. The majority of participants (26/32 or 80%) indicated that they remained s t i l l . 19% of these participants also indicated that it depended on the interaction or the emotion they thought they were receiving. The 6 participants that d id not report staying st i l l indicated that it depended on the interaction E m o t i o n A c t i o n % used for this emotion A n g r y Move Quickly 86% H i t H a r d 84% Delighted Move Quick ly 65% Move Close 63% H i t Gently 50% Relaxed Move Slowly 70% H i t Gently 55% Unhappy Move Far A w a y 63% Table 5.7: The actions reported as being used in > 50% of the strategy reports (all participants and conditions, 32 X 4) for each emotion. and /or the emotion they thought they were receiving. The relationship of the participant to his /her partner d id not significantly affect the response to this question. 5.4.3 Strategies for Interacting In the final questionnaire, participants were also asked about how their partner's actions influenced their actions. W h e n asked if as the perceiver they found that they would express a perceived emotion back to the conveyer, 63% (20/32) of the participants indicated that they would mirror the emotion that they thought was being conveyed. W h e n participants were asked i f they changed their strategy to be closer to the strategy they perceived their partner to be using, 72% (23/32) said yes. A g a i n these responses d id not depend significantly on relationship. 5.5 Subjective aspects of Interaction Experience Communicat ing emotion is a very social task and as such we are interested not only in participants ' performance and communication strategies but also in their experience of the interaction. In the final questionnaire, we asked participants to choose which interaction they preferred, felt most connected to their partner through, felt most comfortable wi th , found the easiest to use to convey emotion and found the easiest to use to perceive emotion. We hypothesized that for each of these questions the couples would select the more intimate metaphor interaction (Hand Stroke) and the strangers would select the more game like i n -teraction metaphor (Ping Pong). We also hypothesized that participants would choose interactions wi th an indicator of space regardless of relationship type. 5.5.1 Preference A s hypothesized, strangers tend to prefer the P i n g Pong interaction whereas couples prefer the H a n d Stroke interaction Table 5.8. The association between relationship and metaphor is statistically significant (x2 = 6.35, p < 0.012). The strength of this association is weakly positive(p/ii = 0.445, p < 0.012). Preference for presence of a personal space indictor d id not depend on re-lationship or preferred metaphor and 8 1 % (26/32) participants preferred an indicator of personal space (x2 = 34, p < 0.001). Th i s x value is obtained when the expected frequencies for preference for space on, off or same (no space preference) are the same. It should be noted that this preference for a personal space indicator may only apply to the preferred metaphor. Relationship Space Indicator P i n g Pong H a n d Stroke Off 2 2 Strangers O n 8 4 Tota l 10 6 Off 0 1 O n 3 11 Couples Ei ther 0 1 Tota l 3 13 Tota l 13 19 Table 5.8: The number of participants that preferred each interaction according to metaphor and presence of a indicator of personal space, (out of a total of 32 participants) (one participant indicated that the presence or absence of a personal space indictor d id not make a difference - i.e. Either on or off was equally preferred by this users) 5.5.2 Connection The feeling of connection was not associated wi th the type of relationship(Table 5.9). Most participants (84%) choose the H a n d Stroke metaphor as the one w i th which they felt most connected and most participants (81%) choose presence of an indicator of personal space as the space condition by which they felt most connected. These connection results are statistically significant wi th x2 = 15, p < 0.001 for metaphor and x2 = 34, p < 0.001 for space. 5.5.3 Comfort A s hypothesized, strangers tended to feel more comfortable using the P i n g Pong interaction whereas couples tended to feel more comfortable w i th the H a n d Stroke interaction (see Table 5.10). Th i s interaction is statistically Relationship Space Indicator P i n g Pong H a n d Stroke Off 1 2 Strangers O n 3 10 Tota l 4 12 Off 0 2 O n 1 12 Couples Ei ther 0 1 Tota l 1 15 Tota l 5 27 Table 5.9: The number of participants that felt the most connected using each interaction according to metaphor and presence of a indicator of personal space, (out of a total of 32 participants) s ignif icant(x 2 = 8.5, p < 0.003) and the association between relationship and chosen most comfortable metaphor is a weak positive association(p/ii = 0.516, p < 0.003). Regardless of relationship and chosen most comfortable metaphor, people generally felt more comfortable wi th an indicator of personal space present (78%, X 2 = 30, p < 0.001). 5.5.4 Perceived Ability to Convey A s hypothesized, couples indicated that it was easiest to convey emotion w i th the H a n d Stroke metaphor w i th an haptic indicator of personal space present (see Table 5.11). However, strangers were more evenly divided on this question w i th just less than half saying it was easiest to convey emotion w i th the P i n g Pong metaphor and just over half saying that it was easiest to convey emotion w i th the H a n d Stroke metaphor. However, like couples most strangers indicated that they found it easiest to convey emotion when there was a haptic indicator Relationship Space Indicator P i n g Pong H a n d Stroke Off 2 2 Strangers O n 8 4 Tota l 10 6 Off 0 2 O n 2 11 Couples Ei ther 0 1 Tota l 2 14 Tota l 12 20 Table 5.10: The number of participants that felt the most comfortable using each interaction according to metaphor and presence of a indicator of personal space, (out of a total of 32 participants) of space w i th their chosen metaphor. Thus we find support for our hypothesis that couples w i l l find it easiest to convey emotion w i th the H a n d Stroke metaphor but not for our hypothesis that stranger w i l l find it easiest to convey emotion w i th the P i n g Pong metaphor. Overal l the H a n d Stroke is more frequently perceived as being easier to convey emotion w i th and this is statistically significant (x2 = 15, p < 0.001). B o t h groups indicated that they found it easiest to convey emotion using their chosen metaphor w i th a haptic indicator of personal space(81%, x2 = 33, p < 0.001). 5.5.5 Perceived Ability to Perceive Overal l , participants found it easier to perceive emotion using the hand stroke metaphor w i th an indicator of personal space. These results are statistically significant w i th x2 = 8, p < 0.005 for metaphor and x2 = 30, p < 0.001 for space. Relationship Space Indicator P i n g Pong H a n d Stroke Off 0 3 Strangers O n 6 6 Same 1 0 Tota l 7 9 Off 0 1 O n 1 13 Couples Either 0 1 Tota l 1 15 Tota l 8 24 Table 5.11: The number of participants that felt the best able to convey emotion using each interaction according to metaphor and presence of a indicator of personal space, (out of a total of 32 participants) 5.6 Performance and Strategies for Conveying In this section, we examine the relationship between strategy for and success at conveying emotion. We divide the data for each pair according to direction, which partner was the conveyer. We then group the conveyers, into three groups, based on how many emotions were successfully communicated when they were conveying. F i n a l l y we look at the communication patterns wi th in these three groups. 5.6.1 Success by Conveyer Based on the natural distributions of success rate by conveyer (Figure 5.4) we divided the conveyer data into three groups. Two groups contain the majority of conveyers. The first, which corresponds to the region around the first mode in the Figure 5.4, contains conveyers who successfully conveyed emotion in 11 — Number of trials with Correctly Identified Emotion (/40) Figure 5.4: Th is histogram shows how many conveyers were able to successfully convey a particular number of emotions out of 40 trials . Relationship Space Indicator P i n g Pong H a n d Stroke Off 1 4 Strangers O n 5 6 Tota l 6 10 Off 0 . 1 O n 2 12 Couples Ei ther 0 1 Tota l 2 14 Tota l 8 24 Table 5.12: The number of participants that felt the best able to perceive emo-tion using each interaction according to metaphor and presence of a indicator of personal space, (out of a total of 32 participants) 21 trials . Th i s is the group that successfully conveyed emotion in a greater number of trials than chance but less than the overall average. The second group, which corresponds to the second mode in the graph, contains conveyers who successfully conveyed emotion in 22 — 29 trials. Th i s group was successful conveying in a greater than average number of trials but in less than 75% of the trials. The remaining group contains the three conveyers that do not fit in either of these groups. These three conveyers successfully conveyed emotion in at least 75% of the trials. It should be noted that while we divide by conveyer, success at communicating the emotions also depends on the abi l i ty of the perceiver, which remains a constant for each conveyer in this study. 5.6.2 Below Average We combine the strategies of al l the conveyers i n the below average group (17 participants) for conveying emotions (Figure 5.5). Compar ing the strategies of this group wi th the strategies of a l l the conveyers (Figure 5.2) we see that the action use profiles look similar wi th only a few differences. The biggest difference is that this group uses move far away less often for Unhappy. We also see that move close is less frequently used for Delighted and Relaxed. II hold still ft move slowly move quickly hit gently iv hit hard move close 0 move far reoeat an action Angry Delighted Unhappy Figure 5.5: Th is graph shows the strategies that below average conveyers re-ported using for each emotion. Looking at the sent v.s. the received emotions for the below average con-veyers (see figure 5.8) we see that there is more confusion overall. Anger is misidentified 7% more often and 6% is from it being mistaken as Delighted. The other emotions are a l l misidentified more than 10% more frequently. B o t h Delighted and Relaxed are much more frequently misidentified as Unhappy and Unhappy is identified as Relaxed more often than as Unhappy. 5.6.3 Above Average We combine the strategies of a l l the conveyers in the above average group for conveying emotions(Figure 5.7). Comparing the strategies of this group wi th 100.0% r 75.0% 50.0% 111 Angry •J Delighted Relaxed - Unhaoov 25.0% 0.0% SsSj 1 • III  1 ( | Angry Delighted Relaxed Unhappy S e n t E m o t i o n Figure 5.6: Th is graph shows how often each emotion the below average con-veyers sent were perceived as the intended emotion and as each of the other emotions. the strategies of a l l the conveyers(Figure 5.3) we see that generally the actions are used in the same ways. The one obvious difference; however, is that move far away, which is the differentiating action for Unhappy we identified earlier, is used considerably more often by the above average group. 100.0% - t— — | 1 I i 1 1 Ml hold still move slowly move quickly v hit gentry » hit hard move close ^ move far away repeat an action Angry Delighted Relaxed Unhappy Figure 5.7: Th i s graph shows the strategies that above average conveyers re-ported using. Looking at the sent v.s. the received emotions for this group(Figure 5.8) we see that A n g r y and Relaxed were both correctly identified 70% of the time. This is an increase over the overall average of 9% and 14% respectively. Unhappy was also correctly identified at a rate about 9% higher than the overall average. There was only a 2% increase in the number of times that Delighted was correctly identified. A large port ion of the difference between the overall success and the success of this group comes from Unhappy and Relaxed being less frequently confused. 0 ! Angry Delighted Relaxed S e n t E m o t i o n Unhappy Ml Angry :•: Delighted Relaxed = UnhaDDV Figure 5.8: This graph shows how often each emotion the above average con-veyers sent were perceived as the intended emotion and as each of the other emotions. 5.6.4 Most Successful There were three conveyers who were able to successfully convey emotion in more than 75% of trials. T w o of these individuals were in the same pair , and overall this pair was able to successfully communicate the emotions in 89% of trials . Instead of looking at the three conveyers i n this group, here we take a closer look at the performance and reported strategies and experience of this high performance pair. T h i s pair was a couple. Looking at how they d id across conditions Table 5.13 we can see that this couple was always able to successfully communicate in the H a n d Stroke metaphor trials. Looking specifically at the miscommunications w i th the P i n g Pong metaphor (results not shown) it is possible to see that without an indicator of space the miscommunications are al l confusions between the two high arousal emotions: A n g r y and Delighted. Furthermore, in one direction these emotions were consistently switched, which suggests the two individuals i n this pair could differentiate the signals they were using but that one partner mapped the other's A n g r y to Delighted and Delighted to Angry. W i t h space, the mistakes are a bit more spread out though again they are again mostly in one direction. Metaphor Space Indicator Success Rate P i n g Pong Off 80% P i n g Pong O n 75% H a n d Stroke Off 100% H a n d Stroke O n 100% Table 5.13: The "most successful" couple was able to successfully communicate the four emotions every time wi th the H a n d Stroke metaphor. In general, this couple had a strategy for each emotion that was different from every other emotion. The strategy profile were similar though not always the same and were relatively consistent across conditions; although Relaxed and Delighted were sometimes different. D u r i n g the interview after the study this pair described their strategies as being the same across conditions for each emotion except for Delighted, which varied depending on the interaction. For al l of the interaction experience questions on the final questionnaire (preference, connection, comfort, abil ity to convey, abi l i ty to perceive) both the participants of this pair selected the H a n d Stroke metaphor w i th space. Chapter 6 Discussion The purpose of this thesis is to explore how the design of a haptic interaction for dyads and dyads' relationship affects performance in a communicating emotions task, as well as individual 's subjective experience. In our work, we decided to focus on (a) the metaphor used to develop and explain the v i r tua l space of the interaction; (b) presence or absence of a haptic indicator of distance from the other in the v i r tua l space; and (c) the intimacy of the relationship. In the previous chapter, we presented the results from our experiment. In this chapter, we discuss the possible meanings and implications of these results. We first look in Section 6.1 at each of the control variables: metaphor, space and relationship, and their impact on the assigned task of communicating emo-tions. The remaining sections explore implications that come out of looking at various results across conditions and /or relating to the strategies used to com-municate emotion. In Section 6.2, we explore the relationship between emotion, communication strategy and task performance. In Section 6.3, we discuss the notion of a haptic interaction model having a expressive capacity as one of its defining characteristics. Next we discuss how participants used real world knowledge in the v i r tua l space(Section 6.4). Our experimental explorations were driven by the hypothesis that a haptic interaction model could provide a use-ful emotional communication channel for distributed dyads. In Section 6.5, we evaluate the validity of this assumption based on the results of our experiment. F inal ly , in Section 6.6, we discuss some considerations that should be taken into account when interpreting the results of our experiment or designing similar experiments i n the future. 6.1 How Design of an Interaction Model and Relationship Influence Interaction In this section, we discuss the implications of results (performance and subjec-tive responses) due to the three variables of metaphor, personal space indictor and relationship. 6.1.1 Metaphor Based on our experiment results, metaphor is a significant factor in both per-formance and subjective experience. We chose the two metaphors for our ex-periment based on their relative distance from each other i n terms of intimacy of haptic interaction. P i n g Pong is a low intimacy interaction and H a n d Stroke is a high int imacy interaction. One other related difference between these two interaction metaphors is the level of indirection: the actions of one's partner can be felt indirectly in the P i n g Pong interaction and directly in the H a n d Stroke interaction. For some of the differences found between these two metaphors it is not possible to say if it is the intimacy, the indirection or another factor that is the key factor, but results suggest that it may be a combination of intimacy and indirection, as w i l l be discussed below. The H a n d Stroke metaphor appears to better facilitate both actual and perceived task performance. The results suggest that this may be due both to the directness and to the intimate nature of this metaphor. If it was only the int imacy of the interaction affecting the performance, then we would expect strangers' actual and perceived performance to be better wi th the less intimate P i n g Pong metaphor; however, their actual and perceived performance is better w i th the H a n d Stroke metaphor. If it was only the direct interaction style of the metaphor that lead to this higher performance, we would expect the performance difference between the metaphors to be the same regardless of the relationship of the dyad. However, this is not the case as the performance increase for the H a n d Stroke metaphor is larger for couples than for strangers (though this result is not statistically significant). A s well , the H a n d Stroke metaphor is perceived overall as being easier to convey and perceive emotion w i t h , but this perception is less common among strangers than couples (though this result is also not statistically significant). The metaphor also affects other subjective aspects of the interaction, such as preference, feeling of connection and comfort. Overal l the H a n d Stroke metaphor is preferred and creates a greater sense of connection. Th is metaphor is also found to be more comfortable for couples. These findings are l ikely a result of the increased int imacy of the interaction and a greater perception of success using this interaction. The greater sense of connection is found i n both strangers and couples. W h e n split by relationship, couples prefer and are more comfortable wi th this metaphor but strangers prefer and are more comfortable w i th the P i n g Pong metaphor. This difference depending on relationship sug-gests that it is the intimacy of the metaphor influencing this aspect of the user experience. 6.1.2 Space D u r i n g the experiments two variants of each metaphor were used: one w i th an additional haptic v ibrat ion to indicate personal space and one without such a v ibrat ion. Looking at the overall performance results, this addit ional v ibrat ion did not make a difference i n performance; however, looking more closely we see that the story is more complex. Specifically, there is an interaction effect between metaphor and space. W h e n used in combination w i th the P i n g Pong metaphor, the addit ional space v ibrat ion increase performance but it decreases performance when added to the H a n d Stroke metaphor. We examine this further i n Section 6.3. Despite lack of improvement i n overall performance results there is a strong argument for including such a space indicator based on the reported subjective experience. Specifically, a large and statistically significant majority of part ic i -pants preferred, felt more connected, and felt more comfortable wi th a spatial indicator added to the metaphor that they most preferred, felt most connected wi th and felt most comfortable w i th respectively. Part ic ipants also indicated that it was easier to convey and perceive emotion wi th a spatial indicator but this could be positive or negative depending on the relative importance of per-ceived versus actual performance. Specifically, a higher perceived performance than actual performance is likely at first to encourage continued use of the i n -teraction and potentially leading to increased performance. However, it may also lead to problematic miscommunications that result in the interaction being abandoned entirely. Thus overall subjective results suggest that an addit ional haptic indicator of person space is desirable; however, performance results suggest that the spatial v ibrat ion used i n this study was not successful at increasing performance. It is possible that a different spatial signal would result in better performance results. Another possibility is that dyads could make effective use of such an indicator only in situations that provide context or other feedback cues. 6.1.3 Relationship The relationship shared by dyads interacting through a haptic device affects the interaction. In terms of performance, there were no statistically significant performance differences, but couples d id better than strangers overall. In terms of subjective experience, however, differences are significant: strangers prefer and are more comfortable w i th the P i n g Pong metaphor, whereas, couples prefer and are more comfortable wi th the H a n d Stroke metaphor. Observations during the experiment and participants ' written comments sug-gest that intimate metaphors such as the H a n d Stroke metaphor may cause discomfort if used by people who are not in an intimate relationship. Several participants in stranger pairs indicated on their final questionnaires that the H a n d Stroke made them uncomfortable. Furthermore, after the experiment in at least half of the stranger pairs, one or more of the participants d id not want to meet the person they had been interacting wi th , though this may also be a result of other aspects of the study. In one case where participants were happy to meet, they joked about the sensation of the Hand Stroke metaphor before moving on to discussing the interaction. Similarly , some couples commented that they felt like they were touching when using the H a n d Stroke metaphor. Couples have an apparent advantage over strangers when developing their strategy for communicating in that they know their partner's real world com-munication strategies. However, for at least one couple this actually became a hindrance. D u r i n g the discussion at the end of their session they discovered that they had been using different strategies. Specifically, he had used what he thought were the most obvious mappings based on common means of expressing emotion and she had tried to use knowledge of how he would act in face-to-face situations, which was in some cases different from the common means. Thus , to successfully communicate in this experiment, which intentionally d id not per-mit collaboration in preparation of a shared strategy, both partners of a couples independently had to decide how much of their knowledge of each other's face-to-face interaction styles they should port to the haptic interaction. 6.2 Communicating Emotion: Action Strategies Here, we discuss the interactions between strategy and success at conveying emotion. Recal l that in Section 5.4.1, we identified unique actions that were commonly used for each emotion. The existence of common interaction strate-gies, even in absence of collaborative strategy planning, suggests that there may be a natural action-to-emotion mapping that a majority of participants were using. We hereafter term the set of the actions commonly used to express an emotion as its action fingerprint. E a c h emotion's action fingerprint contains either a unique action or set of actions that are not commonly used to convey the other emotions. Thus the aggregated strategies for each emotion suggest that if these unique finger print actions are distinguishable i n the interaction, then using the finger print actions for each emotion would make it possible for the four emotions to be successfully communicated. Looking at the use of an emotion's finger print actions and the success rate at identifying that emotion we can see a correspondence(Table 6.1). Specifically, the more consistently an emotions action fingerprint strategy was used the more frequently this emotion was successfully communicated. In Section 5.6.1, we divided the data by conveyer according to success rate of communication. In the "below average" group, A n g r y is misidentified as Delighted more often than the overall average. Th i s is probably because move close, which is the main difference between the Angry and Delighted action fin-ger prints, is less frequently used for Delighted by this group. Th is group used move far away less frequently to express Unhappy and both Delighted and Re-laxed are more frequently misidentified as Unhappy by this group. Furthermore, Unhappy is identified as Relaxed more frequently than it is correctly identified. Th is reflects the observation that there is no common identifying characteristic action used for Unhappy by this group. In the above average group, the oppo-E m o t i o n A c t i o n % Conditions People % of Trials Reported Using this Th is E m o t i o n Fingerprint A c t i o n for this Emot i on Successfully Communicated A n g r y Move Quick ly 86% 62% H i t H a r d 84% Delighted Move Quickly 65% 49% Move Close 63% H i t Gently 50% Relaxed Move Slowly 70% 57% H i t Gently 55% Unhappy Move Far Away 63% 48% Table 6.1: Use of finger print strategies for each emotion and rate at which each emotion was successfully communicated. site trends can be seen. Most obvious is the increase in the use of move far away for Unhappy and the decrease in the confusion between Relaxed and Unhappy. Thus default strategies emerged for each emotion; and using these unique and distinctive strategies improved performance. In other words, using common strategies in this new interaction medium, as using common strategies w i th new acquaintances in face-to-face interaction, means you are more likely to be understood. Were people to use this interaction medium extensively, we might expect people and pairs to develop their own unique strategies. Th i s is similar to the observation that in face-to-face interaction people develop unique nonverbal interaction patterns, which replace conventional strategies as the relationship between them develops [21]. 6.3 Expressive Capacity of Interaction Models It is possible to think of a haptic interaction model as having a certain level of expressive capacity. The expressive capacity of an interaction relates to how much information it is possible to uniquely convey and differentiate wi th that interaction. O u r results suggest that having an expressive capacity that matches the task leads to better performance. 6.3.1 Metaphor and Space - Experimental Interaction Effect A d d i n g a haptic indicator of personal space to the P i n g Pong interaction i n -creased the average number of emotions successfully communicated; however, adding a haptic indicator of personal space to the H a n d Stroke interaction de-creased the average number of emotions successfully communicated. A d d i n g space to P i n g Pong supplies information that is missing without a space i n d i -cator. Specifically, without the space indicator it is not possible to determine if the other is close or far i n the v i r tua l space. O n the other hand, adding an indicator of space to hand stroke adds some additional information about the haptic context but if hands stay touching then the space indicator is not providing anything new. W i t h o u t the space indicator in hand stroke it is s t i l l possible to indicate close and far by touching / not touching so adding space adds granularity and redundancy in distance information rather than providing something entirely new. The results and participants ' comments suggest that without a spatial ind i -cator it is difficult to find means to differentiate the four emotions w i th the P i n g Pong metaphor; whereas, for the H a n d Stroke metaphor, adding a spatial i n d i -cator increases the expressiveness of the interaction beyond what is required of the task. People who could communicate well w i th H a n d Stroke without space did not always know how to use addit ional information and one participant commented she needed to think w i th space as opposed to just feeling, without i t . Th i s suggests that performance was best when the expressive capacity of the interaction was such that it was just enough for the task. E x t r a expressive capacity introduced added confusion. 6.3.2 Desired Expressiveness E v e n though the performance is highest in the H a n d Stroke without the space indicator condition, the perceived performance was higher w i th a spatial indica-tor regardless of which metaphor was chosen. A s well , most of the participants who prefer the H a n d Stroke metaphor prefer it w i th space. It is possible that people prefer greater expressive power even when they are unable to use i t . Per -haps over time they would find ways to harness it and be able to communicate a wider range of emotional states. Th i s is quite speculative based only on our l imited results. Waisvisz suggests that musical expressiveness is related to the effort required to create the music [28]. Thus it may be desirable for longer term use to have a haptic interaction whose expressiveness is beyond what can be learned and uti l ized in a two hour experiment. 6.4 Real World Influences Virtual Interaction There are several ways in which we observe the participants using the interaction metaphor to translate real-world, face-to-face practices into this v i r tua l haptic interaction. Th i s is seen both i n (a) the strategies people use to convey the four emotions, and (b) the differences between strangers and couples i n reported subjective experience. 6.4.1 Strategies Distance Indicator and Valence Those who study face-to-face interaction have found the people tend to interact at physically closer distances in pleasant situations, and farther apart i n unpleasant situations [10]. Thus in face-to-face interaction, distance is correlated w i th valence. The reported strategies of the participants suggest that they brought a similar interaction pattern into the v i r tua l space. Specifically, move close is one of the finger print actions for the positive valence emotion Delighted, and move far away is the finger print action for the negative valence emotion Unhappy. Speed Indicates Arousal Part ic ipants i n our study used speed of motion to indicate the arousal level of the emotion. For A n g r y and Delighted, move quickly is one of the fingerprint actions. For Relaxed, move slowly is the most frequently reported action. For Unhappy, neither move quickly or move slowly are frequently used, but this is likely because participants used moving far away for Unhappy, thus avoiding interaction at any speed. Thus participants conveyed arousal level in the v i r tua l interaction by using higher speeds (higher energy) for high arousal emotions and lower speeds (lower energy) to convey low arousal emotions. Couple Strategies Another place where there is evidence that people use strategies from face-to-face interaction in the v i r tua l haptic interaction comes from couples. For at least three of the couples in our study, knowledge about their partner's real world communication strategies affected the v i r tua l interac-t ion. In one couple, one partner decided to use this knowledge and the other decided to use what he thought of as the "default" actions, resulting in miscom-munication. W h e n asked if they thought knowing each other helped them to do the task, one person indicated that it might be easier without knowing each other since they could then use 'defaults' instead of tai loring the interaction to their partners communication style. Another person indicated to the experi-menter that for part of the experiment she had being interpreting her partner's signals the way that she would convey the emotions but eventually realized that he would do it differently. 6.4.2 Relationship and Metaphor The final indication that people bring real world experience into the v i r tua l haptic interaction v ia the metaphor of interaction is the difference in metaphor preference and comfort between strangers and couples. The discomfort that some strangers felt was such that they d id not want to meet their partner and /or commented on it in the final questionnaire. Furthermore, two of the strangers reported finding the hand stroke interaction sexual. Couples, on the other hand, generally preferred and felt more comfortable w i th the hand stroke metaphor. Some even commenting that it felt as i f they were touching. A s in real world interactions, comfort is greater when the intimacy of the interaction is appropriate for the relationship [18]. 6.5 Success as an Emotional Communication Device We designed our experiment to examine the effect of several different haptic interaction model designs on performance and interaction experience during an emotional communication task. Under ly ing our design is the assumption that a computer mediated haptic communication setup, such as the one used in our experiment, could be useful for dyad emotional communication. Our experiment was not designed to test this assumption; however, it is important to examine i t , and in this section, we evaluate this assumption based on our experimental results and observation. Experimental Considerations Since our experiment is not designed to test this assumption, it is important to consider the aspects of our design that pre-vent us from making a definitive c laim about the validity of this assumption. F irs t ly , participants in our experiment were asked to convey various emotions on a l ist , and thus they were intentionally conveying cognitive emotion and not felt emotion. It is not obvious that felt emotion would lead to the same behaviour as cognitive emotion, but as is noted by Coll ier [10] cognitive emotion is a good first approximation of felt emotion. Secondly, the task we asked participants to perform is more difficult than using such a device in real world interaction since there was no context w i th in which the haptics signals could be understood. Also participants d id not have any external feedback or other communication channel available by which to co-ordinate their use of the interaction models. F inal ly , the task we asked participants to perform was easier than using such a device in the real world since it was l imited to four fairly distinct emotion rather than the full spectrum of human emotional experience. Overal l , we would ex-pect that abi l i ty to use context to learn their partner's strategies and modify their own use of the interaction would lead to better performance in real-world interactions. Performance The performance of participants suggests that considerable emo-tional information is communicated. The overall average is slightly more than twice what would be expected by chance, and almost a l l of the trials the arousal or valence of the emotion is successfully communicated. Furthermore, each emo-tion is correctly identified more often than it is identified as one of the other emotions. The high success rates of some pairs at communicating emotion suggests that it is possible for some people to develop and use a language for communicating cognitive emotion w i th our interaction models even without external feedback or context. The successfully communication of emotions in at least 90% of trials in at least one of the H a n d Stroke metaphor conditions by five couples (out of eight) suggests that given the right interaction and sufficient knowledge of the other it is possible to communicate emotional information through such a device. Connection A number of couples commented that they enjoyed the feeling of connection they felt w i th each other while using the interactions. Perhaps more compelling is the fact that individuals involved in strangers pairs indicated dis-comfort w i th the interaction, particularly wi th the H a n d Stroke metaphor. Th i s is the strongest indication that some form of true connect can be achieved w i th this type of interaction. G iven that this type of connection can be achieved, cre-ating a successful computer mediated haptic interaction is a matter of working out the details of such an interaction. Reported Behaviour and Comments A majority of participants reported adapting their strategy to reflect the one they felt their partner was using. The performance results suggest that this adaptation was not necessarily successful; however, given more context or co-ordination it is likely that this tendency to adapt communication styles would lead to greater communication success and interest. Several participants also indicated at the end of the experiment that they felt they would have been able to do well or at least better if they had been able to come up wi th a communication strategy together. Some participants offered comments about whether this k ind of mediated touch interaction would be appropriate for communicating emotion. Specifically, one participant d id not think that this type of interaction would be a very easy way to communicate emotion since "touch isn't something you do that often." W h e n asked if the task was difficult, another participant indicated that he d id not find it difficult but that it was not interesting to h im. O n the other hand, another participant was enthusiastic about this k ind of interaction: " H a n d stroke wi th indicator was a perfect way of communicating problem / feelings without actually ta lk ing or looking at one another. Seems like a great new form of communication when one person is feeling things they can't express in words." Thus the performance data suggest that some emotional information was communicated i n our experimental context. A s well , participants ' report that their strategies were dynamic and comment that w i th an a pr ior i strategy they would have been able to do the task. These observations suggest that mediated haptics as a means for emotional communication may be usable. O n the other hand, only a l imited amount of emotional information was successfully commu-nicated in our study and some participants commented that it was a difficult task. These observations suggest that to be appropriate for emotional commu-nication mediated haptics w i l l require learning and co-ordination of strategies (unless such strategies become commonplace). 6.6 Remarks on Experiment Design In this section, we discuss some considerations that would improve future iter-ations using this experiment approach. 6.6.1 Training for Dyad Haptic Models One challenge when designing haptic models for dyads interaction is developing a mapping that people can understand. If the mapping is a direct connection, then it is not too difficult to understand how my actions affect you and vice versa; although even in this case it may not be obvious how much force you wi l l feel in response to my actions. Indirect interactions are harder to explain and understand. We tr ied to mitigate this problem by using metaphors to design and explain our interaction models. However, during in i t ia l pilots people st i l l had trouble understanding how their actions affected the interaction since what they felt depended on their partner's actions as well as their own. To enable participants on our study to develop an accurate mental model of the interaction, we presented them wi th both a haptic and visual representation of the interaction during in i t ia l training. Th i s strategy generally seemed to help participants understand how the i n -teraction worked. However, there are two drawbacks to this approach. One drawback, i n this situation, is that the visual feedback tends to draw attention away from the haptic cues. Different people w i l l be more or less successful at directing their attention to the haptics; people who have a harder time at paying attention to the haptics may find themselves lost when the visual feedback is no longer there. Therefore, we asked participants to close their eyes at various points, during training, to concentrate on the haptics. The second drawback is that people may develop strategies for communicating emotion that are more appropriate for the haptic-plus-vision interaction than for the haptic-only inter-action. W h e n asked what they thought about the interaction w i th visuals versus without visuals, most participants reported that it was more difficult without the visuals, especially w i th the ping pong metaphor. T w o participants indicated that it was more interesting, fun or interactive without the visuals. Despite its drawback, presenting a visual representation of the interaction seems to work as a way to help people ini t ia l ly understand the interaction, since they can see what their partner was doing as well as see and feel their own actions and at the same time feel the haptic output this generates. 6.6.2 Motivation One factor that can influence performance during an experiment is motivation. In a communicating emotions task, there is stronger motivation for couples to do well than strangers. A couple has a vested interest in being able to communicate with one another that strangers do not share. Since using a mediated haptic device for communicating emotion is new, couples who have trouble w i t h the task are likely to blame the device. However, being able to successfully use such a new interaction could be seen as an indication of a strong connection and thus a motivation for some couples that strangers are unlikely to have. We are not sure what effect this difference in motivation may have had on our results, but it is a factor that should be considered in design of future studies. 6.7 Summary In this chapter, we discussed the meanings and implications of our experimental results and observations. We briefly summarize the main findings below. In Section 6.1, we discussed the role of our control factors i n computer-mediated haptic dyad interaction. Metaphor , space and relationship were a l l found to play some role in this type of interaction: 1. The metaphor used to design and explain a haptic interaction model i n -fluences (a) Performance on an emotion communication task, (b) Subjective experience of interaction 2. In a v i r tua l haptic interaction space a haptic indicator of personal space (a) is Desirable from a subjective point-of-view (b) Increases the complexity of the interaction 3. The relationship of the pair engaged i n interacting through a haptic device influences (a) subjective experience of a haptic interaction metaphor (b) knowledge of partner's communication strategies, in other media, which may help or hinder communication i n the new media In Section 6.2, we argue that there are common strategies for communicat-ing emotion even i n the new medium of computer-mediated haptic interaction. Furthermore, using these strategies to convey emotion leads to greater success. We suggest that if a pair used this medium to communicate frequently w i th each other, they may develop more unique yet effective strategies overtime. In Section 6.3, the idea of an interaction model having an expressive capacity is presented. The expressive capacity of an interaction influences how difficult it is to learn and use. If the expressive capacity of an interaction model does not match that required by a communication task, it may be difficult to accomplish the task. Greater expressive capacity may complicate a simple communication task by increasing the number of possible ways of expressing a concept. However, this greater expressive capacity may st i l l be preferred if it can be gradually incorporated into the interaction, thus allowing a greater variety of concepts or more complex concepts to be expressed. In Section 6.4, we explore how real-world interaction influences interaction in the v i r tua l haptic interaction space. In particular, communication strategies from face-to-face interaction are used i n the v i r tua l haptic interaction. Th i s is seen both i n the common strategies and in the use of intimate knowledge of their partner's face-to-face communication strategies by some couples. A lso , in computer-mediated interaction the type of interaction that is preferred and more comfortable depends on the relationship of those engaged in the interaction. In Section 6.5, the appropriateness of computer-mediated haptic interaction for communicating emotion is discussed. Results suggest that a connection can be created, and some emotional information can be communicate through our computer-mediated haptic interaction models. Overal l , results suggest that an appropriately designed interaction used i n context could be a successful medium for communicating emotion. F i n a l l y in Section 6.6, we evaluate the use of a visual representation, and suggest that it is a useful technique to aid users i n forming an accurate mental model of the haptic interaction. We also point out that, in experiments w i th pairs, the type of relationship between the pair may influence their level of motivation to successfully complete the task and this should be considered in experiment design. Conclusion In this thesis, we presented work done to further understanding of designing for computer mediated person-to-person haptic interaction. Specifically, we dis-cussed the interaction models and experiment we designed to test the effect of haptic metaphor, haptic support for awareness of personal space and the rela-tionship of those using the interaction on performance and subjective experience during a communicating emotions task. We then set out the results we obtained from this experiment and discussed the meaning and implications of these re-sults. In this chapter, we summarize the contributions of this work and suggest directions for future work. 7.1 Contributions Creation of Effective Interaction Using metaphors and two simple one-degree-of-freedom haptic devices we were able to create effective haptic interac-t ion models for computer-mediated haptics communication of cognitive emotion. E v e n though this is a new interaction medium and the only communication was though the haptic interaction, participants were st i l l able to communicate con-siderable emotional content. A s well, a strong sense of connectivity was created for some participants. Systematic Analysis We designed and ran an experiment as a first approx-imation test of the emotional expressiveness of a haptic interaction model. To our knowledge, this is the first t ime a formal evaluation has been performed on the use of a haptic device to facilitate communication of affect between people. Our methodology enables quantitative analysis of performance, and also allows users to give an informed subjective comparison of multiple interactions after having performed an emotional communications task. It provides a means of evaluating the importance of different aspects of haptic interaction design, and of comparing different versions of key components of interaction design. Metaphor We designed and tested four interaction models based on two metaphors and two levels of support for haptic awareness of personal space: no support, support using a haptic v ibrat ion. Another approach to design is to create a new interaction without a metaphor associating it to real-world interac-t ion; however, using metaphors can help users to develop a mental model of the interaction. We found that the interaction metaphor significantly affects per-formance and subjective performance on a emotion communication task. The metaphor also affects other aspects of the subjective experience of using the haptic device. Thus , the choice of the metaphor used to design and explain a haptic interaction model is an essential design element for designing appropriate computer-mediated person-to-person haptic interactions. Space A haptic indicator of space in a haptic interaction space is desirable. We found that users prefer and find a haptic indicator of space desirable even though it d id not improve performance during a brief two hour interaction. Thus, if a haptic interaction model places users into a shared metaphorical space, an indicator of personal space should be present. Relationship We found that the relationship of users of a computer mediated haptic communication device significantly affects the subjective experience of the users and needs to be considered when designing the interaction model. If a metaphor is used to design and explain the interaction model then it should be socially appropriate for the expected users. Specifically, the intimacy implied by the interaction metaphor should match the intimacy of the relationship between the users, or else discomfort can result. Communication Strategies and M e d i a People bring their strategies for communicating emotion in face-to-face situations into a v i r tua l haptic interac-tion. Specifically, distance and speed in the v i r tua l haptic space are commonly used in ways that are similar to how they are commonly used in real-world i n -teractions. C o m m o n distinct strategies for each emotion are formed using these associations and should be supported i n the haptic interaction model. 7.2 Future Work Spatial Awareness We found that subjectively, users preferred our interac-tions w i th the haptic indicator of personal space. However, the haptic v ibrat ion we used d id not improve performance across conditions. Thus one direction for future research is a more extensive exploration of how to provide spatial aware-ness to computer mediated haptic interaction spaces. The challenge is to create an indicator that is perceivable, understandable and yet does not overpower the rest of the interaction. Another possible research direction is to run longer term studies and explore how learning affects the use of a spatial indicator. A different direction is to explore mult i -modal interactions that provide haptic interaction but utilize another modality to provide spatial awareness. Designing for Relationship G iven that the relationship between users of a computer mediated haptic interaction affects what type of haptic interaction model is appropriate, the next challenge is to design relationship-appropriate interactions. There are two research directions that result from this challenge. One is to design interactions that are not opt imal for any one type of relation-ship, but are generally appropriate. The other approach is to take a particular relationship and design an interaction that is tailored to relationships of this type. Of course, this approach may be taken wi th any type of relationship including, but not l imited to, the two used in our study. Some possible relation-ships are strangers, couples, parent-child, acquaintances, colleagues, and close friends. Th i s approach is probably most interesting w i th relationships such as parent-child, and close friends. People who share these relationships may want to engage in remote touch interaction to communicate emotion, support or com-fort, but the intimacy they share is not the same k ind of intimacy as that shared by a romantic couple. Fie ld Study B y doing a controlled experiment, we took the study of computer mediated haptic communication devices affective communication beyond the level of informal lab testing and demos. The next step i n terms of understanding and evaluating computer mediated haptic communication devices is to design a haptic device and interaction model and then do a medium to long term field study. Such a study could explore several questions. The most basic question is whether people would make use of such a device for communication. Another question is how people would use such a device. In particular , in what contexts would it be used and what k ind of information/cues would it be used to convey. There are two major aspects that such a study would encompass: long-term use and natural context. 7.3 Final Words A telephone is a device for supporting remote verbal communication. Haptics could provide a way to support remote nonverbal communication. A telephone works by encoding and decoding audio signals such that the output is a close approximation of the input. For haptic devices it is not obvious what a good encoding and decoding should look like. M a n y possibilities for input / output mappings and interactions are possible w i th computer mediated haptic inter-action. In this thesis, we init iated a systematic exploration of some of the possibilities. We designed interactions based on metaphors of real world i n -teractions. It is our hope that these explorations add to the knowledge about how to design remote haptic interactions. The overall goal of this research is to provide a bui lding block that can eventually be used to create a useful and usable computer mediated remote haptic interaction that support meaningful interpersonal communication. Bibl iography [1] M . Argyle . Bodily communication. International University Press, 1975. recited from Coll ier85. [2] Cagatay Basdogan, Chih-hao Ho , Mandayam A . Srinivasan, and M e l Slater. A n experimental study on the role of touch in shared v i r tua l environ-ments. Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI): Special is-sue on human-computer interaction and collaborative virtual environments, 7(4):443-460, 2000. [3] M . Bergamasco, A . Benedetto, L . Bosio, L . Ferrett i , G P a r r i n i n , G . M . Prisco, F . Salsedo, and G Sart in i . A n arm exoskeleton system for teleoper-ation and v i r tua l environments applications. In International Conference on robotics and Automation, 1994. [4] Scott Brave and Andrew Dahley. intouch: A medium for haptic inter-personal communication. In CHI'97, pages 363-364, A t l a n t a , 1997. A C M Press. [5] Scott Brave, Hiroshi Ishii , and Andrew Dahley; Tangible interfaces for remote collaboration and communication. In CSCW'98, Seattle, U S , 1998. A C M Press. [6] Judee K Burgoon. Nonverbal violations of expectations. In J o h n W i e m a n n and Randa l l Harr ison, editors, Nonverbal Interaction, volume 11 of Sage Annual Reviews of Communication Research, pages 77-111. Sage P u b l i c a -tions, 1983. [7] Andrew C h a n . Designing haptic icons to support an urgency-based t u r n -taking protocol. Master 's thesis, University of B r i t i s h Co lumbia , 2004. [8] Angela Chang , Sile O ' M o d h r a i n , Rob Jacob, E r i c Gunther , and Hiroshi Ishii . Comtouch: design of a vibrotactile communication device. In Sym-posium on Designing Interactive Systems. Designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods and techniques, pages 312-320, London , E n g -land, 2002. A C M Press. [9] R . W Cholewiak. The perception of tactile distance: Influences of body site, space, and time. Perception, 28, 1999. [10] G a r y Col l ier . Emotional Expression. Lawrence E r l b a u m Associates, 1985. [11] D . E . DiFranco , G . L . Beauregard, and M . A . Srinivasan. The effect of auditory cues on the haptic perception of stiffness i n v i r tua l environments. In Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environments and Teleop-erator Systems, 1997. [12] J . D . Fisher, M . R y t t i n g , and R Hel in . Hands touching hands: Affective and evaluative effects of an interpersonal touch. Sociometry, 39, 1976. [13] B J Fogg, Lawrence D . Cut ler , Perry A r n o l d , and Chr is Eisbach. Handjive: a device for interpersonal haptic entertainment. In SIGCHI, page 5764, Los Angeles, Cal i fornia , U S , 1998. A C M Press. [14] L . K . Frank. Tactile communication. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 56:209-255, 1957. [15] B . R . Gillespie, M . B . Hoffman, and J Freudenberg. Hapt i c interface for hands-on instruction in system dynamics and embedded control. In Sympo-sium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Sys-tems, 2003. [16] E . T . H a l l . The Hidden Dimension. Double-day, Garden Ci ty , N J , 1966. [17] Peter Hartley. Interpersonal Communication. Routledge, 1993. [18] R i chard Hesl in and Tar i A lper . Touch: A bonding gesture. In John W i e -mann and Randa l l Harr ison, editors, Nonverbal Interaction, volume 11 of Sage Annual Reviews of Communication Research, pages 47-75. Sage P u b -lications, 1983. [19] A . Jones and M . Berris . The psychophysics of temperature perception and thermal-interface design. In Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environments and Teleoperator Systems, Los Alamitos , C A , 2002. [20] Jung K i m , K i m H y u n , B o o n Tay, Manivannan M u n i y a n d i , Joel Jordan, Jesper Mortensen, Manuel Ol ive ira , M e l Slater, and M a n d a y a m Srinivasan. Transatlantic touch: A study of haptic collaboration over long distance. Presence, 13:328-337, 2004. [21] M a r k K n a p p and J u d i t h H a l l . Nonverbal Communication in Human Inter-action. Thomson Learning, Inc, U S A , 5th edition, 2002. [22] K a r o n M a c L e a n and M a r i o Enriquez. Perceptual design of haptic icons. In Eurohaptics, D u b l i n , Ireland, 2003. [23] K a r o n E . Maclean and J . B . Roderick. A l a d d i n : Exp lor ing language w i th a haptic door knob. Technical Report 199-058, Interval, 1999 1999. [24] T . H . Massie and J . K . Salisbury. The phantom haptic interface: a device for probing v i r tua l objects. In Third Annual Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems, 1994. [25] A . Montague. Touching: The human significance of the skin. Co lumbia University Press, 1971. [26] F lo r ian Muel ler , Frank Vetere, M a r t i n Gibbs , Jesper Kjeldskov, and Steve Howard. H u g over a distance. In CHI 2005. A C M , 2005. [27] T Nguyen, R Hesl in, and M . L Nguyen. The meanings of touch: sex differ-ences. Journal of Communications, 25:92-103, 1975. [28] Sally Jane Norman , Miche l Waisvisz, and R y a n Joel . Touchstone, h t tp ://www . c rack le . o rg / t ouch .htm, 1998. [29] Ian Oakley, Stephen Brewster, and P h i l i p Gray, editors. Communicating with Feeling, volume 2058/2001 of Lecture Note in Computer Science. 2000. [30] Dinesh P a i , E r i c VanDerLoo , Subarna Sadhuknhan, and P a u l K r y . The tango: a tangible tangoreceptive whole-hand human interface. In World Haptics, pages 141-147, P i s a , Italy, 2005. I E E E . [31] Jerome Pasquero and Vincent Hayward . Stress: A practical tactile display system wi th one mill imeter spatial resolution and 700 hz refresh rate. In Proceedings Eurohaptics 2003, D u b l i n Ireland, 2003. [32] C . Ramstein and V . Hayward . The pantograph: A large workspace haptic device for a mult i -modal human-computer interaction. In CHI'94, Confer-ence on Human Factors in Computer Systems ACM/SIGCHI Companion, pages 57-58, 1994. [33] A . F . Rover and H . A . van Essen. H i m : A framework for haptic instant messaging. In CHI 2004, pages 1313-1316, V ienna , A u s t r i a , 2004. A C M Press. [34] James Russel l , A n n a Weiss, and Gerald Mendelsohn. Affect grid: A single-i tem scale of pleasure and arousal. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology, 57, 1989. [35] E v a - L o t t a Salinas, K i r r e Rassmus-Grohn, and Calle Sjostrom. Support ing presence in collaborative environments by haptic force feedback. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (To CHI), 7(4):461-476, 2000. [36] M . A . Srinivasan, G . L . Beauregard, and D . Brock. The impact of visual information on the haptic perception of stiffness in v i r tua l environments. In Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environments and Teleop-erator Systems, A t lanta , G A , 1996. [37] Jonathan Steuer. Defining v i r tua l reality: Dimensions determining telep-resence. Journal of Communication, 42(4):73-93, 1992. [38] H . Z. Tan , M . A . Srinivasan, B . Eberman , and B Cheng. H u m a n factors for the design of force-reflecting haptic interafaces. In Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator System, Chicago, I L , 1994. A S M E / I M E C E . [39] J o h n W i e m a n n and Randa l l Harr ison. Nonverabl Interaction. Sage P u b l i -cations, 1983. Exper iment Script These are the instructions read to pairs during the experiment. A . l Instructions Welcome. In this study we are exploring using a haptic knob (point to knobs) to com-municate emotion. Th i s study is exploring various ways of interacting w i th someone using this type of device. Lets try one of these interactions. (Exp la in interaction metaphor and follow metaphor script.) Ok . Now notice that there are 4 emotion keys on the keyboard i n front of you. Dur ing the next part of the study you wi l l be asked to use the interaction to convey these emotions. Afterwards you wi l l be asked to fil l in this table to i n -dicate how you conveyed each emotion. Lets look at it now. (give questionnaire, read directions, ask if they have any questions, take away) (start interaction again) Ok . Now notice that there are 4 emotion keys on the keyboard in front of you. Dur ing the next part of the study you w i l l be asked to use the interaction to convey these emotions. For each emotion think about how you might do this and try it out. Please dont talk as you do this since we are try ing to concentrate on the touch, (allow time for this) D u r i n g the actual task I w i l l turn off the visual representation and only the touch wi l l be available for communicating emotion. Try your ideas for communicating the emotions again but this time try closing your eyes. Now we wi l l move on to the communicating emotions task. I w i l l give each of you in turn a list of emotions to convey to the other. For the list of 5 emotions I give you now the interaction wi l l be just as what weve used so far. Y o u wi l l be able to see and feel a representation of what you are doing. Next I w i l l give you each in turn a list of 10 emotions to convey and for these there w i l l be no visual representation so everything wi l l be conveyed and received through touch. The purpose of these first 5 is to learn what the feels mean so concentrate on the feeling and try closing your eyes when you have a good idea of what is going on. (give list and talk to her /h im) W h e n prompted please hit the emotion key for the next emotion on the list. Please wait for the prompt to hit the emotion key. (talk to other) Your task is to figure out what emotion he/she is t ry ing to convey using the device. W h e n you think you know the emotion that he/she is t ry ing to convey, hit the appropriate emotion key. (start interaction and give emotion list) A.2 Interaction Metaphor Script P i n g Pong Metaphor explanation: Th is interaction is based on the metaphor of a game of ping pong. W i t h your knob you can move back and forth towards the net and hit a bal l . Y o u wi l l be able to feel the bal l hit you. I l l turn on the interaction now and then explain further, (turn on interaction) Feel the bal l h i t t ing you. T r y moving forward when the bal l hits you -this w i l l speed the bal l up. T r y moving back as the bal l hits you -this w i l l slow the bal l down. Now try doing the same thing w i th your eyes closed and concentrating on the feeling of the bal l . Notice that if you stay st i l l the bal l slows down slightly. In the middle of the space there is a net. Represented on the screen by a white line. W h e n you run into this line it is like hi t t ing a wal l . Y o u (point to one) try running into the net and t ry to feel the difference from when the bal l hits you. Now try w i th your eyes closed. (Now say the same thing to the other) H a n d Stroke Metaphor explanation: Th is interaction is based on the metaphor of a hands touching and rubbing across each other. W i t h your knob you can move your hand around in the space. Y o u w i l l be able to feel the other person moving as well as yourself moving. I l l turn on the interaction now and then explain further, (turn on interaction) T r y moving the hands back and forth across each other. T r y going slowly. Go ing slowly creates a stronger feeling like pressing harder. T r y going quickly. Go ing quickly feels more like brushing by. Now try the same thing wi th your eyes closed and concentrating on the feeling. Space Indicator explanations: We are now going to add an indicator of how far apart you are from each other to the interaction that we just tried. W h a t this means is that there wi l l be an addit ional haptic v ibrat ion that you feel. W h e n you are close together (for hand stroke add but not touching) then the v ibrat ion wi l l be stronger. A s you get farther away it w i l l get weaker, (for ping pong add note the strength of the v ibrat ion does not depend on how far from the net you are. It depends on how far from each other you are.) E m o t i o n Strategy F o r m This is a copy of the form participants ' used after each metaphor/space condition to indicate the strategy they used to communicate each emotion. Instructions: Please put an X in the boxes to indicate which actions you used to convey each emotion. For example: The X s in the first column would mean that hit hard, move far away and move slowly were used to convey Jealous. Place as many X s for each emotion as is necessary to explain what you d id . If the same action was used for more than one emotion, put an X in that action row for each of the emotions for which it was used. If you used actions that are not in this table please add them to the bottom and put in X s to show which emotions you used these other actions for. Appendix B. Emotion Strategy Form 101 Jealous Anger Delighted Relaxed Unhappy hold st i l l move slowly move quickly hit gently hit hard move close move far away repeat an action F i n a l Questionaire This is the questionnaire given to each participant at the end of the experiment. Fin a l Questionnaire For each question please c i r c l e your response. 1. The interaction metaphor I enjoyed the most was a) Ping Pong Hand Stroke b) With Without an indicator of how close we were 2 . I preferred this interaction because 3. I f e l t most connected using the following metaphor a) Ping Pong Hand Stroke b) With Without an indicator of how close we were 4. I f e l t most comfortable using the following metaphor a) Ping Pong Hand Stroke c) With Without an indicator of how close we were 5. It was easiest to convey emotion using the following metaphor a) Ping Pong Hand Stroke b) With Without an indicator of how close we were 6. It was easiest to perceive emotion using the following metaphor a) Ping Pong Hand Stroke b) With Without an indicator of how close we were 7. When you were the perceiver did you remain s t i l l or did you move in order to fe e l what was being conveyed? Moved Stayed S t i l l Depended on: Interaction Emotion 8. When acting as the perceiver, did you find yourself expressing the same emotion as you believed the conveyor was expressing? YES NO 9. Did you change your strategy for expressing emotions to be more l i k e your partners strategy as you learned what they were doing? YES NO For each interaction please comment on what was good (i.e made i t enjoyable, made i t easier to convey/perceive emotion) about the interaction and what you would change. 10. Ping Pong without indicator of how close we were Enjoyed: Would change: 11. Ping Pong with indicator of how close we were Enjoyed: Would change: 12. Hand Stroke without indicator of how close we were Enjoyed: : Would change: 13. Hand Stroke with indicator of how close we were Enjoyed: Would change: 14. How did you fin d interacting with only the haptic representation compared to interacting with the haptic and visual representations? Other Comments: 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0051512/manifest

Comment

Related Items