A haptic virtual environment is considered to be high-fidelity when the environment is perceived by the user to be realistic. For environments featuring rigid objects, perception of a high degree of realism often occurs when the free space of the simulated environment feels free and when surfaces intended to be rigid are perceived as such. Because virtual surfaces (often called virtual walls) are typically modeled as simple unilateral springs, the rigidity of the virtual surface depends on the stiffness of the spring model. For impedance-based haptic interfaces, the stiffness of the virtual surface is limited by the damping and friction inherent in the device, the sampling rate of the control loop, and the quantization of sensor data. If stiffnesses greater than the limit for a particular device are exceeded, the interaction between the human user and the virtual surface via the haptic device becomes nonpassive. We propose a computational platform that increases the sampling rate of the system, thereby increasing the maximum achievable virtual surface stiffness, and subsequently the fidelity of the rendered virtual surfaces. We describe the modification of a PHANToM Premium 1.0 commercial haptic interface to enable computation by a real-time operating system (RTOS) that utilizes a field programmable gate array (FPGA) for data acquisition between the haptic interface hardware and computer. Furthermore, we explore the performance of the FPGA serving as a standalone system for communication and computation. The RTOS system enables a sampling rate for the PHANToM that is 20 times greater than that achieved using the “out of the box” commercial hardware system, increasing the maximum achievable surface stiffness twofold. The FPGA platform enables sampling rates of up to 400 times greater, and stiffnesses over 6 times greater than those achieved with the commercial system. The proposed computational platforms will enable faster sampling rates for any haptic device, thereby improving the fidelity of virtual environments.

1.
Colgate
,
J.
,
Grafing
,
P.
,
Stanley
,
M.
, and
Schenkel
,
G.
, 1993, “
Implementation of Stiff Virtual Walls in Force-Reflecting Interfaces
,”
Proceedings of the IEEE Virtual Reality Symposium
, pp.
202
208
.
2.
Abbott
,
J. J.
, and
Okamura
,
A. M.
, 2005, “
Effects of Position Quantization and Sampling Rate on Virtual-Wall Passivity
,”
IEEE Trans. Rob.
,
21
(
5
), pp.
952
964
.
3.
Kazerooni
,
H.
, 1993, “
Human Induced Instability in Haptic Interfaces
,”
Proceedings of the ASME Winter Annual Meeting
, Vol.
55
, pp.
851
856
.
4.
Gillespie
,
B.
, and
Cutkosky
,
M.
, 1996, “
Stable User-Specific Rendering of the Virtual Wall
,”
Proceedings of ASME IMECE
, Vol.
58
, pp.
397
406
.
5.
Diolaiti
,
N.
,
Niemeyer
,
G.
,
Barbagli
,
F.
, and
Salisbury
,
J. K.
, Jr.
, 2006, “
Stability of Haptic Rendering: Discretization, Quantization, Time Delay, and Coulomb Effects
,”
IEEE Trans. Rob.
,
22
(
2
), pp.
256
268
.
6.
Miller
,
B.
,
Colgate
,
J.
, and
Freeman
,
R.
, 2004, “
On the Role of Dissipation in Haptic Systems
,”
IEEE Trans. Rob. Autom.
,
20
(
4
), pp.
768
771
. 1546-1904
7.
Colgate
,
J.
, and
Brown
,
J.
, 1994, “
Factors Affecting the Z-Width of a Haptic Display
,”
Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robot and Automation
, pp.
3205
3210
.
8.
Adams
,
R. J.
, and
Hannaford
,
B.
, 1999, “
Stable Haptic Interaction With Virtual Environments
,”
IEEE Trans. Rob. Autom.
1042-296X,
15
(
3
), pp.
465
474
.
9.
Hannaford
,
B.
, and
Ryu
,
J.
, 2001, “
Time-Domain Passivity Control of Haptic Interfaces
,”
Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation
, pp.
1863
1869
.
10.
Hayward
,
V.
, and
Astley
,
O.
, 1996, “
Performance Measures for Haptic Interfaces
,”
Proceedings of the 1996 Robotics Research: Seventh International Symposium
, pp.
195
207
.
11.
Mahvash
,
M.
, and
Hayward
,
V.
, 2005, “
High-Fidelity Passive Force Reflecting Virtual Environments
,”
IEEE Trans. Rob.
,
21
(
1
), pp.
38
46
.
12.
Mahvash
,
M.
, and
Hayward
,
V.
, 2005, “
Haptic Rendering of Cutting: A Fracture Mechanics Approach
,” http://www.haptics-e.orghttp://www.haptics-e.org
13.
McKnight
,
S.
,
Melder
,
N.
,
Barrow
,
A. L.
,
Harwin
,
W. S.
, and
Wann
,
J. P.
, 2005, “
Perceptual Cues for Orientation in a Two Finger Haptic Grasp Task
,”
Proceedings of the IEEE WHC’05
, pp.
549
550
.
14.
National Instruments
, 2006, “
Introduction to LABVIEW FPGA
,” LABVIEW 8 FPGA Module Training, Retrieved from zone.ni.com/devzone/cda/tut/p/id/3555/zone.ni.com/devzone/cda/tut/p/id/3555/
15.
Çavusoglu
,
M. C.
,
Feygin
,
D.
, and
Tendick
,
F.
, 2002, “
A Critical Study of the Mechanical and Electrical Properties of the PHANToM Haptic Interface and Improvements for High Performance Control
,”
Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Envirnonments
,
11
(
6
), pp.
555
568
.
16.
Holbein
,
M.
, and
Zelek
,
J. S.
, 2005, “
A FPGA Haptics Controller
,”
Proceedings of the IEEE WHC’05
, pp.
588
589
.
17.
Vasudevan
,
H.
,
Srikanth
,
M. B.
, and
Muniyandi
,
M.
, 2007, “
Rendering Stiffer Walls: A Hybrid Haptic System Using Continuous and Discrete Time Feedback
,”
Adv. Rob.
,
21
(
11
), pp.
1323
1338
. 0169-1864
18.
Galvan
,
S.
,
Botturi
,
D.
, and
Fiorini
,
P.
, 2006, “
FPGA-Based Controller for Haptic Devices
,”
2006 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems
, pp.
971
976
.
19.
Kraeling
,
M. B.
, 1996, “
Fixed-Point Math in Time-Critical C Applications
,”
Proceedings of WESCON/96
, pp.
587
593
.
You do not currently have access to this content.