Haptic Feedback for Automotive Touchscreen Display

Picardi, Andrea; Arquilla, Venanzio; Ballabio, Giorgia; Caruso, Giandomenico · 2024 · OpenAlex-citations

DOI: 10.14733/cadconfp.2024.28-33

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

Get this paper ↗ (DOI — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)

Summary

This study addresses the challenge of driver distraction caused by automotive touchscreen interfaces, which require significant visual attention due to a lack of tactile feedback. While touchscreens are now standard in vehicles, their use in a dual-task driving environment can compromise safety. The authors aim to fill a gap in existing research by evaluating how different haptic actuators and feedback patterns affect user experience and perceived usability in an automotive context. Specifically, the research focuses on vibrotactile feedback to enhance the human-machine interface (HMI) by reducing the need for visual confirmation of inputs. The methodology involved defining four distinct haptic effects—Light Tick, Medium Click, Strong Click, and Ramp Vibration—based on industry guidelines from Google and Apple. These effects were tested using four actuators: three Linear Resonant Actuators (LRAs) with varying axes and force capabilities, and one Eccentric Rotating Mass (ERM). The experimental setup utilized a driving simulator equipped with a 16-inch LCD touchscreen, Arduino Nano 33 IoT boards, and ProtoPie software for rapid prototyping. Six participants interacted with GUI elements like buttons and sliders while imagining a driving scenario. Data was collected through a modified User Experience Questionnaire (UEQ) measuring force, quality, reactivity, and duration, alongside qualitative "think-aloud" comments. Passive noise-cancellation headphones were used to isolate haptic perception from auditory cues. The results indicated that ERM actuators performed poorly across all metrics, being perceived as weaker, "dirty," and less reactive than LRAs. Participants frequently described the ERM feedback as "imperceptible." Among the LRAs, LRA-1 was rated as having the cleanest quality, while LRA-2 was perceived as more powerful for certain effects, though weaker for slider interactions. LRA-3 was described as "buzzy" and less powerful. There were no significant differences in perceived duration or reactivity among the LRA actuators. Qualitative feedback mirrored these survey results, highlighting the superior performance of LRAs over ERMs in providing clear, distinct tactile sensations. The study concludes that actuator selection is critical for effective automotive haptic feedback, with LRAs offering superior precision and user experience compared to ERMs. The findings suggest that designers must consider not just actuator characteristics but also the specific haptic effects tailored to different interface elements. The authors acknowledge limitations, including the small sample size and potential bias from internal participants, and recommend future studies with larger, diverse groups and physiological measures like EEG and ECG. This research contributes to the field by providing empirical evidence on actuator performance, supporting the development of safer, more intuitive automotive touchscreens that minimize driver distraction.

Provenance

The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed.

Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-25; verification: verified.

Topics

Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.

• haptic feedback