skip to main content
research-article

Congestion Control for Network-Aware Telehaptic Communication

Published:21 March 2017Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Telehaptic applications involve delay-sensitive multimedia communication between remote locations with distinct Quality of Service (QoS) requirements for different media components. These QoS constraints pose a variety of challenges, especially when the communication occurs over a shared network, with unknown and time-varying cross-traffic. In this work, we propose a transport layer congestion control protocol for telehaptic applications operating over shared networks, termed as Dynamic Packetization Module (DPM). DPM is a lossless, network-aware protocol that tunes the telehaptic packetization rate based on the level of congestion in the network. To monitor the network congestion, we devise a novel network feedback module, which communicates the end-to-end delays encountered by the telehaptic packets to the respective transmitters with negligible overhead. Via extensive simulations, we show that DPM meets the QoS requirements of telehaptic applications over a wide range of network cross-traffic conditions. We also report qualitative results of a real-time telepottery experiment with several human subjects, which reveal that DPM preserves the quality of telehaptic activity even under heavily congested network scenarios. Finally, we compare the performance of DPM with several previously proposed telehaptic communication protocols and demonstrate that DPM outperforms these protocols.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

References

  1. Hussein Al Osman, Mohamad Eid, Rosa Iglesias, and Abdulmotaleb El Saddik. 2007. Alphan: Application layer protocol for haptic networking. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Haptic, Audio and Visual Environments and Games (HAVE).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Robert Anderson and Mark Spong. 1989. Bilateral control of teleoperators with time delay. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 34, 5 (1989), 494--501.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Subhajit Chaudhury and Subhasis Chaudhuri. 2014. Volume preserving haptic pottery. In Proceedings of Haptics Symposium.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Dah-Ming Chiu and Raj Jain. 1989. Analysis of the increase/decrease algorithms for congestion avoidance in computer networks. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems 17, 1 (1989), 1--14. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Burak Cizmeci, Rahul Chaudhari, Xiao Xu, Nicolas Alt, and Eckehard Steinbach. 2014. A visual-haptic multiplexing scheme for teleoperation over constant-bitrate communication links. In Haptics: Neuroscience, Devices, Modeling, and Applications. Springer, 131--138.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Stella Clarke, Gerhard Schillhuber, Michael Zaeh, and Heinz Ulbrich. 2006. Telepresence across delayed networks: A combined prediction and compression approach. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Haptic Audio Visual Environments and their Applications (HAVE).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Onkar Dabeer and Subhasis Chaudhuri. 2011. Analysis of an adaptive sampler based on Weber’s law. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing 59, 4 (2011), 1868--1878. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Mohamad Eid, Jongeun Cha, and Abdulmotaleb El Saddik. 2011. Admux: An adaptive multiplexer for haptic--audio--visual data communication. IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement 60, 1 (2011), 21--31.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. William Ferrell. 1965. Remote manipulation with transmission delay. IEEE Transactions on Human Factors in Electronics 1 (1965), 24--32.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Masaki Fujimoto and Yutaka Ishibashi. 2005. Packetization interval of haptic media in networked virtual environments. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM SIGCOMM Workshop on Network and System Support for Games. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Takeshi Fujimoto, Yutaka Ishibashi, and Shinji Sugawara. 2008. Influences of inter-stream synchronization error on collaborative work in haptic and visual environments. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Vineet Gokhale, Subhasis Chaudhuri, and Onkar Dabeer. 2015. HoIP: A point-to-point haptic data communication protocol and its evaluation. In Proceedings of the 21st National Conference on Communications (NCC).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Vineet Gokhale, Onkar Dabeer, and Subhasis Chaudhuri. 2013. HoIP: Haptics over internet protocol. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Haptic Audio Visual Environments and Games (HAVE).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Vineet Gokhale, Jayakrishnan Nair, and Subhasis Chaudhuri. 2016. Opportunistic adaptive haptic sampling on forward channel in telehaptic communication. In Proceedings of the Haptics Symposium.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Sangtae Ha, Injong Rhee, and Lisong Xu. 2008. CUBIC: A new TCP-friendly high-speed TCP variant. ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review 42, 5 (2008), 64--74. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Peter Hinterseer, Sandra Hirche, Subhasis Chaudhuri, Eckehard Steinbach, and Martin Buss. 2008. Perception-based data reduction and transmission of haptic data in telepresence and teleaction systems. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing 56, 2 (2008), 588--597. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Peter Hinterseer, E. Steinbach, Sandra Hirche, and Martin Buss. 2005. A novel, psychophysically motivated transmission approach for haptic data streams in telepresence and teleaction systems. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing (ICASSP).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Sosuke Hoshino, Yutaka Ishibashi, Norishige Fukushima, and Shinji Sugawara. 2011. QoE assessment in olfactory and haptic media transmission: Influence of inter-stream synchronization error. In Proceedings of the International Workshop Technical Committee on Communications Quality and Reliability (CQR).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Eiichi Isomura, Shuji Tasaka, and Toshiro Nunome. 2013. A multidimensional QoE monitoring system for audiovisual and haptic interactive IP communications. In Proceedings of the Consumer Communications and Networking Conference (CCNC).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Caroline Jay, Mashhuda Glencross, and Roger Hubbold. 2007. Modeling the effects of delayed haptic and visual feedback in a collaborative virtual environment. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 14, 2 (2007), 8. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. George Kokkonis, Kostas E. Psannis, and Manos Roumeliotis. 2015. Network adaptive flow control algorithm for haptic data over the internet--NAFCAH. Genetic and Evolutionary Computing. Springer, 93--102.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Dale A. Lawrence. 1993. Stability and transparency in bilateral teleoperation. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation 9, 5 (1993), 624--637.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Seokhee Lee and JongWon Kim. 2007. Haptic event prioritization and network adaptation scheme for collaborative virtual environments. In Proceedings of the Global Telecommunications Conference.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Alan Marshall, Kian Meng Yap, and Wai Yu. 2008. Providing QoS for networked peers in distributed haptic virtual environments. Advances in Multimedia 2008 (2008).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. David L Mills. 1991. Internet time synchronization: The network time protocol. IEEE Transactions on Communications 39, 10 (1991), 1482--1493.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Dimitrios Miras, Amela Sadagic, Ben Teitelbaum, Jason Leigh, Magda El Zarki, and Haining Liu. 2002. A survey on network QoS needs of advanced internet applications. Internet2 QoS Working Group (2002).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Douglas C. Montgomery. 2007. Introduction to Statistical Quality Control. John Wiley 8 Sons.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. ns3. 2011. The network simulator. Retrieved from http://www.nsnam.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Jon Postel. 1980. User Datagram Protocol. Technical Report, University of Southern California. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Luigi Rizzo. 1997. Dummynet: A simple approach to the evaluation of network protocols. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review 27, 1 (1997), 31--41. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Nizar Sakr, Nicolas D. Georganas, and Jiying Zhao. 2011. Human perception-based data reduction for haptic communication in six-DoF telepresence systems. IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement 60, 11 (2011), 3534--3546.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Henning Schulzrinne, Stephen Casner, Ron Frederick, and Van Jacobson. 2003. RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-time Applications. RFC 3550. Retrieved from http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3550. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Eckehard Steinbach, Sandra Hirche, Marc Ernst, Fernanda Brandi, Rahul Chaudhari, Julius Kammerl, and Iason Vittorias. 2012. Haptic communications. Proceedings of the IEEE 100, 4 (2012).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Nobuhiro Suzuki and Seiichiro Katsura. 2013. Evaluation of QoS in haptic communication based on bilateral control. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Mechatronics (ICM).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Tim Szigeti and Christina Hattingh. 2004. Quality of Service Design Overview. Cisco, San Jose, CA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Uras Tos and Tolga Ayav. 2011. Adaptive RTP rate control method. In Proceedings of the Computer Software and Applications Conference Workshops (COMPSACW). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Raul Wirz, Manuel Ferre, Raul Marín, Jorge Barrio, José M. Claver, and Javier Ortego. 2008. Efficient transport protocol for networked haptics applications. In Haptics: Perception, Devices and Scenarios. Springer, 3--12. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Congestion Control for Network-Aware Telehaptic Communication

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader
    About Cookies On This Site

    We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

    Learn more

    Got it!