Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 57 references

A Modular Haptic Display with Reconfigurable Signals for Personalized Information Transfer

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that personalizing a reconfigurable soft haptic display with an information-theoretic ranking of signal configurations reduces user error in robot-guidance tasks beyond any fixed, non-personalized interface.

desk verdict Solid modular haptic hardware and a clean user study wrapped in an information-theoretic framing that does not match what the algorithm actually computes. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.05648 v1 pith:22B7YTS6 submitted 2025-06-06 cs.HC cs.RO

Antonio Alvarez Valdivia , Benjamin A. Christie , Dylan P. Losey , Laura H. Blumenschein This is my paper
classification cs.HCcs.RO
keywords hapticinterfacespersonalizationinformationtheoryfluidiclogicreconfigurablehardwaretactiledeviceshuman-robotinteractionsoftrobotics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that haptic feedback can be personalized in both hardware and signal choice, and that doing so measurably improves how well people perform guidance tasks. The authors build a soft, finger-worn pneumatic display whose tactile cues — pressure, frequency, or contact area — are changed by re-plumbing fluidic-logic circuits instead of rewriting software, and an algorithm that ranks hardware configurations by how much task-relevant information they would convey to a given user. In two user studies with 13 participants, the configuration ranked first by the algorithm produced significantly lower task error and higher subjective ratings of trust, understanding, and preference than the alternative configurations. The paper concludes that both physical modularity and algorithmic selection are necessary: different users genuinely perform best with different displays, and the best display is not simply the one users say they like. This matters because most haptic interfaces are fixed one-size-fits-all systems, and a reconfigurable display plus a short preference probe could adapt feedback to each user and task.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism has two coupled parts. The hardware is a modular pneumatic display built from soft bistable valves adapted from a ring-oscillator design, arranged in a code-logic stage that acts as a demultiplexer (three pneumatic inputs select one of eight outputs) and an output-logic stage that renders pressure by direct inflation, frequency through a soft oscillator, and contact area through cascaded inflation of chambers; users reconfigure it by unplugging and re-plugging Luer-lock tubes, with no software changes. The software is an information-theoretic selector, $S^\star = \arg\max_{S \in \mathcal{S}} I(\theta; s \mid S, \rho)$, which decomposes into a signal-entropy term $H(s \mid S, \rho)$ that rewards displays with many distinguishable signal levels and a conditional-entropy term $H(s \mid \theta, S, \rho)$ that penalizes configurations the user struggles to decode. The human model instantiated for the second term is a maximum-entropy distribution $p(s \mid \theta, S, \rho) \propto \exp(-\beta \|h(\theta) - s\|_W^2)$, where $W$ encodes the user's rated preference for each signal axis and $\beta$ is an overall sensitivity constant; this is what lets the algorithm balance expressiveness against interpretability for a specific person.

What would settle it

Run a ranking comparison between two configurations that have the same number of signal levels but different mappings from task states to signals, under a task prior concentrated on a few states: compute the algorithm's approximated score from Equation (4) and the full mutual information from the actual $\theta$-to-$s$ mapping. If user task error follows the full-mutual-information ranking rather than the approximated one, the paper's stated objective is falsified; if it follows the approximation, the assumption holds. Alternatively, repeat the user study with a strongly non-uniform task prior and check whether the Rank 1 configurations (and their performance ordering) shift as full mutual information would predict.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a haptic interface's effectiveness can be improved by jointly reconfiguring its physical signal rendering and algorithmically choosing which configuration to deploy, modeled as maximizing the mutual information $I(\theta; s \mid S, \rho)$ between the hidden task variable $\theta$ and the displayed signal $s$. Concretely, the paper reports that in both a $4 \times 4$ search task and a seven-ingredient assembly task, the configuration selected by the algorithm (Rank 1) led to significantly lower user error than the worst-ranked configuration, without increasing completion time, and that participants rated Rank 1 higher on trust, adaptation, understanding, distinguishability, and preference. The results also show that the algorithm's top pick is not the same as the user's stated preference: the Rank 1 distribution across pressure-area, pressure-frequency, and area-frequency pairings differs from the preference distribution, because the method balances preference against the display's information-carrying capacity for the task. The paper takes this as evidence that both layers of modularity — physical reconfiguration and algorithmic selection — contribute to the performance gain.

Load-bearing premise

The ranking algorithm depends on the assumption that the task prior is independent of interface design, which lets it replace the signal-entropy term with $\log(|s| \times |S|)$; if the mapping from task states to the signals a configuration can render actually matters, then the mutual information being optimized is not the one that drives task performance.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the paper is correct, deploying the algorithm's top-ranked haptic configuration should reduce user error in guidance tasks without slowing users down, as observed in both the search and assembly studies.
  • Different users require different displays: four of thirteen participants performed best on a configuration other than the most common one, so a single fixed haptic device cannot serve a diverse population.
  • User preference is informative but insufficient; since the algorithm's top pick differs from stated preference and still outperforms, selection must trade off preference against the display's information capacity for the task.
  • The same pneumatic code and logic hardware renders pressure, frequency, and area signals with only mechanical reconfiguration, which lowers the practical barrier to field customization of haptic devices.
  • Because the human model is static and gathered once, the observed gains come without any online adaptation; the authors note that updating the model with user errors and reaction times could re-rank configurations over time.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper's Equation (4) asserts $H(s \mid S, \rho) \propto \log(|s| \times |S|)$ 'assuming $\rho$ is independent of interface design,' which drops the mapping from task states to signals; if that mapping matters (as task-specific effects in the study suggest), the objective actually optimized may not be the mutual information the paper states, and the empirical gains could be carried by the human
  • Because the human model only requires a saliency weight per signal axis, the same ranking procedure should transfer to other modalities such as vibration or thermal cues; a natural test is whether the accuracy gains replicate on non-pneumatic displays with the same preference probe.
  • The authors' observation that users form internal models of the signals suggests a closed-loop variant in which errors and reaction times refine $W$ and $\beta$ online and re-rank configurations during a session, going beyond the static personalization demonstrated here.
  • The study caps signal levels at four for pressure, three for area, and two for frequency; whether the mutual-information ranking keeps predicting performance as the number of levels per modality grows is an open empirical question that would strengthen or bound the framework.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a modular soft pneumatic haptic display whose signal types (pressure, frequency, area) can be reconfigured through fluidic logic circuits without software changes, together with an information-theoretic algorithm that ranks interface configurations by estimated mutual information between task state and rendered signal. The authors validate the approach in a within-subjects user study (n=13) across two tasks (Search, Assembly), reporting that configurations ranked first by the algorithm yield significantly lower task error and higher subjective ratings than lower-ranked configurations. The paper also analyzes hardware and software contributions, showing different users benefit from different physical configurations and that the recommended configuration is not simply the most preferred one.

Significance. The hardware contribution is substantial and reproducible: detailed fabrication instructions, valve characterization, and the use of the Soft Compiler give the fluidic-logic layer a concrete engineering value. The user study is carefully designed with counterbalancing, objective measures from a robot arm, and Likert-scale questionnaires, and the empirical finding that the algorithm's top-ranked configuration produces lower error and is preferred is a useful result for personalized haptics. However, the paper's central theoretical claim that it 'maximizes information transfer between the intended message and the user's interpretation' is not supported by the derivation in Section IV; the ranking is better described as a preference-weighted signal-cardinality heuristic. Because this theoretical rationale is load-bearing for the contributions, the manuscript needs a major revision rather than minor edits.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section IV, Eqs. (2)-(6)] The objective actually computed is not the stated mutual information. In the implemented system (Section V), the displayed signal s is a deterministic function of the hidden state θ (for example, in Search the target x-coordinate is mapped to one of four pressure levels, and in Assembly the ingredient index is mapped to a fixed pressure/area/frequency level). Therefore p(s|θ,S,ρ) is a delta distribution and H(s|θ,S,ρ)=0 for every configuration tested. The maximum-entropy model in Eq. (6) describes the signal the user expects for θ, which is a decoding model, not the channel likelihood required in Eq. (5). Substituting Eq. (6) into Eq. (5) makes the user-specific term an ad hoc penalty rather than a component of I(θ;s|S,ρ). The paper should either redefine Eqs. (1)-(2) as a design score, or model a genuinely stochastic channel (for example, noisy encoding plus a decoding model) so that H(s|θ,S,ρ)>0.
  2. [Section IV, Eq. (4)] The asserted proportionality H(s|S,ρ) ∝ log(|s| × |S|) does not follow from Eq. (3). The entropy of the rendered signal depends on how the task prior ρ induces a distribution over s through the θ-to-s mapping, not merely on the sizes of the signal sets. For example, a configuration with many levels that are never used under the given task prior has the same H(s|S,ρ) as one with fewer effective levels. Because Eq. (4) is used to compute the 'task' term in the ranking, the rank order is not the information-theoretic optimum claimed in Eq. (1). The authors should derive H(s|S,ρ) from ρ and the mapping, or explicitly present Eq. (4) as a simplifying heuristic rather than as an information-theoretic result.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section IV, Implementation] The phrase 'along a α-1 scale' appears to be a typo for '0-1 scale'.
  2. [Section IV, Eq. (7)] The normalization claim 'range [α, 1]' is incorrect if P_i are in [0,1]; the diagonal entries (P_i+α)/(1+α) range from α/(1+α) to 1, not from α to 1. Please correct or clarify the intended scaling.
  3. [Section V, Results] The Assembly post-hoc p-value for Rank 1 versus Rank 2 is reported as p = .10 in the text but p = .197 in the Figure 5 caption; please reconcile the two values.
  4. [Section V, Results and Table I] The text states that all five scales were reliable with Cronbach's α > 0.7, but Table I lists Adapt α = .69, which is below 0.7; please adjust either the claim or the table.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Empirical evaluation is not circular: rankings preceded outcome data and were not fitted to error or preference outcomes. But the theoretical objective is self-definitional — Eq. (4) equates signal entropy with level count and Eqs.

  1. self definitional [Section IV, Eq. (4) and 'Implementation' paragraph (Eqs. (6)-(7))]
    "Assuming that ρ is independent of interface design, this reduces to a constant: H (s | S, ρ) ∝ log (|s| × |S|) (4). ... When applying Equation (1), we first record which signal types a given human prefers, and by how much, along a α-1 scale, and then use their preferences to complete the matrix W."

    Eq. (4) asserts H(s|S,ρ) ∝ log(|s|×|S|), replacing the entropy of Eq. (3) with the configuration's support cardinality, while Eq. (6) sets p(s|θ,S,ρ) ∝ exp(−β·||h(θ)−s||²_W) with W completed from the user's stated slider preferences. The argmax in Eq. (1) thus reduces, by the paper's own equations, to maximizing (level count) − (preference-weighted mismatch). The paper's conclusion that the optimum 'balanced user preferences with the task's communication requirements' restates how the objective was hand-constructed — a cardinality term plus a preference term — not an independent consequence of information theory.

  2. self definitional [Section IV, Eqs. (2), (5)-(6); Section V experimental protocol]
    "I (s ; θ | S, ρ) = H (s | S, ρ) − H (s | θ, S, ρ) (2). ... if the robot is trying to communicate the specific data θ, what signal s does the human expect the robot to display? We write this relationship as the probability term p(s | θ, S, ρ) on the right side of Equation (5)."

    Eq. (2) defines the objective as I(θ;s) = H(s|S,ρ) − H(s|θ,S,ρ), with H(s|θ) the conditional entropy of the displayed signal given the hidden state. But the probability substituted into Eq. (5) is not the channel likelihood: the paper defines it as the human's expectation. In the user study the mapping is deterministic (Search: 'the first signal corresponded to the target's discrete position along the X-axis'; 'signal intensity corresponded proportionally to magnitude'), so the actual p(s|θ) is a delta, H(s|θ)=0, and I(θ;s)=H(s) for every tested configuration. The Eq. (6) term is therefore an additive preference penalty by construction, not part of the stated mutual information; the algorithm maximizes Eq. (4) minus this penalty, not I(θ;s).

full rationale

The empirical evaluation is not circular. Rankings were computed from pre-task preference sliders and fixed per-modality level counts before any outcome data were collected; no parameter was fitted to error or Likert outcomes (the one tuning constant, α = .25 in Eq. (7), is a scaling choice stated in the text). Participants were not told the ranking, and configuration order was counterbalanced, so 'Rank 1 configurations yield lower error and higher subjective ratings' is an externally measured result, not a consequence of the algorithm's construction. The circularity is confined to the theoretical objective in Section IV. Eq. (4) asserts, without derivation from Eq. (3), that H(s|S,ρ) is proportional to log(|s|×|S|), turning entropy into a support-cardinality count; and Eqs. (5)-(6) substitute a model of the signal the user expects — parameterized by the stated-preference matrix W — for the channel likelihood required by Eq. (2). By the paper's own equations the maximized score is a preference-weighted level count, so the paper's conclusion that the optimum balances user preferences with task communication requirements restates the construction. Additionally, in the implemented study the displayed signal is a deterministic function of θ, so the true H(s|θ) = 0 and the preference term is an additive penalty rather than part of I(θ;s); the algorithm does not maximize the stated mutual information. That is a correctness risk adjacent to circularity. Self-citations ([3], [5], [28], [33], [51]) are present but not load-bearing: Section IV's derivation relies on Shannon entropy [56] and maximum entropy [57], both external, and the authors' own LIMIT framework [33] is cited only as related work, not as the basis for Eqs. (4)-(6). Score 3 reflects partial circularity in the theoretical framing while the central empirical claim retains independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central ranking relies on two hand-set quantities (alpha and beta, the latter unspecified), on the chosen discrete level counts, and on two modeling assumptions: Equation (4)'s entropy proportionality and Equation (6)'s maximum-entropy human model. No new physical entities are introduced; the hardware is assembled from prior valve designs and off-the-shelf materials.

free parameters (3)
  • alpha (saliency floor) = 0.25
    Chosen by hand for the user study in Equation (7); no sensitivity analysis is reported.
  • beta (perceptual sensitivity)
    Appears in Equation (6) as the overall sensitivity scaling; no value or fitting procedure is given in the paper.
  • Discrete level counts per modality (pressure 4, area 3, frequency 2) = 4/3/2
    Set by hardware constraints and experimental convenience; these counts drive Equation (4)'s entropy term and therefore the rankings.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper The conditional entropy of the rendered signal given the interface and task prior is proportional to log(|s| times |S|), as stated in Equation (4).
    This is asserted, not derived from Equation (3), and ignores the actual theta-to-signal mapping and prior shape.
  • ad hoc to paper Human decoding follows the maximum-entropy model p(s|theta,S,rho) proportional to exp(-beta times ||h(theta)-s||^2_W), as stated in Equation (6).
    The expected-signal mapping h and sensitivity beta are not estimated from data; the model is assumed to capture user perception.
  • standard math Shannon entropy and mutual information definitions apply to the haptic communication channel.
    Standard information-theoretic identities used in Equations (1) through (3).
  • domain assumption The task prior rho is known and independent of interface design.
    Used to justify Equation (4); in practice the prior over grid cells or ingredients is a modeling choice.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Modular Haptic Display with Reconfigurable Signals for Personalized Information Transfer." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/22B7YTS6

@misc{pith2026250605648,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Modular Haptic Display with Reconfigurable Signals for Personalized Information Transfer},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/22B7YTS6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.05648}
}
read the original abstract

We present a customizable soft haptic system that integrates modular hardware with an information-theoretic algorithm to personalize feedback for different users and tasks. Our platform features modular, multi-degree-of-freedom pneumatic displays, where different signal types, such as pressure, frequency, and contact area, can be activated or combined using fluidic logic circuits. These circuits simplify control by reducing reliance on specialized electronics and enabling coordinated actuation of multiple haptic elements through a compact set of inputs. Our approach allows rapid reconfiguration of haptic signal rendering through hardware-level logic switching without rewriting code. Personalization of the haptic interface is achieved through the combination of modular hardware and software-driven signal selection. To determine which display configurations will be most effective, we model haptic communication as a signal transmission problem, where an agent must convey latent information to the user. We formulate the optimization problem to identify the haptic hardware setup that maximizes the information transfer between the intended message and the user's interpretation, accounting for individual differences in sensitivity, preferences, and perceptual salience. We evaluate this framework through user studies where participants interact with reconfigurable displays under different signal combinations. Our findings support the role of modularity and personalization in creating multimodal haptic interfaces and advance the development of reconfigurable systems that adapt with users in dynamic human-machine interaction contexts.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.05648 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Modular haptic display worn by a human user. The inflation pattern of the haptic display tells the user what the goal is (i.e., which objects to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The haptic displays are made of layered TPU film, laser cut and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Fluidic logic control architecture for reconfigurable haptic displays. The system is divided into two stages: code logic (left) and output logic (right). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (Left) Our method for selecting ranking interface configurations. The algorithm ranks three interface configurations according to the user’s preferences [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: We report the number of times that each configuration is rated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Results from our in-person user study. An asterisk ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Foundations of transparency in tactile information design,

    K. E. MacLean, “Foundations of transparency in tactile information design,” IEEE Transactions on Haptics , vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 84–95, 2008

    work page 2008

  2. [2]

    Exploiting haptic facets: Users’ sense- making schemas as a path to design and personalization of experience,

    H. Seifi and K. E. MacLean, “Exploiting haptic facets: Users’ sense- making schemas as a path to design and personalization of experience,” International Journal of Human-Computer Studies , vol. 107, pp. 38–61, 2017

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    A survey of communicating robot learning during human-robot interaction,

    S. Habibian, A. Alvarez Valdivia, L. H. Blumenschein, and D. P. Losey, “A survey of communicating robot learning during human-robot interaction,” The International Journal of Robotics Research , vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 665–698, 2025

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    Towards end-user customization of haptic experiences,

    T. Roy, Y . Glémarec, G. Lécuyer, Q. Galvane, P. Guillotel, and F. Arge- laguet, “Towards end-user customization of haptic experiences,” in International Conference on Human Haptic Sensing and Touch Enabled Computer Applications. Springer, 2024, pp. 411–425

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Perception of and response to a haptic device as a function of signal complexity,

    A. A. Valdivia and L. H. Blumenschein, “Perception of and response to a haptic device as a function of signal complexity,” in 2023 IEEE World Haptics Conference (WHC) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–7

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Methodology for maximizing information transmission of haptic devices: A survey,

    H. Z. Tan, S. Choi, F. W. Lau, and F. Abnousi, “Methodology for maximizing information transmission of haptic devices: A survey,” Proceedings of the IEEE , vol. 108, no. 6, pp. 945–965, 2020

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Multimodal haptic display for virtual reality: A survey,

    D. Wang, K. Ohnishi, and W. Xu, “Multimodal haptic display for virtual reality: A survey,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 67, no. 1, pp. 610–623, 2019

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Diminutive digits discern delicate details: fingertip size and the sex difference in tactile spatial acuity,

    R. M. Peters, E. Hackeman, and D. Goldreich, “Diminutive digits discern delicate details: fingertip size and the sex difference in tactile spatial acuity,” Journal of Neuroscience , vol. 29, no. 50, pp. 15 756–15 761, 2009

    work page 2009

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    Spatial acuity of the body surface over the life span,

    J. C. Stevens and K. K. Choo, “Spatial acuity of the body surface over the life span,” Somatosensory & motor research , vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 153–166, 1996

    1996

  2. [10]

    Sleeveio: modular and reconfigurable platform for multimodal wearable haptic feedback interactions,

    A. Shtarbanov, M. Zhu, N. Colonnese, and A. Hajiagha Memar, “Sleeveio: modular and reconfigurable platform for multimodal wearable haptic feedback interactions,” in Proceedings of the 36th annual ACM symposium on user interface software and technology , 2023, pp. 1–15

    2023

  3. [11]

    Design, control, and psychophysics of tasbi: A force- controlled multimodal haptic bracelet,

    E. Pezent, P. Agarwal, J. Hartcher-O’Brien, N. Colonnese, and M. K. O’Malley, “Design, control, and psychophysics of tasbi: A force- controlled multimodal haptic bracelet,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 2962–2978, 2022

    2022

  4. [12]

    Aerohaptix: A wearable vibrotactile feedback system for enhancing collision avoidance in uav teleoperation,

    B. Huang, Z. Wang, Q. Cheng, S. Ren, H. Cai, A. A. Valdivia, K. Mahadevan, and D. Wigdor, “Aerohaptix: A wearable vibrotactile feedback system for enhancing collision avoidance in uav teleoperation,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , 2025

    2025

  5. [13]

    A skin-integrated multimodal haptic interface for immersive tactile feedback,

    Y . Huang, J. Zhou, P. Ke, X. Guo, C. K. Yiu, K. Yao, S. Cai, D. Li, Y . Zhou, J. Li, et al. , “A skin-integrated multimodal haptic interface for immersive tactile feedback,” Nature Electronics, vol. 6, no. 12, pp. 1020–1031, 2023

    2023

  6. [14]

    A soft, bistable valve for autonomous control of soft actuators,

    P. Rothemund, A. Ainla, L. Belding, D. J. Preston, S. Kurihara, Z. Suo, and G. M. Whitesides, “A soft, bistable valve for autonomous control of soft actuators,” Science Robotics, vol. 3, no. 16, p. eaar7986, 2018

    2018

  7. [15]

    Digital logic for soft devices,

    D. J. Preston, P. Rothemund, H. J. Jiang, M. P. Nemitz, J. Rawson, Z. Suo, and G. M. Whitesides, “Digital logic for soft devices,” Pro- ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , vol. 116, no. 16, pp. 7750–7759, 2019

    2019

  8. [16]

    A soft ring oscillator,

    D. J. Preston, H. J. Jiang, V . Sanchez, P. Rothemund, J. Rawson, M. P. Nemitz, W.-K. Lee, Z. Suo, C. J. Walsh, and G. M. Whitesides, “A soft ring oscillator,” Science Robotics, vol. 4, no. 31, p. eaaw5496, 2019

    2019

  9. [17]

    The soft compiler: A web-based tool for the design of modular pneumatic circuits for soft robots,

    S. V . Kendre, L. Whiteside, T. Y . Fan, J. A. Tracz, G. T. Teran, T. C. Underwood, M. E. Sayed, H. J. Jiang, A. A. Stokes, D. J. Preston, et al., “The soft compiler: A web-based tool for the design of modular pneumatic circuits for soft robots,” IEEE Robotics and Automation L...

    2022

  10. [18]

    Note on information transfer rates in human communication,

    C. M. Reed and N. I. Durlach, “Note on information transfer rates in human communication,” Presence, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 509–518, 1998

    1998

  11. [19]

    Optimum information transfer rates for communication through haptic and other sensory modalities,

    H. Z. Tan, C. M. Reed, and N. I. Durlach, “Optimum information transfer rates for communication through haptic and other sensory modalities,” IEEE Transactions on Haptics , vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 98–108, 2009

    2009

  12. [20]

    Rate–distortion theory and human perception,

    C. R. Sims, “Rate–distortion theory and human perception,” Cognition, vol. 152, pp. 181–198, 2016

    2016

  13. [21]

    Progressive co-adaptation in human-machine interaction,

    P. Gallina, N. Bellotto, and M. Di Luca, “Progressive co-adaptation in human-machine interaction,” in 2015 12th International Conference on Informatics in Control, Automation and Robotics (ICINCO) , vol. 2. IEEE, 2015, pp. 362–368

    2015

  14. [22]

    Embodiment and co-adaptation through human-machine interfaces: At the border of robotics, neuroscience and psychology,

    P. Beckerle, C. Castellini, B. Lenggenhager, and S. Dosen, “Embodiment and co-adaptation through human-machine interfaces: At the border of robotics, neuroscience and psychology,” p. 871785, 2022

    2022

  15. [23]

    Adapting user interfaces with model-based reinforcement learning,

    K. Todi, G. Bailly, L. Leiva, and A. Oulasvirta, “Adapting user interfaces with model-based reinforcement learning,” in Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , 2021, pp. 1–13

    2021

  16. [24]

    Towards personalized user interface design for news chatbots: A pilot study,

    X. Zhao, “Towards personalized user interface design for news chatbots: A pilot study,” in Extended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , 2023, pp. 1–6

    2023

  17. [25]

    Design and evaluation of a clippable and personalizable pneumatic-haptic feedback device for breathing guidance,

    K. Y . Choi, N. ElHaouij, J. Lee, R. W. Picard, and H. Ishii, “Design and evaluation of a clippable and personalizable pneumatic-haptic feedback device for breathing guidance,” Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies, vol. 6, no. 1, ...

    2022

  18. [26]

    Customizing haptic and visual feedback for assistive human–robot interface and the effects on performance improvement,

    H. U. Yoon, R. F. Wang, S. A. Hutchinson, and P. Hur, “Customizing haptic and visual feedback for assistive human–robot interface and the effects on performance improvement,” Robotics and Autonomous Systems, vol. 91, pp. 258–269, 2017

    2017

  19. [27]

    WRAP: Wearable, restricted-aperture pneumatics for haptic guidance,

    M. Raitor, J. M. Walker, A. M. Okamura, and H. Culbertson, “WRAP: Wearable, restricted-aperture pneumatics for haptic guidance,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation , 2017, pp. 427– 432

    2017

  20. [28]

    Macro-mini actuation of pneumatic pouches for soft wearable haptic displays,

    B. H. Do, A. M. Okamura, K. Yamane, and L. H. Blumenschein, “Macro-mini actuation of pneumatic pouches for soft wearable haptic displays,” in 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2021, pp. 14 499–14 505

    2021

  21. [29]

    Parametric haptics: Versatile geometry-based tactile feedback devices,

    V . Y . Han, A. Boadi-Agyemang, Y . Lin, D. Lindlbauer, and A. Ion, “Parametric haptics: Versatile geometry-based tactile feedback devices,” in Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, 2023, pp. 1–13

    2023

  22. [30]

    Haptoroom: Designing spatial and reconfigurable haptic experience using vibrotactile floor interface,

    K. Tsujita, T. Yoshida, K. Kobayashi, N. Hanamitsu, K. Zhong, A. Horie, and K. Minamizawa, “Haptoroom: Designing spatial and reconfigurable haptic experience using vibrotactile floor interface,” in Proceedings of the Nineteenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, a...

    2025

  23. [31]

    Design and evaluation of shape- changing haptic interfaces for pedestrian navigation assistance,

    A. J. Spiers and A. M. Dollar, “Design and evaluation of shape- changing haptic interfaces for pedestrian navigation assistance,” IEEE Transactions on Haptics , vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 17–28, 2016

    2016

  24. [32]

    The s-ban: Insights into the perception of shape-changing haptic interfaces via virtual pedestrian navigation,

    A. J. Spiers, E. Young, and K. J. Kuchenbecker, “The s-ban: Insights into the perception of shape-changing haptic interfaces via virtual pedestrian navigation,” ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction , 2022

    2022

  25. [33]

    Limit: Learning interfaces to maximize information transfer,

    B. A. Christie and D. P. Losey, “Limit: Learning interfaces to maximize information transfer,” ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction , vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 1–26, 2024

    2024

  26. [34]

    Electronics-free pneumatic circuits for controlling soft-legged robots,

    D. Drotman, S. Jadhav, D. Sharp, C. Chan, and M. T. Tolley, “Electronics-free pneumatic circuits for controlling soft-legged robots,” Science Robotics, vol. 6, no. 51, p. eaay2627, 2021

    2021

  27. [35]

    Logic-enabled textiles,

    A. Rajappan, B. Jumet, R. A. Shveda, C. J. Decker, Z. Liu, T. F. Yap, V . Sanchez, and D. J. Preston, “Logic-enabled textiles,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , vol. 119, no. 35, p. e2202118119, 2022

    2022

  28. [36]

    Programmable soft valves for digital and analog control,

    C. J. Decker, H. J. Jiang, M. P. Nemitz, S. E. Root, A. Rajappan, J. T. Alvarez, J. Tracz, L. Wille, D. J. Preston, and G. M. Whitesides, “Programmable soft valves for digital and analog control,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , vol. 119, no. 40, p. e2205922119, 2022

    2022

  29. [37]

    Sheet-based fluidic diodes for embedded fluidic circuitry in soft devices,

    V . T. V o, A. Rajappan, B. Jumet, M. D. Bell, S. Urbina, and D. J. Preston, “Sheet-based fluidic diodes for embedded fluidic circuitry in soft devices,” Advanced Intelligent Systems , vol. 6, no. 7, p. 2300785, 2024

    2024

  30. [38]

    Pneumatic coding blocks enable programmability of electronics-free fluidic soft robots,

    S. Picella, C. M. van Riet, and J. T. Overvelde, “Pneumatic coding blocks enable programmability of electronics-free fluidic soft robots,” Science Advances, vol. 10, no. 51, p. eadr2433, 2024

    2024

  31. [39]

    Monolithic desktop digital fabrication of autonomous walking robots,

    Y . Zhai, J. Yan, A. De Boer, M. Faber, R. Gupta, and M. T. Tolley, “Monolithic desktop digital fabrication of autonomous walking robots,” Advanced Intelligent Systems , p. 2400876, 2025

    2025

  32. [40]

    Fluidic computation kit: Towards electronic-free shape-changing interfaces,

    Q. Lu, H. Xu, Y . Guo, J. Y . Wang, and L. Yao, “Fluidic computation kit: Towards electronic-free shape-changing interfaces,” in Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , 2023, pp. 1–21

    2023

  33. [41]

    High-speed fluidic processing circuits for dynamic control of haptic and robotic systems,

    A. A. Stanley, E. S. Roby, and S. J. Keller, “High-speed fluidic processing circuits for dynamic control of haptic and robotic systems,” Science Advances, vol. 10, no. 14, p. eadl3014, 2024

    2024

  34. [42]

    Fluidically programmed wearable haptic textiles,

    B. Jumet, Z. A. Zook, A. Yousaf, A. Rajappan, D. Xu, T. F. Yap, N. Fino, Z. Liu, M. K. O’Malley, and D. J. Preston, “Fluidically programmed wearable haptic textiles,” Device, vol. 1, no. 3, 2023

    2023

  35. [43]

    Haptic collar: Vibrotactile feedback around the neck for guidance ap- plications,

    S. Schaack, G. Chernyshov, K. Ragozin, B. Tag, R. Peiris, and K. Kunze, “Haptic collar: Vibrotactile feedback around the neck for guidance ap- plications,” in Proceedings of the 10th Augmented Human International Conference 2019, 2019, pp. 1–4

    2019

  36. [44]

    Designing a vibrotactile head-mounted display for spatial awareness in 3d spaces,

    V . A. de Jesus Oliveira, L. Brayda, L. Nedel, and A. Maciel, “Designing a vibrotactile head-mounted display for spatial awareness in 3d spaces,” IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics , vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 1409–1417, 2017

    2017

  37. [45]

    Feedi-a smart wearable foot-band for navigation and guidance using haptic feedback,

    S. Stock, A. Bertemes, M. Stang, M. Böhme, D. Grimm, and W. Stork, “Feedi-a smart wearable foot-band for navigation and guidance using haptic feedback,” in International Conference on Human Interaction and Emerging Technologies (IHIET–AI). Springer, 2020, pp. 349–355

    2020

  38. [46]

    Haptic enchanters: Attachable and de- tachable vibrotactile modules and their advantages,

    G. Park, H. Cha, and S. Choi, “Haptic enchanters: Attachable and de- tachable vibrotactile modules and their advantages,” IEEE Transactions on Haptics, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 43–55, 2018

    2018

  39. [47]

    Learning reward functions from diverse sources of human feedback: Optimally integrating demonstrations and preferences,

    E. Bıyık, D. P. Losey, M. Palan, N. C. Landolfi, G. Shevchuk, and D. Sadigh, “Learning reward functions from diverse sources of human feedback: Optimally integrating demonstrations and preferences,” The International Journal of Robotics Research , vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 45–67, 2022

    2022

  40. [48]

    Here’s what i’ve learned: Asking questions that reveal reward learning,

    S. Habibian, A. Jonnavittula, and D. P. Losey, “Here’s what i’ve learned: Asking questions that reveal reward learning,” ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction (THRI) , vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 1–28, 2022

    2022

  41. [49]

    Social robots for education: A review,

    T. Belpaeme, J. Kennedy, A. Ramachandran, B. Scassellati, and F. Tanaka, “Social robots for education: A review,” Science robotics , vol. 3, no. 21, p. eaat5954, 2018

    2018

  42. [50]

    Factors for personalization and localization to optimize human–robot interaction: A literature review,

    N. Gasteiger, M. Hellou, and H. S. Ahn, “Factors for personalization and localization to optimize human–robot interaction: A literature review,” International Journal of Social Robotics , vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 689–701, 2023

    2023

  43. [51]

    Wrapping haptic displays around robot arms to communicate learning,

    A. A. Valdivia, S. Habibian, C. A. Mendenhall, F. Fuentes, R. Shailly, D. P. Losey, and L. H. Blumenschein, “Wrapping haptic displays around robot arms to communicate learning,” IEEE Transactions on Haptics , vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 57–72, 2023

    2023

  44. [52]

    Hapwrap: Soft growing wearable haptic device,

    N. Agharese, T. Cloyd, L. H. Blumenschein, M. Raitor, E. W. Hawkes, H. Culbertson, and A. M. Okamura, “Hapwrap: Soft growing wearable haptic device,” in 2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2018, pp. 5466–5472

    2018

  45. [53]

    Compressables: A haptic prototyping toolkit for wearable compression- based interfaces,

    S. Endow, H. Moradi, A. Srivastava, E. G. Noya, and C. Torres, “Compressables: A haptic prototyping toolkit for wearable compression- based interfaces,” in Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference, 2021, pp. 1101–1114

    2021

  46. [54]

    Understanding continuous and pleasant linear sensations on the fore- arm from a sequential discrete lateral skin-slip haptic device,

    C. M. Nunez, S. R. Williams, A. M. Okamura, and H. Culbertson, “Understanding continuous and pleasant linear sensations on the fore- arm from a sequential discrete lateral skin-slip haptic device,” IEEE transactions on haptics , vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 414–427, 2019

    2019

  47. [55]

    Physical human-robot interaction: Mutual learning and adaptation,

    S. Ikemoto, H. B. Amor, T. Minato, B. Jung, and H. Ishiguro, “Physical human-robot interaction: Mutual learning and adaptation,” IEEE robotics & automation magazine , vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 24–35, 2012

    2012

  48. [56]

    A mathematical theory of communication,

    C. E. Shannon, “A mathematical theory of communication,” The Bell system technical journal , vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 379–423, 1948

    1948

  49. [57]

    Probabilistic human intent recognition for shared autonomy in assistive robotics,

    S. Jain and B. Argall, “Probabilistic human intent recognition for shared autonomy in assistive robotics,” ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction (THRI), vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 1–23, 2019

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.