Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 74 references

Semantic Haptic Feedback Enhances Dexterous Robotic Teleoperation

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that abstract, event-driven wrist haptics—not realistic fingertip touch—can give teleoperators the grasp and slip information that most improves bimanual performance.

desk verdict Real design framework and credible subjective gains for wrist-worn semantic haptics, but the bimanual 'superior performance' claim outruns the objective stats and a returning-participant confound is left unaddressed. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.02780 v1 pith:6NUQ2JEY submitted 2026-08-03 cs.RO cs.HC

Bingjian Huang , Sahar Aseeri , Jonas Schmidtler , Joseph Zhang , Sonny Chan , Andrew Doxon , Jom Preechayasomboon , Evan Pezent
show 4 more authors
Alberto Rigo Amir Memar Nicholas Colonnese Chase Tymms
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.HC
keywords teleoperationsemantichapticshapticfeedbackbimanualmanipulationtactilevirtualrealitysimulationgraspstabilityslipdetection
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 argues that teleoperation does not need to replicate touch sensations to be useful. Its claim is that abstract, event-driven haptic cues—a squeeze for 'grasp secured,' a buzz for 'about to slip or break'—convey the information an operator actually needs. The paper builds this semantic haptic pipeline in simulation, with wristbands as the output, and tests it in three user studies. The key result is that in a bimanual sorting task, semantic haptics outperformed visual and realistic sensory feedback on workload, situation awareness, and preference, while performing about the same in a unimanual task. If right, teleoperation systems could drop complex fingertip displays for simple wristbands without losing the information operators need.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the semantic router: a modular pipeline that takes robot-state estimates and maps them to two message classes—Confirmations and Exceptions—which are then rendered as pneumatic squeeze patterns or vibrotactile 'Geiger' patterns on wristbands. The state estimators are two simple algorithms: a gripper force detector that emits confirmation and break-warning messages from aggregated fingertip force, and a slip detector that counts fingertip contact points to detect incipient slip. The design study found the optimal mapping to be pneumatic confirmation plus vibrotactile warning, because steady pressure reads as a 'hold' and high-frequency vibration reads as an 'alarm.'

What would settle it

Run the identical bimanual sorting task on a physical robot with real force/torque and tactile sensing; if wrist-worn semantic feedback does not reduce container drops, cube breakage, effort, and workload relative to fingertip sensory feedback, the paper's central claim is not portable to hardware.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that semantic haptic feedback—abstract, event-driven patterns instead of continuous sensory replication—improves bimanual teleoperation. Its clearest support is the bimanual study, where wrist-worn semantic cues yielded the fewest container drops and broken cubes, significantly higher rated state awareness and dexterity, significantly lower physical demand than sensory fingertip haptics and lower effort than visual feedback, and the top preference ranking. The performance trends favored semantic haptics, though pairwise error comparisons did not reach significance after correction; the subjective advantages did. The paper is explicit that in a unimanual task the same feedback performed about as well as the alternatives, because with only one hand in view the operator's visual channel is not overloaded. It concludes that reducing high-dimensional contact information to low-dimensional, modality-congruent messages is a scalable direction for haptic-assisted teleoperation.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a simulation with known object-breaking thresholds and ground-truth contact forces stands in for real robot state estimation; if real sensing cannot supply that state reliably, the wristband's advantage may vanish.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Teleoperation systems can use lightweight wristbands instead of complex fingertip or exoskeleton displays, since feedback no longer needs to be co-located with the contact point.
  • The same one-to-many mapping lets a single haptic pattern type signal successful subgoals across different tasks, shortening the operator's learning curve.
  • Event-driven warnings are most valuable when attention is split between two hands, making bimanual tasks the natural target application for semantic haptics.
  • Designers should pair pneumatic cues with confirmations and vibrotactile cues with warnings, matching the haptic modality to its inherent meaning.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension: if semantic haptics is truly eyes-free, operators wearing a head-mounted display that occludes peripheral vision should still maintain left-hand grasp awareness, whereas visual feedback should fail the same test.
  • The one-to-many principle predicts that a single wristband pair could support an entire task menu—pick-and-place, insertion, wiping—without retraining, because the same semantic message types recur across action phases.
  • The paper's simulation reliance suggests a concrete hardware benchmark: with vision-language models estimating object fragility and tactile sensors estimating slip, wristband semantics could be evaluated on physical robots against the same sensory and visual baselines.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper introduces "semantic haptics" for dexterous robot teleoperation: abstract, event-driven haptic patterns (rather than continuous sensory replay) delivered via wrist-worn pneumatic and vibrotactile actuators to signal grasp confirmations and exceptions. The authors build a simulated bimanual teleoperation pipeline in Unreal Engine 5, define a two-category semantic model (Confirmation vs. Exception), and report three user studies: a 2x2 factorial comparison of four semantic designs, a unimanual evaluation against no-feedback, visual-overlay, and sensory-haptic baselines, and a bimanual evaluation of the same four feedback conditions. The factorial study identifies the pneumatic-for-confirmation / vibrotactile-for-warning mapping (Air+Vib) as most preferred; the unimanual study finds semantic haptics comparable but not superior to sensory haptics; the bimanual study finds that semantic haptics significantly reduces physical demand and effort, improves state awareness, and is the most preferred condition, while objective error metrics (cubes broken, containers dropped) show only omnibus effects with no pairwise comparisons surviving Bonferroni correction.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper's core idea is valuable: abstract, low-DoF haptic cues that encode task-level states could make haptic teleoperation hardware simpler and more scalable than high-fidelity sensory rendering. The paper has genuine strengths: it gives a clear formal definition of semantic haptics, builds a modular and reusable rendering pipeline, compares four feedback modalities in controlled within-subject studies, and reports null and non-significant results honestly (e.g., the unimanual null effects and the lack of pairwise significance in the bimanual error metrics). It also avoids circularity: the detection thresholds (T_grasp, T_break, F_max, N_loss, N_min) are a priori simulator parameters, not fitted to the outcome measures, and the modality-congruence hypothesis was fixed before data collection. The main risk is that the headline claim of "superior performance in bimanual tasks" rests on subjective outcomes and on a participant-overlap confound, and that all evidence is collected in simulation with ground-truth state estimates that may not transfer to physical robots.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section VI-E1 (Performance Metrics)] The abstract and introduction claim that semantic haptics "achieves superior performance in bimanual tasks." This claim is not supported by the objective performance data in Study Three. Cubes transferred (F(3,57)=0.82, p=.489), cubes dropped (p=.387), average peak grasp force (p=.077), and cube transfers per container (p=.103) were all non-significant; cubes broken (chi-square(3)=12.17, p=.007) and containers dropped (chi-square(3)=10.27, p=.016) were significant only at the omnibus level, with no pairwise comparison surviving Bonferroni correction (all p_adj >= .18 and >= .08, respectively). The significant advantages favoring semantic haptics are exclusively subjective: physical demand, effort, state awareness, and preference. The "superior performance" phrasing should be replaced with a claim about workload, awareness, and preference, or the authors should provide additional objective evidence.
  2. [Section VI (Bimanual Evaluation, Participant Recruitment)] The subjective results in the bimanual study are threatened by a participant-overlap confound. Of the 20 participants, 12 had previously attended the Study One factorial comparison in which the exact Air+Vib semantic condition used in Study Three was identified as the most preferred and "dominant" mapping. These returning participants therefore entered Study Three with extra practice on the favored condition and with prior exposure to the semantic wristband, whereas the sensory-fingertip and visual-overlay conditions were comparatively novel. This provides a plausible alternative explanation for the preference, state-awareness, and effort effects, as well as for the directional error reductions. The paper does not report any analysis separating returning from naive participants, nor does it list this overlap as a limitation. The authors should either reanalyze the data as a function of prior participation or temper the causal language in the abstract and conclusions.
  3. [Section III-A and Section VII-C (Simulation-to-Physical Transfer)] The paper's central demonstration is entirely in simulation, and the state-estimation pipeline relies on simulated ground-truth contact forces, a preset fracture threshold (e.g., 120N), and empirically chosen slip-detection thresholds (N_loss, N_min). Section III-A states that simulation was chosen "to simplify state estimation," and Section VII-C concedes that extension to physical robots would require vision-language models for object properties and tactile sensors on end-effectors. If the simulated contact and slip dynamics differ from real robot physics, the conclusions about wrist-worn semantic haptic feedback may not hold on physical hardware. This is a load-bearing premise for a paper titled "Enhances Dexterous Robotic Teleoperation." The authors should either present a physical-robot validation (even a small pilot) or explicitly qualify the scope of the title and abstract to "simulated teleoperation" and frame physical transfer as an open question.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] There is a typo in the abstract: "To addresses these limitations" should read "To address these limitations."
  2. [Section III-A] The sentence "we built two interaction scenes (Figure 3" is missing a closing parenthesis; it should be "(Figure 3)".
  3. [Figure 5 caption] The caption states that the combination [Air+Vib] is "unanimously preferred" by participants, but the reported mean rank is 1.33 +/- 0.78, which is not unanimity; "most preferred" would be accurate.
  4. [Section IV-F] The sentence "The qualitative findings complement the quantitative data and prove Air+Vib's dominance" uses "prove" too strongly given that several objective metrics were null and post-hoc tests were not all significant; "support" would be more appropriate.
  5. [Algorithm 2] The notation is inconsistent: Algorithm 2's Require line writes "Nmin < N loss" with a space, while the text uses "N_min" and "N_loss"; please unify the subscript formatting throughout.
  6. [Figure 7] The subplot labels "Cube Transferred," "Cube Broken," and "Cube Dropped" should be plural ("Cubes Transferred," "Cubes Broken," "Cubes Dropped") to match the terminology in the text and other figures.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; semantic condition selection and simulator thresholds are design inputs, not recycled predictions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is empirical rather than deductive, and no load-bearing step reduces by construction to its own inputs. The state-estimation thresholds (T_grasp, T_break, F_max, N_loss, N_min) are simulator and gripper-geometry settings, not parameters fitted to the outcome measures; they define when feedback fires, but they are not recycled into the performance or preference conclusions. Study One selects the Air+Vib semantic mapping from a 2x2 factorial comparison using preference and subjective ratings; Studies Two and Three then use that mapping as the semantic-haptics condition against independent baselines (no feedback, visual overlay, sensory haptics). This is a design-selection protocol, not a fitted input relabeled as a prediction. The abstract's 'superior performance' claim rests on the bimanual study's subjective outcomes and directional error trends, and the participant overlap in Study Three is a real methodological confound, but a confound is not circularity: the comparison conditions are not derived from the favored mapping. Self-citations to Bellowband [69] and Aerohaptix [65] provide hardware and prior-design context, not load-bearing uniqueness theorems or ansatz smuggling. No equation or statistical construction equates the output with the input. The paper is self-contained against external benchmarks and its central comparisons are genuinely empirical, so no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on simulator fidelity, a design taxonomy borrowed from neuroscience, and statistically underpowered user studies. The free parameters are the undisclosed state-estimation thresholds that determine when confirmations and warnings fire. No new physical entities are introduced: semantic haptics is a design concept, not an invented mechanism.

free parameters (5)
  • T_grasp = not reported
    Grasp force threshold in Algorithm 1 that triggers the stable-grasp confirmation. It is a preset task parameter, and its value is not disclosed.
  • T_break = not reported
    Force threshold in Algorithm 1 above which a break warning is emitted. It is a preset task parameter tied to cube fragility.
  • F_max = not reported
    Maximum reference force in Algorithm 1 used to linearly ramp warning intensity as force approaches the break threshold.
  • N_loss = not reported
    Slip-onset contact-count threshold in Algorithm 2, below which a slip warning is declared. The paper says it was empirically identified, but the value is not given.
  • N_min = not reported
    Minimum-contact threshold in Algorithm 2 at which the container has effectively left the gripper. It sets the ramp endpoint for the slip warning intensity.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Unreal Engine 5 physics provides contact forces and fracture behavior representative of real robot-object interaction.
    The entire empirical evaluation is in simulation, as described in Section III-A. If simulated contact and fracture dynamics differ from physical robots, the haptic design conclusions may not transfer.
  • domain assumption The Johansson-Flanagan action-phase model is the right decomposition for teleoperation assistance.
    Section III-C grounds the confirmation and exception message taxonomy in this neuroscience model. If the model does not capture what teleoperators need, the message categories may be incomplete or misleading.
  • ad hoc to paper Pneumatic steady pressure is congruent with confirmation and vibration is congruent with warning.
    This is the central design hypothesis tested in Study One and carried forward. It was inferred from affective touch and metaphor literature, not derived from task data, and the paper itself notes that mismatched mappings degrade experience.
  • domain assumption Sample sizes of 12, 12, and 20 are sufficient to detect the reported effects.
    Several key comparisons did not survive Bonferroni correction, and the paper attributes nulls to hardware latency and within-subject variability. No power analysis is provided.
  • standard math Repeated-measures ANOVA and Friedman test assumptions are satisfied after the reported corrections.
    Shapiro-Wilk, Mauchly, and Greenhouse-Geisser corrections are used, but with small samples and overlapping participants across studies, non-independence and low power remain risks.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Semantic Haptic Feedback Enhances Dexterous Robotic Teleoperation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6NUQ2JEY

@misc{pith2026260802780,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Semantic Haptic Feedback Enhances Dexterous Robotic Teleoperation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6NUQ2JEY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.02780}
}
read the original abstract

In robot teleoperation, haptic feedback can be used to help human operators accomplish dexterous manipulation tasks. However, existing haptic feedback methods try to replicate high-fidelity sensory haptics that are felt in real world interactions, which are constrained by the sensing and feedback hardware capability and may lead to higher workload. To addresses these limitations, this work introduces semantic haptics for teleoperation, which uses abstract haptic patterns to convey critical information about robot states. We categorize robot states into "Confirmations" and "Exceptions", implement a modular haptic rendering pipeline in robot simulation, and deliver semantic haptic feedback to operators through pneumatic and vibrotactile wristbands. This simplifies hardware requirements and enables one-to-many mappings between haptic patterns and robot states. Through three evaluation studies, we identify the most effective semantic haptic design for a common pick and place teleoperation task and compare semantic haptics to other teleoperation feedback approaches including sensory haptics and visual feedback. Results suggest that while semantic haptics performs similarly as other feedback in unimanual tasks, it achieves superior performance in bimanual tasks, with reduced task workload, increased situational awareness, and overall preference.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.02780 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Semantic haptic feedback utilizes symbolic haptic patterns to communicate discrete, abstract information regarding [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Semantic haptic teleoperation pipeline. Real-time physics engine feeds fingertip contact-rich information to state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Teleoperation setup and interaction scenes built using the simulation environment for the evaluation studies. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Dexterous manipulation tasks can be partitioned into [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Performance metrics and subjective ratings reported in the semantic haptics comparison study. The combination of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Performance metrics and subjective ratings reported in the unimanual evaluation study. Sensory haptic feedback is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Performance metrics and subjective ratings reported in the bimanual evaluation study. Semantic haptic feedback is found [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Learning fine-grained bimanual manipulation with low-cost hardware,

    T. Z. Zhao, V . Kumar, S. Levine, and C. Finn, “Learning fine-grained bimanual manipulation with low-cost hardware,” inProceedings of Robotics: Science and Systems (RSS), 2023

    2023

  2. [2]

    π 0: A vision-language-action flow model for general robot control,

    K. Black, N. Brown, D. Driess, A. Esmail, M. Equi, C. Finn, N. Fusai, L. Groom, K. Hausman, B. Ichteret al., “π 0: A vision-language-action flow model for general robot control,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.24164, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    R. R. Murphy,Disaster robotics. MIT press, 2014

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    Emergency response to the nuclear accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plants using mobile rescue robots,

    K. Nagatani, S. Kiribayashi, Y . Okada, K. Otake, K. Yoshida, S. Ta- dokoro, T. Nishimura, T. Yoshida, E. Koyanagi, M. Fukushimaet al., “Emergency response to the nuclear accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plants using mobile rescue robots,”Journal of Field Robotics, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 44–63, 2013

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    Tactile telerobots for dull, dirty, dangerous, and inaccessible tasks,

    J. A. Fishel, T. Oliver, M. Eichermueller, G. Barbieri, E. Fowler, T. Hartikainen, L. Moss, and R. Walker, “Tactile telerobots for dull, dirty, dangerous, and inaccessible tasks,” in2020 IEEE International conference on robotics and automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2020, pp. 11 305–11 310

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Human performance issues and user interface design for teleoperated robots,

    J. Y . Chen, E. C. Haas, and M. J. Barnes, “Human performance issues and user interface design for teleoperated robots,”IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews), vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 1231–1245, 2007

    work page 2007

  7. [7]

    Study of multimodal interfaces and the improvements on teleoperation,

    E. Triantafyllidis, C. McGreavy, J. Gu, and Z. Li, “Study of multimodal interfaces and the improvements on teleoperation,”IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 78 213–78 227, 2020

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Coding and use of tactile signals from the fingertips in object manipulation tasks,

    R. S. Johansson and J. R. Flanagan, “Coding and use of tactile signals from the fingertips in object manipulation tasks,”Nature Reviews Neuroscience, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 345–359, 2009

    2009

Show all 74 references
  1. [9]

    Remote force control of robot using phantom haptic model and force sensor,

    T. Horie, K. Tanaka, N. Abe, and H. Taki, “Remote force control of robot using phantom haptic model and force sensor,” inProceedings of the 2001 IEEE International Symposium on Assembly and Task Planning (ISATP2001). Assembly and Disassembly in the Twenty-first Century.(Cat. N...

    2001

  2. [10]

    Haptic interaction in tele- operation control system of construction robot based on virtual reality,

    X. Tang, D. Zhao, H. Yamada, and T. Ni, “Haptic interaction in tele- operation control system of construction robot based on virtual reality,” in2009 International Conference on Mechatronics and Automation. IEEE, 2009, pp. 78–83

    2009

  3. [11]

    Hand teleoperation with combined ki- naesthetic and tactile feedback: A full upper limb exoskeleton interface enhanced by tactile linear actuators,

    D. Leonardis, M. Gabardi, S. Marcheschi, M. Barsotti, F. Porcini, D. Chiaradia, and A. Frisoli, “Hand teleoperation with combined ki- naesthetic and tactile feedback: A full upper limb exoskeleton interface enhanced by tactile linear actuators,”Robotics, vol. 13, no. 8, p. 119, 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    Bimanual telemanipulation with force and haptic feedback and predictive limit avoidance,

    C. Lenz and S. Behnke, “Bimanual telemanipulation with force and haptic feedback and predictive limit avoidance,” in2021 European Conference on Mobile Robots (ECMR). IEEE, 2021, pp. 1–7

    2021

  5. [13]

    Cutaneous/tactile haptic feedback in robotic teleoperation: Motivation, survey, and perspectives,

    C. Pacchierotti and D. Prattichizzo, “Cutaneous/tactile haptic feedback in robotic teleoperation: Motivation, survey, and perspectives,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 40, pp. 978–998, 2023

    2023

  6. [14]

    A tactile shape sensing and display system for teleoperated manipulation,

    D. A. Kontarinis, J. S. Son, W. Peine, and R. D. Howe, “A tactile shape sensing and display system for teleoperated manipulation,” in Proceedings of 1995 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, vol. 1. IEEE, 1995, pp. 641–646

    1995

  7. [15]

    Armband with soft robotic actuators and vibrotactile stimulators for bimodal haptic feedback from a dexterous artificial hand,

    M. A. Abd, M. Bornstein, E. Tognoli, and E. D. Engeberg, “Armband with soft robotic actuators and vibrotactile stimulators for bimodal haptic feedback from a dexterous artificial hand,” in2018 IEEE/ASME International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics (AIM). IEEE,...

    2018

  8. [16]

    A novel skin-stretch haptic device for intuitive control of robotic prostheses and avatars,

    N. Colella, M. Bianchi, G. Grioli, A. Bicchi, and M. G. Catalano, “A novel skin-stretch haptic device for intuitive control of robotic prostheses and avatars,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 1572–1579, 2019

    2019

  9. [17]

    Sensory subtraction in robot-assisted surgery: fingertip skin deformation feedback to ensure safety and improve transparency in bimanual haptic interaction,

    L. Meli, C. Pacchierotti, and D. Prattichizzo, “Sensory subtraction in robot-assisted surgery: fingertip skin deformation feedback to ensure safety and improve transparency in bimanual haptic interaction,”IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, vol. 61, no. 4, pp. 1318–1327, 2014

    2014

  10. [18]

    Ef- fects of grip-force, contact, and acceleration feedback on a teleoperated pick-and-place task,

    R. P. Khurshid, N. T. Fitter, E. A. Fedalei, and K. J. Kuchenbecker, “Ef- fects of grip-force, contact, and acceleration feedback on a teleoperated pick-and-place task,”IEEE transactions on haptics, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 40–53, 2016

    2016

  11. [19]

    The value of haptic feedback in conventional and robot-assisted minimal invasive surgery and virtual reality training: a current review,

    O. A. J. van der Meijden and M. P. Schijven, “The value of haptic feedback in conventional and robot-assisted minimal invasive surgery and virtual reality training: a current review,”Surgical Endoscopy, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 1180–1190, 2009

    2009

  12. [20]

    Cutaneous haptic feedback to ensure the stability of robotic teleopera- tion systems,

    C. Pacchierotti, L. Meli, F. Chinello, M. Malvezzi, and D. Prattichizzo, “Cutaneous haptic feedback to ensure the stability of robotic teleopera- tion systems,”The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 34, no. 14, pp. 1773–1787, 2015

    2015

  13. [21]

    Effects of haptic feedback on precision peg insertion tasks under different visual and communication latency conditions,

    T. Tanioka, H. Nagano, Y . Tazaki, and Y . Yokokohji, “Effects of haptic feedback on precision peg insertion tasks under different visual and communication latency conditions,”Robotics, vol. 14, no. 3, p. 34, 2025

    2025

  14. [22]

    The benefit of force feedback in surgery: Examination of blunt dissection,

    C. R. Wagner, N. Stylopoulos, P. G. Jackson, and R. D. Howe, “The benefit of force feedback in surgery: Examination of blunt dissection,” Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 252–262, 2007

    2007

  15. [23]

    Haptics: The present and future of artificial touch sensation,

    H. Culbertson, S. B. Schorr, and A. M. Okamura, “Haptics: The present and future of artificial touch sensation,”Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems, vol. 1, pp. 385–409, 2018

    2018

  16. [24]

    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

    2020

  17. [25]

    Vibrotactile display: Perception, technology, and applications,

    S. Choi and K. J. Kuchenbecker, “Vibrotactile display: Perception, technology, and applications,”Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 101, no. 9, pp. 2093–2104, 2013

    2013

  18. [26]

    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,” inProceedings of the 36th annual ACM symposium on user interface software and technology, 2023, pp. 1–15

    2023

  19. [27]

    Hcr: Haptic continuum robot for multi-modal cutaneous feedback,

    J.-T. Lin, A. Mangan, and T. K. Morimoto, “Hcr: Haptic continuum robot for multi-modal cutaneous feedback,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2025

    2025

  20. [28]

    Perceptual design of haptic icons,

    K. E. MacLean and M. Enriquez, “Perceptual design of haptic icons,” inProceedings of EuroHaptics, 2003, pp. 351–363

    2003

  21. [29]

    Tactons: Structured tactile messages for non-visual information display,

    S. A. Brewster and L. M. Brown, “Tactons: Structured tactile messages for non-visual information display,” inProceedings of the Fifth Aus- tralasian User Interface Conference (AUIC2004). Australian Computer Society, 2004, pp. 15–23

    2004

  22. [30]

    Telerobotics,

    G. Niemeyer, C. Preusche, S. Stramigioli, and D. Lee, “Telerobotics,” inSpringer handbook of robotics. Springer, 2016, pp. 1085–1108

    2016

  23. [31]

    Doglove: Dexterous manipulation with a low-cost open-source haptic force feedback glove,

    H. Zhang, S. Hu, Z. Yuan, and H. Xu, “Doglove: Dexterous manipulation with a low-cost open-source haptic force feedback glove,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.07730, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Prometheus: Universal, open-source mocap-based teleoperation system with force feedback for dataset col- lection in robot learning,

    S. Satsevich, A. Bazhenov, S. Egorov, A. Erkhov, M. Gromakov, A. Fedoseev, and D. Tsetserukou, “Prometheus: Universal, open-source mocap-based teleoperation system with force feedback for dataset col- lection in robot learning,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.01023, 2025

  25. [33]

    Cutaneous feedback interface for teleoperated in-hand manipulation,

    Y . Zhu, J. Colan, T. Aoyama, and Y . Hasegawa, “Cutaneous feedback interface for teleoperated in-hand manipulation,” in2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2022, pp. 605–611

    2022

  26. [34]

    Design and realization of the cuff-clenching upper-limb force feedback wearable device for distributed mechano-tactile stimulation of normal and tangential skin forces,

    S. Casini, M. Morvidoni, M. Bianchi, M. Catalano, G. Grioli, and A. Bicchi, “Design and realization of the cuff-clenching upper-limb force feedback wearable device for distributed mechano-tactile stimulation of normal and tangential skin forces,” in2015 IEEE/RSJ International ...

    2015

  27. [35]

    Sensory substitution for force feedback in teleoperation,

    M. J. Massimino and T. B. Sheridan, “Sensory substitution for force feedback in teleoperation,” inAnalysis, Design and Evaluation of Man– Machine Systems 1992. Elsevier, 1993, pp. 109–114

    1992

  28. [36]

    Learning variable compliance control from a few demonstrations for bimanual robot with haptic feedback teleoperation system,

    T. Kamijo, C. C. Beltran-Hernandez, and M. Hamaya, “Learning variable compliance control from a few demonstrations for bimanual robot with haptic feedback teleoperation system,” in2024 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2024, pp. ...

    2024

  29. [37]

    Low-cost teleoperation with haptic feedback through vision-based tactile sensors for rigid and soft object manipulation,

    M. Lippi, M. C. Welle, M. K. Wozniak, A. Gasparri, and D. Kragic, “Low-cost teleoperation with haptic feedback through vision-based tactile sensors for rigid and soft object manipulation,” in2024 33rd IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Com- munication...

    2024

  30. [38]

    Verrotouch: High-frequency ac- celeration feedback for telerobotic surgery,

    K. J. Kuchenbecker, J. Gewirtz, W. McMahan, D. Standish, P. Martin, J. Bohren, P. J. Mendoza, and D. I. Lee, “Verrotouch: High-frequency ac- celeration feedback for telerobotic surgery,” inInternational Conference on Human Haptic Sensing and Touch Enabled Computer Applications...

    2010

  31. [39]

    Kist teleoperation system for humanoid robot,

    S. Chang, J. Kim, I. Kim, J. H. Borm, C. Lee, and J. O. Park, “Kist teleoperation system for humanoid robot,” inProceedings 1999 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, vol. 2. IEEE, 1999, pp. 1198–1203

    1999

  32. [40]

    Haptic feedback in teleoperation of multifingered robot hands,

    Y . Shen, W. Lo, K. Li, and Y . Liu, “Haptic feedback in teleoperation of multifingered robot hands,”Intelligent Automation & Soft Computing, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 143–154, 2003. JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. 14, NO. 8, AUGUST 2021 18

    2003

  33. [41]

    A high performance tactile feedback display and its integration in teleoperation,

    I. Sarakoglou, N. Garcia-Hernandez, N. G. Tsagarakis, and D. G. Cald- well, “A high performance tactile feedback display and its integration in teleoperation,”IEEE Transactions on Haptics, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 252–263, 2012

    2012

  34. [42]

    Tactile feedback induces reduced grasping force in robot-assisted surgery,

    C.-H. King, M. O. Culjat, M. L. Franco, C. E. Lewis, E. P. Dutson, W. S. Grundfest, and J. W. Bisley, “Tactile feedback induces reduced grasping force in robot-assisted surgery,”IEEE Transactions on Haptics, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 103–110, 2009

    2009

  35. [43]

    A pneumatic-driven haptic glove with force and tactile feedback,

    M. W. Uddin, X. Zhang, and D. Wang, “A pneumatic-driven haptic glove with force and tactile feedback,” in2016 International Conference on Virtual Reality and Visualization (ICVRV). IEEE, 2016, pp. 304–311

    2016

  36. [44]

    Force feedback based gripper control on a robotic arm,

    T. M. Park, S. Y . Won, S. R. Lee, and G. Sziebig, “Force feedback based gripper control on a robotic arm,” in2016 IEEE 20th Jubilee International Conference on Intelligent Engineering Systems (INES). IEEE, 2016, pp. 107–112

    2016

  37. [45]

    On the role of wearable haptics for force feedback in teleimpedance control for dual-arm robotic teleoperation,

    J. P. Clark, G. Lentini, F. Barontini, M. G. Catalano, M. Bianchi, and M. K. O’Malley, “On the role of wearable haptics for force feedback in teleimpedance control for dual-arm robotic teleoperation,” in2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 201...

    2019

  38. [46]

    The effects of laterotactile information on lump localization through a teletaction system,

    C. Roke, A. Spiers, T. Pipe, and C. Melhuish, “The effects of laterotactile information on lump localization through a teletaction system,” in2013 World Haptics Conference (WHC). IEEE, 2013, pp. 365–370

    2013

  39. [47]

    Evaluation of skin deformation tactile feedback for teleoperated surgical tasks,

    Z. F. Quek, W. R. Provancher, and A. M. Okamura, “Evaluation of skin deformation tactile feedback for teleoperated surgical tasks,”IEEE Transactions on Haptics, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 102–113, 2019

    2019

  40. [48]

    Simplifying telerobotics: Wearability and teleimpedance improves human-robot interactions in teleoperation,

    S. Fani, S. Ciotti, M. G. Catalano, G. Grioli, A. Tognetti, G. Valenza, A. Ajoudani, and M. Bianchi, “Simplifying telerobotics: Wearability and teleimpedance improves human-robot interactions in teleoperation,” IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 77–88, 2018

    2018

  41. [49]

    A method for controlling tactile sensation of surface roughness using ultrasonic vibration,

    T. Watanabe and S. Fukui, “A method for controlling tactile sensation of surface roughness using ultrasonic vibration,” inProceedings of 1995 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, vol. 1. IEEE, 1995, pp. 1134–1139

    1995

  42. [50]

    Effects of introducing tactile feedback in macro-micro teleoperation systems,

    H. Tokashiki, K. Kaneko, and K. Tanie, “Effects of introducing tactile feedback in macro-micro teleoperation systems,”JSME International Journal Series C, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 560–567, 2000

    2000

  43. [51]

    Efficient object exploration and object presentation in teleta, teleoperation system with tactile feedback,

    D. Tsetserukou and S. Tachi, “Efficient object exploration and object presentation in teleta, teleoperation system with tactile feedback,” in World Haptics 2009 - Third Joint EuroHaptics Conference and Sym- posium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator S...

    2009

  44. [52]

    Towards a wearable interface for immersive telepresence in robotics,

    U. Martinez-Hernandez, M. Szollosy, L. W. Boorman, H. Kerdegari, and T. J. Prescott, “Towards a wearable interface for immersive telepresence in robotics,” inInteractivity, Game Creation, Design, Learning, and Innovation. Springer International Publishing, 2017, pp. 65–73

    2017

  45. [53]

    Teleoperation performance using excavator with tactile feedback,

    K. Hayashi and T. Tamura, “Teleoperation performance using excavator with tactile feedback,” in2009 International Conference on Mechatron- ics and Automation. IEEE, 2009, pp. 2759–2764

    2009

  46. [54]

    High frequency acceleration feedback significantly increases the realism of haptically rendered textured surfaces,

    W. McMahan, J. M. Romano, A. M. Abdul Rahuman, and K. J. Kuchen- becker, “High frequency acceleration feedback significantly increases the realism of haptically rendered textured surfaces,” in2010 IEEE Haptics Symposium. IEEE, 2010, pp. 141–148

    2010

  47. [55]

    Improvement of shape distinction by kinesthetic-tactile integration,

    K. Sato, H. Kajimoto, N. Kawakami, and S. Tachi, “Improvement of shape distinction by kinesthetic-tactile integration,” inSecond Joint EuroHaptics Conference and Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems (WHC’07). IEEE, 2007, pp. 391–396

    2007

  48. [56]

    Designing haptic feedback for sequential gestural inputs,

    S. Xu, S. Sykes, P. Abtahi, T. Grossman, D. Walden, M. Glueck, and C. Rognon, “Designing haptic feedback for sequential gestural inputs,” inProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2024, pp. 1–17

    2024

  49. [57]

    A phonemic- based tactile display for speech communication,

    C. M. Reed, H. Z. Tan, Z. D. Perez, E. C. Wilson, F. M. Severgnini, J. Jung, J. S. Martinez, Y . Jiao, A. Israr, F. Lauet al., “A phonemic- based tactile display for speech communication,”IEEE transactions on haptics, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 2–17, 2018

    2018

  50. [58]

    Linking haptic parameters to the emotional space for mediated social touch,

    C. Rognon, B. Stephens-Fripp, J. Hartcher-O’Brien, B. Rost, and A. Is- rar, “Linking haptic parameters to the emotional space for mediated social touch,”Frontiers in Computer Science, vol. 4, p. 826545, 2022

    2022

  51. [59]

    Perceptual analysis of haptic icons: an investigation into the validity of cluster sorted mds,

    J. Pasquero, J. Luk, S. Little, and K. MacLean, “Perceptual analysis of haptic icons: an investigation into the validity of cluster sorted mds,” in 2006 14th Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems. IEEE, 2006, pp. 437–444

    2006

  52. [60]

    Hapticgen: generative text- to-vibration model for streamlining haptic design,

    Y . Sung, K. John, S. H. Yoon, and H. Seifi, “Hapticgen: generative text- to-vibration model for streamlining haptic design,” inProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2025, pp. 1–24

    2025

  53. [61]

    Vibviz: Organizing, visual- izing and navigating vibration libraries,

    H. Seifi, K. Zhang, and K. E. MacLean, “Vibviz: Organizing, visual- izing and navigating vibration libraries,” in2015 IEEE World Haptics Conference (WHC). IEEE, 2015, pp. 254–259

    2015

  54. [62]

    The role of affective touch in human– robot interaction: Human intent and expectations in touching the Haptic Creature,

    S. Yohanan and K. E. MacLean, “The role of affective touch in human– robot interaction: Human intent and expectations in touching the Haptic Creature,”International Journal of Social Robotics, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 163–180, 2012

    2012

  55. [63]

    When is a haptic message like an inside joke? digitally mediated emotive communication builds on shared history,

    X. L. Cang, A. Israr, and K. E. MacLean, “When is a haptic message like an inside joke? digitally mediated emotive communication builds on shared history,”IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 732–746, 2023

    2023

  56. [64]

    A descriptive analysis of a formative decade of research in affective haptic system design,

    P. Vyas, U. M. Desai, K. Yamakawa, and K. Maclean, “A descriptive analysis of a formative decade of research in affective haptic system design,” inProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2023, pp. 1–23

    2023

  57. [65]

    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

  58. [66]

    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

  59. [67]

    A modular haptic display with reconfigurable signals for personalized information transfer,

    A. A. Valdivia, B. A. Christie, D. P. Losey, and L. H. Blumenschein, “A modular haptic display with reconfigurable signals for personalized information transfer,”IEEE Transactions on Haptics, 2026

    2026

  60. [68]

    Adult norms for the box and block test of manual dexterity,

    V . Mathiowetz, G. V olland, N. Kashman, and K. Weber, “Adult norms for the box and block test of manual dexterity,”The American journal of occupational therapy, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 386–391, 1985

    1985

  61. [69]

    Bel- lowband: A pneumatic wristband for delivering local pressure and vibration,

    E. M. Young, A. H. Memar, P. Agarwal, and N. Colonnese, “Bel- lowband: A pneumatic wristband for delivering local pressure and vibration,” in2019 IEEE World Haptics Conference (WHC). IEEE, 2019, pp. 55–60

    2019

  62. [70]

    Development of nasa-tlx (task load index): Results of empirical and theoretical research,

    S. G. Hart and L. E. Staveland, “Development of nasa-tlx (task load index): Results of empirical and theoretical research,” inAdvances in psychology. Elsevier, 1988, vol. 52, pp. 139–183

    1988

  63. [71]

    Factors of haptic experience across multiple haptic modalities,

    A. Anwar, T. Shi, and O. Schneider, “Factors of haptic experience across multiple haptic modalities,” inProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2023, pp. 1–12

    2023

  64. [72]

    The aligned rank transform for nonparametric factorial analyses using only anova procedures,

    J. O. Wobbrock, L. Findlater, D. Gergle, and J. J. Higgins, “The aligned rank transform for nonparametric factorial analyses using only anova procedures,” inProceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, 2011, pp. 143–146

    2011

  65. [73]

    Vibrotactile in-vehicle navigation system,

    J. B. Van Erp and H. A. Van Veen, “Vibrotactile in-vehicle navigation system,”Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Be- haviour, vol. 7, no. 4-5, pp. 247–256, 2004

    2004

  66. [74]

    Feel who’s talking: using tactons for mobile phone alerts,

    L. M. Brown and T. Kaaresoja, “Feel who’s talking: using tactons for mobile phone alerts,” inCHI’06 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems, 2006, pp. 604–609

    2006

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.