{"id":26185,"date":"2020-11-10T02:02:20","date_gmt":"2020-11-10T02:02:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.immersion.com\/?p=26185"},"modified":"2021-04-19T17:01:08","modified_gmt":"2021-04-19T17:01:08","slug":"what-are-haptics","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.immersion.com\/zh\/what-are-haptics\/","title":{"rendered":"What are Haptics?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

By Felipe Almedia, Sr. UX Researcher
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Haptics is\ntraditionally used to describe tactile feedback (i.e., sensations originated\nsolely in the skin) that are provided by consumer devices and electronics to\nmimic the sense of touch.  The word haptics in itself is derived from the\nGreek word ‘\u1f01\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2 (haptikos)’, meaning “Pertaining to the sense of\ntouch.” <\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, if\nwe look at it further, we will realize that the sense of touch is not only\nlimited to tactile sensations and, therefore, nor should it be haptics (see\nParisi, 2013 for a discussion about the term \u201chaptic\u201d). Truth is, the\ndefinition of haptics is much more complex and thoughtful.  We need to\ngive it its credence. \n\nTo start, haptics is\nboth an art and a science.  \n\n\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yes, both. Haptics is a multidisciplinary field with a scientific layer based on a structured knowledge of biological receptors, a vast number of testing methods and perceptual studies, and a set of well-investigated parameters in both hardware and software domain for signal processing and programming. Haptics also has an artistic layer that uses scientific knowledge, directly or indirectly, to enable the creative expression of information and the induction of feelings through skeuomorphic or abstract somesthetic (i.e., tactile, thermal, pressure, and pain) sensations. Somesthetic defined as “relating to, or concerned with bodily sensations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\nfield’s richness sparks the curiosity of engineers, psychologists,\nneuroscientists, biologists, designers, and artists in university labs, the private\nsector, galleries, and museums. But while there is an increasing effort to\nshare knowledge and compare results, there is still little integration between\nthe disciplines. And now, more than ever, it is time to move towards an\nintegrative view of haptics. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

A\nclear example of the need for integration in haptics can be found in the number\nof nuanced definitions of the term. Here are some examples:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"

*  Various researchers in the field of haptics have multiple backgrounds and\/or work in departments that are the same as their original academic formation. This aspect in itself displays the richness within the field of haptic. <\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

Such a multidisciplinary perspective of haptics can lead to a long debate, especially in academia, about which differing view is the correct one. This debate is relevant because its definition influences its perception, and how we perceive haptics is important for industry, art, and science. Let’s attempt to further explore this topic by discussing some characteristics of haptics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Haptics are not only skeuomorphic touch sensations<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In both popular media and industry, a common view of\nhaptics is that it is focused on the accurate recreation of sensations\nperceived when interacting with “real-world” objects (i.e.,\nskeuomorphic haptics) such as buttons, levers, knobs, and even textures. But\nthis is a limited view of haptics. The interaction between cognition and\nemotion through touch sensations enables haptic researchers and designers to\nalso induce a vast array of emotional experiences by simulating not only\nexternal events (e.g., the recoil of different guns in a video game) but also\ninternal states (e.g., feeling the fatigue of the avatar in a sports game). See\nthis PlayStation blog post<\/a> for some amazing new\nexperience with the DualSense haptics technology. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Haptics, therefore, can not only provide objective\ninformation (e.g., inform when a button is activated or deactivated), but it\nalso has the potential to express and, therefore, invoke emotions. This idea is\nmore specifically related to the emerging field of Affective Haptics (Eid &\nOsman, 2015, p.26-27): <\/p>\n\n\n\n

“Affective haptics involves the acquisition of\nhuman emotions through the human touch sensory system, the processing of\nemotion-related haptic data to detect affect, and the display of emotional\nreactions via haptic interfaces. Emotions may be solely communicated through\nthe sense of touch or coordinated\/integrated with other sensory displays (such\nas audition or vision) in a multimedia system.”<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

But the simulation of the physical world and the\ninduction of feelings are not all that haptics can provide. Through haptic\ntechnologies, researchers, artists, and designers can also explore sensations\nthat are not commonly experienced in our daily lives. A good example is\nsensorial augmentations and substitutions. By using abstract bodily sensations,\nhaptics can induce new learnings to create new forms of communication (e.g.,\nhaptic emojis in apps or silent tactile language for the military and team\nsports), partially or fully recover sensorial perception (e.g., using devices\nwith spatial haptics<\/a> to guide visually impaired people)\nor even augment human sensorial perception (e.g., allowing people to feel\nfrequencies beyond our perceptual threshold). Chris Ulrich, Immersion’s CTO,\ntalks about the wide range of haptic experiences in a previous\narticle<\/a> and provides examples of new haptic technologies\nthat can expand the public’s perception beyond even the PS5 controller.\nAccording to Chris, there is much more that can be felt and experienced: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

“The current state of haptics\nsuffers from a lack of imagination on how to use your sense of touch.” <\/em><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Haptics are not isolated to a specific context<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Context is very important in haptic perception,\nsomething already explored in psychophysics studies. The relevance of context\nin haptics relates to the idea that tactile behaviors (e.g., hug, squeeze,\nshaking, etc.) do not have universal interpretations. The same behavior can\ncommunicate different types of interpretations that can even be of varying\nvalence polarities (e.g., sadness and love) (Hertenstein, Holmes, McCullough,\nKeltner, 2009). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hertenstein and colleagues showed that affect\ndiscrimination via touch is influenced not only by the type of tactile behavior\nbut also by its interaction with the duration and intensity of the stimulus.\nThus, communication or expression via touch seems to be closely related to the\ncontext in which the touch is induced and sensed, as well as to expectations\n(predictions) about the interaction using past experiences (Figure 1). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"

Figure 1.<\/strong> Tactile behavior (expression) is modulated by the relationship between emotional feelings (body), cognition (brain), and context (environment). More specifically, the sensing of a certain tactile behavior (e.g., stroke) is influenced by the multi-sensorial and affective context of the touch (external and internal to one’s body) as well as by the duration, intensity, warmth, characteristics of the surface, and wherein the body the touch is induced. Cognition is responsible for creating behavioral control and prediction to infer the type of tactile behavior best suitable for the moment. It does so by using previous bodily experiences and social cues (contextual information). In human-machine interaction, it is possible that this framework can be applied with the aid of A.I. systems to induce more accurate haptic feedback (i.e., feedback better adaptable to the context).   <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

\u00a0So, what are haptics?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Considering emotions and affect as crucial components\nof haptics adds to the complexity of defining haptics within a specific scope.\nThus, broad definitions of haptics, such as “the sense of touch<\/em>”\n(Culbertson, Schorr, & Okamura, 2018, p.02), seem to be a safer call. Of\ncourse, taking this route means also accepting that different fields might\ncompletely disagree. I have been in quite a few discussions in which a\nresearcher with a more specific definition in mind asks, “if haptics is\nthe sense of touch, then why call it haptics? Why not just call it touch?”  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

There are arguments to validate and invalidate such a question.\nHowever, a valid argument is that there is a difference between biological\ntactile interactions and technologically mediated tactile interactions.\nBiological tactile interactions not only follow natural structures, but they\nhave also evolved to enable optimal interaction within the physical environment\nof a certain species. Technologically mediated tactile interactions may be\nlimited by the laws of physics, but they are not fully constrained by our\nbiology or the physical world. We can create ways to substitute or augment our\nsenses and feel digital interactions. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thus, if one considers haptics through its experiential capabilities, then it is easier to look at it as comprising the following three aspects: the ability to actively explore the environment to learn about the physical world; to make sense of abstract bodily sensations to spur new learnings; and to induce and perceive emotions via touch sensations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thus, we should define haptics as the science of mediated touch<\/em><\/strong>, meaning the study of somesthetic sensations that are necessarily mediated by a computer and perceived by machines and\/or humans, between or within these groups. Therefore, tactile interactions between a human and a machine are here considered haptics as well as tactile interactions between two robots. Moreover, haptics comprises tactile interactions between two humans through any machine interface (e.g., a smartwatch, vest, controller, and even implants). However, a direct touch interaction between two humans or biological organisms is not haptics; it is touch.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The integrative view of haptics is part of our goal at Immersion. We have been working with other industry players and haptics researchers to reach this goal. You can read more about this effort in our previous articles about the standardization of haptics<\/a> and standardized haptic-enabled media files<\/a> (and also Lofelt’s article about haptic standards<\/a>). <\/p>\n\n\n\n