Getting Your Hands Dirty Outside the Lab: A Practical Primer for Conducting Wearable Vibrotactile Haptics Research
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As haptics have become an ingrained part of our wearable experience, particularly through phones, smartwatches, and fitness trackers, significant research effort has been conducted to find new ways of using wearable haptics to convey information, especially while we are on-the-go. In this paper, instead of focusing on aspects of haptic information design, such as tacton encoding methods, actuators, and technical fabrication of devices, we address the more general recurring issues and "gotchas" that arise when moving from core haptic perceptual studies and in-lab wearable experiments to real world testing of wearable vibrotactile haptic systems. We summarize key issues for practitioners to take into account when designing and carrying out in-the-wild wearable haptic user studies, as well as for user studies in a lab environment that seek to simulate real-world conditions. We include not only examples from published work and commercial sources, but also hard-won illustrative examples derived from issues and failures from our own haptic studies. By providing a broad-based, accessible overview of recurring issues, we expect that both novice and experienced haptic researchers will find suggestions that will improve their own mobile wearable haptic studies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it