Factors of Haptic Experience across Multiple Haptic Modalities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Haptic Experience (HX) is a proposed set of quality criteria useful to haptics, with prior evidence for a 5-factor model with vibrotactile feedback. We report on an ongoing process of scale development to measure HX, and explore whether these criteria hold when applied to more diverse devices, including vibrotactile, force feedback, surface haptics, and mid-air haptics. From an in-person user study with 430 participants, exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), we extract an 11-item and 4-factor model (Realism, Harmony, Involvement, Expressivity) with only a partial overlap to the previous model. We compare this model to the previous vibrotactile model, finding that the new 4-factor model is more generalized and can guide attributes or applications of new haptic systems. Our findings suggest that HX may vary depending on the modalities used in an application, but these four factors are general constructs that might overlap with modality-specific concepts of HX. These factors can inform designers about the right quality criteria to use when designing or evaluating haptic experiences for multiple modalities.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".