This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics. This is the author's version which has not been fully edited andcontent may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TVCG.2023.3295389

JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. XX, NO. X, XXXX XXXX

1

Age and Gender Differences in the
Pseudo-Haptic Effect on Computer Mouse
Operation in a Desktop Environment
Yuki Ban, Member, IEEE, and Yusuke Ujitoko, Member, IEEE
Abstract—Pseudo-haptics is a method that can provide a haptic sensation without requiring a physical haptic device. The effect of
pseudo-haptics is known to depend on the individual, but it is unclear which factors cause individual differences. As the ﬁrst study
establishing a calibration method for these differences in future research, we examined the differences in the pseudo-haptic effect onmouse cursor operation in a desktop environment depending on the age and gender of the user. We conducted an online experimentand collected data from more than 400 participants. The participants performed a task of lifting a virtual object with a mouse pointer.
We found that the effect of pseudo-haptics was greater in younger or male participants than in older or female participants. We also
found that the effect of pseudo-haptics, which varied with age and gender, can be explained by habituation to the mouse in daily life
and the accuracy of detecting the pointer position using vision or proprioception. Speciﬁcally, the pseudo-haptic effect was higher for
those who used the mouse more frequently and had higher accuracy in identifying the pointer position using proprioception or vision.
The results of the present study not only indicate the factors that cause age and gender differences but also provide hints for calibratingthese differences.
Index Terms—Haptics, Pseudo-haptics, Individual difference

F

1

I NTRODUCTIONW

I th the development of virtual reality and humancomputer interaction systems, attention to the presentation of haptic information has been increasing rapidly,
not only in research ﬁelds but also in society. Familiar
examples include the presentation of vibrations on smartphones, touchscreens, game controllers, and head-mounted
displays. However, owing to the limited availability of inexpensive, compact, and easy-to-use actuators, commerciallyavailable products do not have a common mechanism forpresenting haptic information, such as weight, force, orcompliance. Although various attempts have been made in
the research ﬁeld, it has not yet been possible to present
complex and varied haptic impressions using only inexpensive, small-sized, and lightweight devices.
Recently, the cross-modal effect has attracted attention asa new methodology for presenting sensory information [1].
The cross-modal effect is an illusory phenomenon in which
the perception of one sensory stimulus changes due to theinﬂuence of other sensory stimuli received at the same time.
There are various ﬁndings on the cross-modal effect related
to haptic perception, and strong illusions can be observed
between vision and haptic perception [2].
Among such visuo-haptic cross-modal interactions,
pseudo-haptics has attracted particular attention in theﬁelds of virtual reality (VR) and human-computer interac-••

Yuki Ban is with the Graduate School of Frontier Sciences, the Universityof Tokyo, Chiba, Japan. E-mail: ban@edu.k.u-tokyo.ac.jp
Yusuke Ujitoko is with the NTT Communication Science Laboratories,
Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corporation, Atsugi, Japan. E-mail:yusuke.ujitoko@gmail.com

Manuscript received XXXX XX, 2022.

tion [3], [4]. Users feel haptic sensations with pseudo-haptics
by observing the difference in the movement of their bodyand the corresponding visual feedback. For example, whena virtual dumbbell moves faster than a real one that the user
moves, it makes users perceive the dumbbell as lighter [5].
Previous studies have shown that this phenomenon can beused to present haptic impressions such as weight [6] andforce [7]. By using pseudo-haptics, haptic sensations can bepresented without a device that physically reproduces haptic sensations. In addition, by combining this phenomenon
with a haptic device, it is possible to present haptic information with a resolution and intensity that exceed the physicallimits of the device [8]. The development of displays thatutilize pseudo-haptics is expected to help the spread of
haptic content in the real world, which has not been as
widespread as visual and auditory content owing to the size,
complexity, and cost of stimulus presentation devices.
However, we empirically know that the effects ofpseudo-haptics vary among individuals. In other words,
even when the same visual stimuli are presented, theperceived intensity of the haptic sensations differs among
participants [9]. In previous studies, the effects of visual
stimuli were evaluated by averaging the effects amongexperimental participants without considering the variationin the effects among individuals. Therefore, it was not clear
which participant factors affected individual differences in
the pseudo-haptic effect. To establish pseudo-haptics as a robust haptic presentation technology, it is necessary to clarify
the characteristics of individuals that affect the illusion effectand to develop a method to control individual differences.
The purpose of this study is to identify how user’s age
and gender affect the effectiveness of pseudo-haptics torealize a method to compensate for these individual differ-This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics. This is the author's version which has not been fully edited andcontent may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TVCG.2023.3295389

JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. XX, NO. X, XXXX XXXX

ences in future studies. In this paper, the effectiveness ofpseudo-haptics means the magnitude of modulated haptic
perception when the same visual stimulus is presented. In
the ﬁeld of optical illusions, it has been reported that theeffectiveness of illusions changes with age. Speciﬁcally, theeffectiveness of illusions increases or decreases with age
depending on the illusion mechanism [10]. In addition, it
has been reported that there are some optical illusions,such as the Poggendorff illusion, in which the magnitudeof the illusion is larger for females than for males [11],[12].Furthermore, it has been reported that females becomeless accustomed to the Müller-Lyer illusion than males when
the illusion is presented repeatedly and that the illusion
effect persists [13]. The occurrence of cross-modal effects has
also been reported to vary depending on the age, gender,and culture of the experiencer [14]. Since pseudo-haptics is
an illusory phenomenon, especially the vision-related crossmodal illusion, and is considered to be somewhat related to
optical illusions, we hypothesized that the illusory effect of
pseudo-haptics may be affected by individual characteristics, such as age and gender.
In this study, as a ﬁrst step to identify the factorsthat cause individual differences in the effectiveness ofpseudo-haptics, we focused on the pseudo-haptic effectthat modulates illusional weight perception during liftingof a virtual object with a computer mouse on a desktop
PC environment. We collected data from various age andgender groups and investigated the changes in the illusion
effect depending on these characteristics.
In addition, since pseudo-haptics is an illusional phenomenon in which haptic perception is modulated by visually presented information, we hypothesized that theaccuracy of detecting the mouse pointer position using
proprioception or vision would affect the effect of pseudohaptics and designed a task to test this hypothesis.

2

R ELATED W ORKS

2.1

Individual differences in sensory illusion

Many researchers have conducted various studies on individual differences in the effectiveness of sensory illusions.
Binet was the ﬁrst to classify optical illusions based on
the changes of their effect with development. He classiﬁed
various illusions into innate and acquired illusions [15].
In the former, the magnitude of the illusion gradually decreased with age, whereas in the latter, the illusion appearedlate and its magnitude increased gradually. Many studies
have reported on the relationship between age and theeffectiveness of various optical illusions. For example, moststudies have reported a linear decrease in the effectivenessof the Müller-Lyer and Delbouef illusions with age [10],[16]. However, some studies have shown that the illusions
increase with age in the group of 5 to 9 years of age [17]. The
effectiveness of the Ponzo and horizontal–vertical illusions
has been reported to increase until a certain age and thenremain constant or decrease with age [18], [19]. The generaldevelopmental tendency of the Ponzo illusion is a gradualincrease from 4 to 7 years of age, followed by a decrease.
Although the age at which the illusion reaches its maximum
varies from 7 to 13 years, depending on the study, allstudies agree that the illusion reaches its maximum at a2

certain age. Regarding the horizontal-vertical illusion, moststudies reported that the effectiveness of illusion gradually
increased from the age of 5, reached its maximum at 9 or 10,
and then decreased [19], although some studies reported
that the effectiveness of the illusion reaches its maximum
in adulthood [17]. For the Ebbinghaus illusion, it has beenreported that the illusion effect does not occur in children
between 4 and 6 years of age, and that no alteration in size
perception occurs [20].
Research on gender differences in the effectiveness of
optical illusions has also been conducted. Shaqiri et al. conducted a large-scale study with more than 800 participants
and reported that the effectiveness of the Ponzo illusion waslarger in females than in males [21]. In their experiment,no signiﬁcant differences between males and females were
found for Ebbinghaus, Müller-Lyer, Ponzo-Hallway, and Tilt
illusions. Declerck et al. conducted an experiment with the
Poggendorff illusion and reported that the percentage ofperceptual error due to the illusion was signiﬁcantly larger
in females than in males [11]. Moreover, for the horizontalvertical illusion, Fraisse et al. conﬁrmed that females havestronger illusions than males under the condition of no time
limit in the visual presentation of the ﬁgures [19]. However,
the effects of gender on visual perception are complex,
and there is no comprehensive study of gender differencesin optical illusions, although there have been attempts to
explain gender differences based on differences in brain
activity when viewing illusory ﬁgures [22].
It has been reported that not only age and gender but
also the cultural environment in which a person grew up
can affect the effectiveness of an optical illusion. Bremner
et al. used the Ebbinghaus illusion to reveal cross-culturaldifferences in illusion effects in childhood and adolescence[23]. They compared the effectiveness of the Ebbinghaus
illusion between urban dwellers and people with little orno exposure to urban or Western artifacts and reported thaturban dwellers had a stronger illusion effect.
2.2 Age, gender, and cultural differences in the crossmodal illusion
Age, gender, and cultural differences have been shown toaffect the effectiveness of cross-modal illusions, although
the number of reports is not as large as in the case of
optical illusions. In the McGurk effect, which is a crossmodal effect between visual and auditory perception, it has
been reported that the effectiveness of illusion is greaterin adults than in children, and lip-reading ability has been
cited as one of the factors causing this difference [24]. It has
been suggested that observers with low lip-reading ability
use phonetic cues rather than visual cues, thus reducing
the occurrence of the McGurk effect. Moreover, it has beenreported that the illusory effect is relatively weaker among
Japanese-speaking adults and children than among Englishspeaking adults and children [25], [26], suggesting thatthe cultural difference in the illusory effect is related tothe difference in the stopping position of the gaze on the
speaker in Japanese and English-speaking countries [27].
In addition, the size-weight illusion, a cross-modal effectbetween visual and haptic sensations, has been reported tobe larger in adults than in children [28]. By contrast, Nyssen

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics. This is the author's version which has not been fully edited andcontent may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TVCG.2023.3295389

JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. XX, NO. X, XXXX XXXX

& Bourdon reported that the effectiveness of the size-weightillusion did not differ according to sex or education level[29].
Individual differences in the interaction between aroma
and taste have also been investigated. Bertelsen et al. hypothesized that the interaction between aroma and taste
varies among individuals and investigated the inﬂuenceof individual differences (gender, age, and “sweet liker
status”) on the effect of aroma on sweetness intensity among
young adults [14]. The results of the study showed thatfemales were more susceptible to the sweetness-enhancing
effect of vanilla aroma than males. The researchers clusteredparticipants according to their sweet liker status based on
their preference for the samples and found that althoughsweet taste ratings were found to vary with the sweet
liker status, aroma enhanced the sweetness ratings similarly
across clusters.
As described above, it has been reported that age,gender, and cultural differences affect sensory illusions.
However, although pseudo-haptics is a cross-modal illusion,
such individual differences have not been investigated.
2.3

Pseudo-haptics

Recently, considerable research has focused on pseudohaptics, which expresses tactile sensations using only crossmodal effects. Pseudo-haptics refers to the tactile feel that
occurs when the movement of a virtual pointer on a screen
differs from that of a physical body. When a user believes
that the pointer moves according to the movement of theirbody, changes in the movement of the pointer are regarded
as changes in the haptic sense, such as the force on thehands, and evoke a pseudo-haptic sensation.
There are mainly three types of input used for generating
pseudo-haptics: amount of movement of the user’s actions;the force needed to press down on a surface, such as a touch
screen; and the duration of clicking a mouse or touchinga screen [4]. There are mainly three types of output: themovement or rotation of a virtual body part or pointer,the surface deformation of a virtual object, and the color
or size of the pointer. In this study, we focus on pseudohaptic feedback, where the amount of movement of theuser’s hand is used as an input, and the movement of apointer is used as an output. The ratio of the amount of
input movement (Control) and output movement (Display)
is called the CD ratio, and we can modify various tactile
perceptions by controlling this ratio. This type of pseudohaptics is reportedly able to present weight [6], compliance [30], [31], kinetic/static friction [30], [32], and roughness of object surface texture [33], [34]. If the CD ratio issmaller than 1.0, the output motion is smaller than the actual
input motion, and the user perceives increased weight orresistance with this ratio. In this paper, a large effectivenessof pseudo-haptics means a large change in haptic perception
when the same visual stimulus is presented. For example,
when presented with a CD ratio of 0.8, users with large
effectiveness of pseudo-haptics perceive the virtual object tobe very heavy, while users with small effectiveness perceive
almost no change in weight.
Situations where this type of pseudo-haptics can begenerated include mouse operation in a desktop computer3

environment, touch screen, and gesture input by the user’s
hand movements. Some studies have conﬁrmed that thesame effects, such as manipulation of weight perception,
can be obtained by manipulating the same CD ratio evenin different situations [3], [5].
As an example of the application of this type of pseudohaptics, a presentation of an object s weight has been
proposed for computer games where the user interacts
with a virtual environment (VE). These proposals are often
implemented using hand gestures, but they can also be
applied to PC games where users interact with VE throughmouse operations [35], [36]. Some researchers proposed applying pseudo-haptics with mouse operation to the desktop
user interfaces. Mensvoort et al. created a design tool formouse-operated pseudo-haptics and published it online as“PowerCursor” [37]. They proposed improving the usabilityof the UI using pseudo-haptic feedback, which attracts or
repels the mouse cursor to a button or pull-down menu.
Applications to learning tools for understanding cause-andeffect relationships between concepts or events have also
been proposed. For example, Kashihara et al. conﬁrmedthat pseudo-haptic feedback for manipulating a concept
map representing knowledge learned from an instructional
text could promote awareness of important concepts andrelationships embedded in the text [38]. Presenting a heavy
feel to the nodes representing concepts could indicate animportant concept. Additionally, by making the nodes repel
or attract each other, relationships among the nodes can besuggested [39]. Thus, presenting pseudo-haptic feedback is
expected to promote understanding of the corresponding
concepts and relationships.
2.4

Mechanism of pseudo-haptics

It is important to survey the proposed mechanisms ofpseudo-haptics because individual differences can be explained by them. Several theories have been proposed to
explain the mechanism of pseudo-haptics.
2.4.1 The maximum likelihood estimation
One theory is that this phenomenon is based on the maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) framework [40] proposed by Ernst et al. This theory explains that sensory information is integrated based on its reliability (likelihood) for
people to estimate the properties of physical objects. They
have shown that the perception of spatial properties basedon vision and proprioception can be explained as a MLE
that integrates information from both sensory modalities tomaximize the accuracy of the ﬁnal spatial perception [40].
They examined the perception of the width of an object
picked with two ﬁngers, while there was a gap between
the visual and proprioceptive information. They conﬁrmedthat the perceived width of the object was almost identical to the maximum likelihood estimate calculated fromthe perceptual distribution when judged only by vision or
only by proprioception. It has also been reported that thecontribution of visual information to the width perceptionof an object is reduced when noise is added to the image
to reduce the accuracy of vision or when the viewpoint ischanged [40], [41].
Based on these ﬁndings, it can be hypothesized thatpeople with a lower accuracy of proprioception are more

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics. This is the author's version which has not been fully edited andcontent may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TVCG.2023.3295389

JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. XX, NO. X, XXXX XXXX

strongly affected by visual stimuli in pseudo-haptics, andthe effectiveness of the illusion may be stronger. Furthermore, it can be hypothesized that people with a higher
accuracy of vision are more strongly affected by visual
stimuli in pseudo-haptics. In fact, it has been reported
that it is important to hide the actual body movements of
the user or keep the user’s awareness away from actual
body movements by keeping them away from the visualpresentation to generate a strong pseudo-haptic effect [3],[42]. These reports could also support the importance of
reducing the sensory accuracy of one’s own body position
in improving the effect of pseudo-haptics.
2.4.2 The forward dynamics calculations and the inverse
dynamics calculations
Unlike MLE, which adequately describes spatial perception,
there is an attempt to explain the mechanism of pseudohaptics using forward dynamics calculations (FDC) andinverse dynamics calculations (IDC) that consider the relationship between motion and force. FDC is the processof estimating the motion information of an object fromthe information of the applied force. For example, it has
been suggested that when a person moves their arm, thetrajectory of the hand is predicted by forward dynamics
calculations based on the motor commands to the muscles [43], [44]. It has been found that the prediction ofhand trajectory by forward dynamics calculation may be
involved in pseudo-haptics [45]. Honda et al. constructed anexperimental system in which a virtual object displayed ona monitor was moved by manipulating a manipulandum.
They reported that when the visual feedback of the positionof the virtual object was delayed by 400 ms, the virtual
object’s weight was perceived to be heavier than when
the feedback was not delayed. They hypothesized that thisphenomenon was due to a prediction error in the hand
position caused by the delay. To test this hypothesis, they
compared the perceived weight of a virtual object in acondition in which the object was continuously exposed
to delayed visual feedback and in a condition in which
the object was continuously exposed to non-delayed visualfeedback. They found that the perceived weight was lighterin the former condition, in which the prediction error was
expected to be smaller. Conversely, IDC estimates the force
applied to an object from the object s motion. Takamura andGomi investigated the strength of kinetic resistance whilevarying the visual movement of the cursor on the screen
and the periodic movement of the stylus pen [46]. They
conﬁrmed that the strength of motor resistance associatedwith cursor delay correlated with the acceleration in the
direction of cursor movement. This result suggests that their
participants used IDC with visual motion information as
input to form an internal model of the dynamics of thespring-damper system.
Based on these ﬁndings, it is expected that the effect of
pseudo-haptics will become stronger when the prediction
error of motion caused by visual feedback is clearly perceived. To perceive the motion prediction error clearly, it isnecessary to have a high accuracy of the sense of motion
and of one’s own body position.
Summarily, the mechanism of pseudo-haptics is explained by MLE, which is concerned with the perception

4

Original mouse pointer movement

Visually presented movement

Virtual Object

Actual pointerPointer

Control
Display

Fig. 1. Illustration of the control/display ratio (CD ratio). During dragging,
the actual movement of the pointer (control; shown on the left side)
multiplied by the CD ratio is the movement of the visually presented
pointer (display; shown on the right side). When the virtual object was
not dragged by the visually presented pointer, the actual pointer andvisually presented pointer movements were the same.

of spatial characteristics, and FDC/IDC, which focuses on
the relationship between motion and force. The accuracyof the user’s proprioception may affect the effectiveness ofpseudo-haptics in some way, although there are differences
depending on the evidence of the mechanism of pseudohaptics. We designed tasks to measure the accuracy of detecting the mouse pointer using proprioception and visionand investigated the relationship between the results ofthese tasks and the effectiveness of pseudo-haptics.

3

E XAMINING THE EFFECTS OF AGE , GENDER ,AND OTHER FACTORS ON THE PSEUDO - HAPTIC EF FECT

3.1

Experimental design

We conducted an online experiment using crowdsourcing
to collect data on the effects of pseudo-haptics from alarge number of participants of different ages and genders.
Although it is possible that there are differences in themagnitude of the pseudo-haptic effect among racial groups,
in this study, we focused on Japanese people as the ﬁrst
stage of data collection. Thus, we used Lancers [47], one of
the largest crowdsourcing sites in Japan.
We chose a mouse pointer manipulation in a desktop
environment as it is a common pseudo-haptic effect that canbe performed online. While various studies have been conducted on the effects of pseudo-haptics in mouse manipulation [33], we focused on weight perception of lifting a virtual
object with a pointer and designed the task accordingly.
Several studies have reported gender and age differencesin weight perception in real space. Ross et al. investigatedthe effects of gender and handedness on weight discrimination when lifting a box by hand [48]. They reported
that males performed better with their dominant hand andfemales performed better with their non-dominant hand,with no overall advantage by gender. Maguinness et al.
examined the effect of aging on the ability to discriminate
the object s weight from the other s lifting action [49]. Theirexperiment revealed that older adults were less sensitive
than younger adults in discriminating the weight of a liftedbox. They discussed that the sensitivity to subtle visual
weight cues was reduced due to age-related visual andmotor dysfunction and that the elderly needed more salient

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics. This is the author's version which has not been fully edited andcontent may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TVCG.2023.3295389

JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. XX, NO. X, XXXX XXXX

•

•

•

H1-A: It has been reported that older adults havelower pointing motor accuracy than younger adults
in the absence of visual feedback [51], indicatingthat they rely more on visual than proprioceptive
information [52], [53]. Thus, we hypothesized that if
the weight perception presented by pseudo-haptics is
induced based on the MLE framework, the pseudohaptic effect is stronger in the elderly, whose proprioception accuracy is low, and the contributionof visual information to motion is larger than inyounger adults.
H1-B: It has been reported that motion prediction
accuracy is lower in the elderly than in young
adults [54]. Therefore, we hypothesized that if thepseudo-haptics of weight are based on the framework of FDC/IDC, the effect of pseudo-haptics
would be greater in young adults, whose motor prediction accuracy is higher than that of older adults.
H2: Some studies revealed that the difference in accuracy between males and females in motion prediction
is slight or insigniﬁcant [55], and different results
have been reported which of the genders is more accurate in proprioception depending on experimental
design and other factors [56], [57]. Therefore, we hypothesized that there would be no gender differencein the effectiveness of pseudo-haptic weight.

Therefore, in addition to the pseudo-haptic rating task,
we conducted a “haptic pointing task” and “visual pointing
task,” as described in Section 3.3 and 3.4 and a questionnaire
survey on the frequency of mouse use in daily life after
the completion of all tasks. We designed these tasks basedon the works of Haaland et al. and Block et al. comparing
the effects of proprioceptive and visual information on armaiming movements between young and elderly adults [52],[53]. To examine the inﬂuence of proprioceptive informationon the pointing task, they set up a condition where the target
position was displayed but the hand position was not fed
back. They also set up a condition where the hand position
was displayed but the target position was not fed back to
examine the inﬂuence of visual information on pointing.

Lift up the left box

Description

Target Line

Pointer
Lifting up

visual cues to interpret the actions of others accurately. Since
we estimate weight from visual cues in pseudo-haptics, if
the sensitivity to visual cues decreases with age, as in the
results of Maguinness et al. [49], the pseudo-haptic effects
may be less likely to occur in the elderly than in the young.
The implementation of pseudo-haptics that changes
weight perception follows a previous study [50]. Speciﬁcally,
when a virtual object is lifted by the pointer, the apparent
amount of movement of the pointer (display, shown on
the right side in Fig. 1) is equal to the original amount of
movement of the mouse pointer (control, shown on the left
side in Fig. 1) multiplied by a certain gain (control/display
ratio; CD ratio). Participants rated the perceptual intensityof weight. We called this task a “pseudo-haptic rating task.”
We considered that not only the age and gender of theparticipants but also the familiarity with mouse operationand the localization accuracy of the pointer with proprioception and vision could affect the illusion effect. We tested
the following three hypotheses in this experiment. H1-A and
B are hypotheses related to age and H2 is related to gender;

5

Floor

Target Line

Virtual Object

Fig. 2. Pseudo-haptic rating task. The participants lifted two virtual
objects from the ﬂoor to the target line by dragging. Of the two objects,
one corresponds to a standard stimulus (CD ratio = 1.0) and the othercorresponds to a comparison stimulus (CD ratio = 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, 1.0, 1.1,
1.2, or 1.3).

We designed the haptic pointing task and the visual
pointing task by arranging their experiments so that they
could be conducted in the mouse manipulation in the online
experiment.
Since this experiment was conducted online, an instructional manipulation check was introduced to check whether
the experimental participants were seriously engaged in thetask. The maximum duration of the experiment was 35 min
per person.
3.2

Pseudo-haptic rating task

Fig. 2 shows the experimental screen of the pseudo-haptic
rating task. In this study, the entire data collection was inJapanese, so that the task descriptions in the experimental
screens were also in Japanese (they are translated into English in the ﬁgures). The participant manipulated the whitecircle pointer using the mouse. The actual mouse pointerwas not displayed in this task. On the task screen, the ﬂoor
surface, two virtual objects, and a target line for the height
to which the virtual objects were to be lifted were displayed.
The participant dragged the left and right virtual objects up
to the target line, as instructed on the experimental screen.
Because this experiment was conducted using crowdsourcing, the size of the monitors used by the participants was
not standardized. However, the experimental screen wasdisplayed in full screen mode to prevent the screen size frombeing changed during the experiment. The distance from theﬂoor to the target line in Fig. 2 was set to 385 px, and thediameter of the white circle pointer was set to 28 px.
When the white circle pointer was not dragging thevirtual objects, the pointer moved at the same speed as
the actual mouse pointer (which was hidden). However,when the virtual object was dragged by the white circle
pointer, the pointer and virtual object moved according
to the CD ratio. In other words, when the CD ratio was
greater than 1.0, the virtual object moved faster than theactual mouse pointer, and the object should be perceived
as lighter based on previous ﬁndings of pseudo-haptics.
By contrast, when the CD ratio was smaller than 1.0, thevirtual object moved slower than the actual mouse pointerand should have been perceived as heavy. The manipulationof the pointer displacement according to the CD ratio wasThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics. This is the author's version which has not been fully edited andcontent may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TVCG.2023.3295389

JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. XX, NO. X, XXXX XXXX

6

3.3

Fig. 3. Weight evaluation by visual analog scale. Because the initial
position of the slider’s knobs may bias the responses, the knob was
not displayed until the participant clicked on the slider.

performed only for vertical mouse movements. Participants
were instructed to move the mouse in a straight verticaldirection when lifting the virtual box. When the participant
stopped dragging the virtual object with the pointer, thevirtual object fell to the ﬂoor. The acceleration during the fall
was set to be constant (30 px/s2 ) regardless of the CD ratio
setting. The repulsion coefﬁcient of the ﬂoor was set to zeroto eliminate the effect of repulsion on weight perception.
One of the two virtual objects had a CD ratio of 1.0 as astandard stimulus.The other virtual object had a CD ratio of
0.7, 0.8, 0.9, 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, or 1.3 as a comparison stimulus.
After the participants lifted the two virtual objects, they
were asked to rate the weight of the second lifted virtual
object on a scale of 0 (extremely light) to 100 (extremely
heavy), compared with the ﬁrst lifted object, using the visual
analog scale method [58] (Fig. 3). The participants wereasked to answer the weight of the second virtual object,
as compared to the weight of the ﬁrst lifted virtual object
being 50. This response method was based on a previous
study where participants were asked to respond to theirimpression of the weight of a virtual object that was changed
by visual stimuli [59]. Therefore, when the virtual object of
the comparison stimulus was perceived as heavier/lighter
than the standard stimulus (CD ratio: 1.0), the rated value
was expected to be larger/smaller.
To eliminate the effects of order, we alternated which of
the two virtual objects was lifted ﬁrst. The participants lifted
the two virtual objects, compared them, and answered theimpression of weight. They performed six trials for each CD
ratio of the comparison stimulus. Therefore, each participant
performed 42 trials in total during the experiment (7 CDratios, ×, 6 trials). The order of the CD ratios presented wascounterbalanced among participants.

Move the pointer to the Start Line

Haptic pointing task

To verify the accuracy of the sense of body position, thatis, proprioception, we designed a “haptic pointing task”
in mouse manipulation. This task was designed to verify
the pointing accuracy of each participant when manipulating the mouse pointer in the experiment. As described in
Section 2, the effectiveness of pseudo-haptics may be affected by the accuracy of the participant’s proprioception. In
the ordinary pseudo-haptic situation, the participant’s own
body motion is hidden by the visual stimulus presentation.
Thus, in this study, the accuracy of the body motion in
the visually hidden state, that is, the pointing ability inthe visually hidden state, was deﬁned as the accuracy of
proprioception in the mouse pointer operation.
In this task, participants moved the pointer from thebottom to the top of the screen to the target line by mouse
operation, while the pointer was not visible. At the start of
the task trial, the pointer was visible, as shown in Fig.4, andit disappeared upon crossing the start line. The participants
were instructed to move the hidden pointer by mouse operation and to left click at the position where they considered
the target line had been displayed. The appearance of thepointer was the same as that in the pseudo-haptic ratingtask, and the position of the starting line was the same as
the ﬂoor line in the pseudo-haptic rating task. The target
line position had three variations: the same position as in
the pseudo-haptic rating task and positions 50 px above andbelow it.
The participants practiced the pointing task ﬁve times
with the pointer visible to experience the sense of distance
beforehand. Afterward, the participants performed six trials
with the pointer hidden, and we measured the distance bywhich the participants responses deviated from the target
line as the absolute error (E in Fig.4). As in the pseudohaptic rating task, participants were instructed to move themouse in a straight vertical direction in the haptic/visual
pointing task. We used the absolute error as the verticalerror from the target line.
In this study, we used the length of this absolute error(E ) for each trial as the accuracy of the sense of the mousepointer’s position (i.e., the proprioception of the mousepointer). The smaller E is, the shorter the distance from thetarget line to the user’s response position, indicating that

Task description

Target Line

Target Line

With the pointer invisible, move the mouse until you feel thatthe center of the pointer has reached the target line, then left-click
Target LineE
Hidden Pointer(In the task, the pointer iscompletely invisible)

L

Start Line
Pointer(a) Task start screen

Start LineStarted(b) Participant clicked the mouse button when they thought
the hidden pointer reached the target line

Fig. 4. Haptic pointing task. The participant moved the pointer to the target line by mouse operation, while the pointer was not visible. E represents
the distance of the pointing error, and L represents the distance from the start line to the target line.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics. This is the author's version which has not been fully edited andcontent may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TVCG.2023.3295389

JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. XX, NO. X, XXXX XXXX

Check the target line’s position

7

Task description

Move the pointer to the height of the target line and then press the space key(press UP/DOWN keys to move up/down, press SHIFT key to accelerate).

Target Line

Target Line

PointerStart Line

Moving up(Press space key)E

Hidden Target Line

(In the task, the line iscompletely invisible)

L
PointerStart Line(a) Task start screen(b) Participant pressed the space key when they thought
the pointer reached the hidden target line.

Fig. 5. Visual pointing task. The participant moved the pointer to the target line by keyboard input, while the target line was not visible. E represents
the distance of the pointing error, and L represents the distance from the start line to the target line.

the user’s proprioception is accurate. It has been reported
that the absolute error (E ) increases with the distance to thetarget position (L) in pointing tasks that hide the pointer,such as the one performed in this study [52], [60]. As mentioned above, there were three conditions for the positionof the target line, and we presented each condition twice
at random. Since the distance between the start and target
lines (L in Fig.4) varied depending on this condition, wedeﬁned the error score of the task as E/L. The smaller thisscore was, the higher the pointing accuracy.
3.4 Visual pointing task
We also designed a task to verify the accuracy of visual
detection of the pointer position.
In this task, the target line was ﬁrst displayed to theparticipants. After 5 s, the line was hidden, and participants
were instructed to move the pointer to the position where
the target line had been displayed (Fig.5). To avoid theinﬂuence of proprioception, the pointer was moved up anddown by pressing up or down arrow keys on the keyboard
and not by controlling the mouse. The participants were
instructed to press the space key when they felt that the
pointer had reached the position where the target line had
been displayed. The appearance of the pointer and the
movement from the bottom to the top were the same asin the pseudo-haptic rating task and the haptic pointing
task. The position of the starting line was the same as in thehaptic pointing task. The position of the target line had threedifferent variations: the same position as in the pseudohaptic rating task and positions 50 px above and below it.
The participants practiced this pointing task ﬁve times
with the target line visible to experience the sense of distance beforehand. After that, the participants performed
six trials, and we measured the distance by which theparticipants’ responses deviated from the target line (E in
Fig.5). In this task, the error score was set in the same way
as in the haptic pointing task (error score = E/L).
3.5 Post-task questionnaire
After ﬁnishing all tasks, participants were given a questionnaire to collect information about the frequency of mouseuse. The frequency of mouse use was rated on a 5-point scalefrom 5 (Use a mouse almost every day) to 1 (Do not use amouse at all on a daily basis). As a dummy task, we also
asked about the dominant hand and the hand that operates
the mouse. These two questions were not included in theevaluation.
3.6 Instructional Manipulation Check
A potentially serious problem in online surveys is the damage to data caused by the occurrence of “satisﬁcing.” Satisﬁcing originally referred to “the behavior of determining
and pursuing procedures that meet the minimum necessary
to achieve an objective” [61], and in this context, it meansthat the participant acts without devoting the appropriate
amount of attention to the research [62]. Skipping the reading of instructional text is one example of satisﬁcing. For thisreason, we introduced a question to detect satisﬁcing in thequestionnaire. Speciﬁcally, an attention check test called the
instructional manipulation check (IMC) [63] was includedin the experimental explanation of the task screen and in the
post-task questionnaire.
In the explanation of the experiment, a button labeled“Next” was placed below the explanatory text, and participants were able to click on the button to move to the next
explanation. As the IMC, we prepared a screen in which theparticipant had to click on the text instead of the button toproceed. On this screen, the instruction to click on the text
instead of pressing the button was hidden in the descriptionof the experiment so that the participants would not notice it
unless they carefully read the description. If the participants
clicked the Next button instead of the button in the text,
their data were excluded from the analysis. Moreover, inthe post-task questionnaire, the question “Choose 4 for thisquestion” was included among the 5-point-scale questions,and the data of the participants who answered other than 4
were excluded from the analysis.
Finally, we excluded participants who gave inappropriate responses in the haptic and visual pointing tasks.
Speciﬁcally, we excluded participants who responded tothese tasks by barely moving the pointer from the start line(the distance they moved the pointer was less than 0.1 L in

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics. This is the author's version which has not been fully edited andcontent may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TVCG.2023.3295389

JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. XX, NO. X, XXXX XXXX

8

45

*

45

0.8

0.9

1.0

CD ratio

1.1

1.2

40

35

1.3

*

＊＊ : p<0.01＊ : p<0.05

0.7

*

35

**

40

**

**

3.7

50

**

Figs.4 and 5) in all trials. This type of participant may haveplanned to ﬁnish the experiment quickly by shortening thetime to move the pointer.

50

Evaluation of the the comparison stimuliʼsweight compared to the standard stimuli

50
45

**

45
50

**

46
43

*

46
49

male
female

55

*

43
51

55

**
**
**

60s

**

50s

60

**
**

40s

**

30s

60

65

20s
30s
40s
50s
60s

**
**

male
female20s

Evaluation of the the comparison stimuliʼsweight compared to the standard stimuli

65

TABLE 1
Number of participants in the experiment used in the analysis for eachage and gender group.

＊＊ : p<0.01＊ : p<0.05

0.7

0.8

0.9

Participants

In this experiment, data were collected from males andfemales in their 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, and 60s. Therefore, theparticipants were categorized into 10 groups according togender and age. Since we recruited 60 participants for eachgroup using Lancers, a total of 600 people participated inthis experiment. The Ethics Committee of the University ofTokyo approved the experiments (21-127). We acquired awritten consent form from all participants.
Participants who were found to have been satisﬁcing
in the IMC were excluded from the analysis. The numberof participants used for the data analysis was 468. Table 1
shows the age and gender breakdown of the participants.
Considering the application, obtaining results in a runaway condition was important, so we did not control themonitor size or the initial mouse settings. However, we
instructed the participants to join the experiment under
the same conditions as those in which a mouse is used tooperate a desktop PC in terms of screen size, resolution, participant posture, the distance between the eyes and screen,and mouse cursor speed. In addition, we indicated the desksurface size on which participants could operate the mousein advance, and participants were instructed not to place
anything that would interfere with mouse operation on thedesk surface.
As the environment of the monitors used by the participants was not controlled in this experiment, some participants may have experienced display lag in response tomouse input. However, since the system was running locally, there was no system delay due to network bandwidth.
Since the lags were considered to be almost uniform within
participants, the statistical results were considered to belargely unaffected.

1.0

CD ratio

1.1

1.2

1.3

(b) Gender(a) AgeFig. 6. Evaluation of weight at each CD ratio by age and gender (median).

3.8

Results

3.8.1 Relationship between age, gender, and the effectiveness of illusion
We visualized the subjective weight ratings of each CD ratioby age and gender at the median (Fig.6). The vertical axis
shows the weight evaluation of the virtual object at each
CD ratio compared to the standard stimulus (CD ratio: 1.0).
A larger/smaller value indicates that the participants feltthat the virtual object was heavier/lighter. When this value
was 50, the participant evaluated the comparison stimulus as having the same weight as the standard stimulus.
Consistent with a previous study [6], we observed that thesmaller/larger the CD ratio, the heavier/lighter the virtual
object feels as a general trend for every age and gendergroup.
The normality of the 70 groups for each experimental
condition was tested by the Shapiro–Wilk test, and a signiﬁcant difference from the normal distribution was foundfor 46 groups. Therefore, we analyzed this data as nonparametric data. To investigate the effects of participantsage, gender, and CD ratio, statistical tests were conductedusing the aligned rank transform (ART [64]) ANOVA, which
can be used with non-parametric data. The full multifactorial ANOVA model used was a 2 (gender) × 5 (age) ×
7 (CD ratio) model. Each row of data entered using ANOVA
is assumed to be an independent observation. In the pseudohaptic rating task, participants completed six trials for each
CD ratio, so we averaged the six trials within participants

TABLE 2
Results of Aligned Rank Transform (ART) ANOVA for each CD ratio with participant’s age and gender.

main eﬀect

0.7

GenderTWI

Gender and Age

Age

TWI : two-way interaction

0.8

0.9

CD ratio
1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

F1,458 = 4.02 F1,458 = 5.18 F1,458 = 0.13 F1,458 = 0.61 F1,458 = 8.26 F1,458 = 3.40 F1,458 = 4.18
2
2
2
2
2
2
ηp2 = 0.019 ηp = 0.025 ηp = 0.000 ηp = 0.001 ηp = 0.031 ηp = 0.013 ηp = 0.020

F4,458 = 6.29 F4,458 = 4.22 F4,458 = 2.32 F4,458 = 0.96 F4,458 = 1.34 F4,458 = 4.39 F4,458 = 4.01
2
2
2
2
2
2
ηp2 = 0.061 ηp = 0.029 ηp = 0.020 ηp = 0.010 ηp = 0.011 ηp = 0.035 ηp = 0.032
F4,458 = 0.55 F4,458 = 0.92 F4,458 = 1.37 F4,458 = 0.48 F4,458 = 2.22 F4,458 = 1.91 F4,458 = 0.21
2
2
2
2
2
2
ηp2 = 0.005 ηp = 0.009 ηp = 0.009 ηp = 0.002 ηp = 0.019 ηp = 0.013 ηp = 0.002: <.01,: <.05This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics. This is the author's version which has not been fully edited andcontent may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TVCG.2023.3295389

JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. XX, NO. X, XXXX XXXX

3.8.2 Results of the haptic/visual pointing task
First, Fig.7 shows the results of the haptic pointing taskfor each age and gender of participants. The values inthe ﬁgure show the error scores of the pointing task, as
described in the previous section. The normality of theseresults was checked by the Shapiro–Wilk test for 10 groups
in each age and gender condition, and a signiﬁcant difference from the normal distribution was found for 7 groups.
Therefore, a two-way repeated measures ART ANOVA in
the mixed condition was conducted. It was conﬁrmed that
there was a signiﬁcant main effect of gender (F (1, 458) =5.57, p < 0.05, ηp2 = 0.025). Thus, this test showed thatthe error of the haptic pointing task was smaller for males
than for females. However, there was no signiﬁcant main
effect of age (F (4, 458) = 1.42, p > 0.10, ηp2 = 0.012) andno signiﬁcant interaction effect between age and gender(F (4, 458) = 0.82, p > 0.10, ηp2 = 0.0031).
On the other hand, the results of the visual pointing
task for each age and gender group of the participants areshown in Fig.8. The values depicted in the ﬁgure show theerror scores of the pointing task. The smaller this value, thehigher was the accuracy of the visual detection of the pointerposition. The normality of these results was checked by the
Shapiro–Wilk test for 10 groups in each age and gendercondition, and a signiﬁcant difference from the normal
distribution was found for 8 groups. Therefore, a two-way
repeated measures ART ANOVA in the mixed condition

Error score of pointing task

Error score of pointing task

0.8
0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

20s

30s

40s

50s

(a) Age60s

0.8＊ : p<0.05

*

0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0

male

female(b) GenderFig. 7. Error scores of haptic pointing task for each age and gendergroup.
******＊＊ : p<0.01**
Error score of pointing task

0.08

Error score of pointing taskfor each CD ratio condition before analysis. Since genderand age are between-participant factors and CD ratio is awithin-participant factor, the analysis was conducted as amixed design with three factors.
The results of the three-way repeated measures ANOVA
applying ART in the mixed condition showed that the main
effect was signiﬁcant only for the CD ratio (F (6, 2748) =288.5, p < 0.01, ηp2 = 0.40), and there was no signiﬁcantmain effect for either the age (F (4, 458) = 2.23, p =0.10, ηp2 = 0.010) or gender (F (1, 458) = 0.0113, p =0.91, ηp2 = 0.000027). The signiﬁcant two-way interactions
were gender × CD ratio (F (6, 2748) = 4.68, p < 0.01, ηp2 =0.023) and age × CD ratio (F (24, 2748) = 2.54, p <0.01, ηp2 = 0.055), and the two-way interaction between
gender and age was not signiﬁcant (F (4, 458) = 0.572, p =0.68, ηp2 = 0.0053). Furthermore, the three-way interaction
was signiﬁcant (F (24, 2748) = 2.24, p < 0.01, ηp2 = 0.020).
Therefore, we divided the data by CD ratio because theheaviness response by participants who perceived the larger
effect of pseudo-haptics changed depending on the CD
ratio, and we tested the simple main effect and simple
interaction using two-way repeated measures ANOVA with
ART. The results showed that the simple main effect ofgender was signiﬁcant for CD ratios of 0.7, 0.8, 1.1, and 1.3,
and the simple main effect of age was signiﬁcant for CD
ratios of 0.7, 0.8, 1.2, and 1.3, as shown in Table 2. The simple
interaction between age and gender was not signiﬁcant for
any of the CD ratios.
Then, we conducted a post-hoc test using the Mann–
Whitney U test on each CD ratio, for which a main effectof age and gender was identiﬁed. In the test for age, Holmcorrection was applied to correct for multiplicity. The results
are summarized in Fig.6.

9

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.00

20s

30s

40s

(a) Age

50s

60s

0.08

＊ : p<0.05

*

0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00

male

female(b) GenderFig. 8. Error scores of the visual pointing task for each age and gendergroup.

was conducted. It was conﬁrmed that there was a signiﬁcantmain effect for age (F (4, 458) = 4.57, p < 0.01, ηp2 = 0.050).
However, there was no signiﬁcant main effect for gender(F (4, 458) = 0.92, p > 0.10, ηp2 = 0.001) and no interaction
effect between age and gender (F (4, 458) = 1.02, p >0.10, ηp2 = 0.006). Then, as a post-hoc test, a Mann–Whitney
U test with Holm correction was applied to the error scoreof the pointing task for age. This test revealed that the errorscores for people in their 60s were signiﬁcantly higher thanthose for people in their 20s, 30s, 40s, and 50s.
3.8.3 Relationship between the effectiveness of pseudohaptics and the accuracy of detecting pointer position using
proprioception or vision
Based on the relationship between the results of the haptic/visual pointing task and the age and gender of theparticipants, we analyzed the relationship between these results and the effectiveness of pseudo-haptics. To analyze theresults according to these pointing task results, we divided
participants into two groups by median splits, which wereused in [65], [66]. For each pointing task, the participants inthe top 50% of task performance, that is, those with a small
error score in the pointing task, were deﬁned as the “highaccuracy group,” and the participants in the bottom 50% oftask performance, that is, those with a large error score in
the pointing task, were deﬁned as the “low accuracy group.”
Subsequently, the effect of the performance of the haptic
and visual pointing task on the perception of pseudo- haptic weight was analyzed. The full multi-factorial ANOVA
model used was a 2 (group factor divided by the performance in the Haptic pointing task) × 2 (group factor
divided by the performance in the Visual pointing task)× 7 (CD ratio) model. Similar to the analysis in Section

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics. This is the author's version which has not been fully edited andcontent may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TVCG.2023.3295389

JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. XX, NO. X, XXXX XXXX＊＊ : p<0.01＊ : p<0.05

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

CD ratio

1.1

1.2

Evaluation of the the comparison stimuliʼsweight compared to the standard stimuli

Evaluation of the the comparison stimuliʼsweight compared to the standard stimuli(a) Haptic Pointing Task

1.3

50

45

40

35

**

40

55

**

45

60

**

50

high accuracy
low accuracy

**

55

**

On the other hand, the median weight ratings for each
CD ratio based on the results of the visual pointing taskfor each of these participant groups are plotted in Fig.9(b).
For each participant group, Fig.9 summarizes the medianweight ratings for each CD ratio. We conducted a twoway repeated measures ART ANOVA, and it was conﬁrmedthat there was a signiﬁcant main effect for the CD ratio(F (6, 2796) = 274, p < 0.01, ηp2 = 0.38), and the main effectfor the group of visual pointing task results was not significant (F (1, 466) = 0.0700, p = 0.79, ηp2 = 0.00016). There
was a signiﬁcant interaction effect between the CD ratio
and the group of visual pointing task results (F (6, 2796) =5.10, p < 0.01, ηp2 = 0.031). A Mann–Whitney U test wasapplied to the weight ratings of each group of visual pointing task results for each CD ratio. The results showed that at
CD ratios of 0.7, 0.8, 1.2, and 1.3, the group with higher accuracy in detecting the pointer position in vision perceived
the virtual object to be signiﬁcantly heavier (lighter) than
the group with lower accuracy at small (large) CD ratios(Fig.9(b)).

60

35

65

high accuracy
low accuracy**

The median weight ratings for each CD ratio based on
the results of the haptic pointing task for each of theseparticipant groups are plotted in Fig.9(a). We conducted
a two-way repeated measures ART ANOVA, and it was
conﬁrmed that there was a signiﬁcant main effect for CD
ratio (F (6, 2796) = 274, p < 0.01, ηp2 = 0.38), and there
was a signiﬁcant interaction effect between the CD ratio andparticipant group (F (6, 2796) = 4.89, p < 0.01, ηp2 = 0.026).
The main effect for the group of haptic pointing task results
was not signiﬁcant (F (1, 466) = 2.62, p = 0.11, ηp2 =0.0059). Then, we applied the Mann–Whitney U test for theweight rating of each participant group at each CD ratio.
As a result, it was conﬁrmed that in the haptic pointing
task, when the CD ratio was 0.7, 0.8, and 1.3, the groupwith high proprioceptive accuracy in mouse manipulation
felt the virtual object was signiﬁcantly heavier (lighter) than
the group with low accuracy when the CD ratio was small(large) (Fig.9(a)).

65**

3.8.1, we averaged the six trials within participants foreach CD ratio condition before analysis. As the groupfactors divided by the performance in the Haptic/Visual
pointing task are between-participant factors and CD ratio
is a within-participant factor, the analysis was conducted
as a mixed design with three factors. Consequently, there
were signiﬁcant two-way interactions between each groupfactor divided by accuracy of the haptic/visual pointing task × CD ratio (haptic pointing task × CD ratio:
F (6, 2784) = 4.97, p < 0.01, ηp2 = 0.027, visual pointing
task × CD ratio: F (6, 2784) = 4.94, p < 0.01, ηp2 = 0.026).
Conversely, the interaction between pointing tasks andthe three-way interaction effect were not signiﬁcant (twoway interaction between vision and haptic pointing task:
F (6, 2784) = 0.268, p = 0.32, ηp2 = 0.00062, three-way
interaction: F (6, 2784) = 0.0947, p = 0.64, ηp2 = 0.00022).
Therefore, we analyzed the relationship between the perception of pseudo-haptic weight and the task performancein the haptic and visual pointing tasks, respectively.

10＊＊ : p<0.01＊ : p<0.05

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

CD ratio

1.1

1.2

1.3

(b) Visual Pointing Task

Fig. 9. Evaluation of weight at each CD ratio for each group divided
by accuracy of haptic/visual pointing task. The median scores of eachgroup are plotted.

3.8.4 Relationship between frequency of mouse use andthe effectiveness of pseudo-haptics
Fig.10 shows the proportion of the number of people that responded with each frequency of mouse use rating. Next, weanalyzed the relationship between the frequency of mouseuse, effectiveness of pseudo-haptics, and score of pointing
tasks. Participants who used a mouse less frequently or
equal to response 4 (Use once or twice a week) were classiﬁed as the group that did not use a mouse much, and those
who answered 5 (Use almost every day) were classiﬁed as
the group that used a mouse much.
Fig.11 (a) shows the relationship between the frequencyof daily use of the mouse and the result of pseudo-haptic
rating task. We conducted a two-way repeated measures
ART ANOVA, and it was conﬁrmed that there was a signiﬁcant main effect for the CD ratio (F (6, 2796) = 274, p <0.01, ηp2 = 0.38), and the main effect for the frequency
of mouse use was not signiﬁcant (F (1, 466) = 2.36, p =0.12, ηp2 = 0.0054). There was a signiﬁcant interaction
effect between the CD ratio and the frequency of mouseuse (F (6, 2796) = 9.60, p < 0.01, ηp2 = 0.042). A Mann–
Whitney U test was applied to the weight ratings of thefrequency of mouse use groups at each CD ratio. As a result,the group that used a mouse frequently felt that the virtual
object was signiﬁcantly heavier (lighter) at CD ratios of 0.7
and 1.3 when the CD ratio was small (large) than the groupthat used a mouse infrequently.
Moreover, Figs.11 (b) and (c) show the relationship between the frequency of daily use of a mouse and the errorscore of the haptic/visual pointing task. The Mann–Whitney
U test was applied to the error scores for each of the pointing
tasks, and it was conﬁrmed that the error scores for thehaptic pointing task were signiﬁcantly smaller in the groupwith a higher frequency of daily mouse use than in thegroup with a lower frequency of daily mouse use.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics. This is the author's version which has not been fully edited andcontent may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TVCG.2023.3295389

JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. XX, NO. X, XXXX XXXX

1.0Group ratio of mouse usage frequency

Group ratio of mouse usage frequency

1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0

11

20s

30s

40s

50s

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0

male

60s

femaleUse almost every day
Use once or twice a week
Use once or twice a month
Use twice or third a year
Not use at all(a) Age(b) GenderFig. 10. Proportion of the number of people answering with each frequency of mouse use rating by age and gender.
1.00

0.07

60

55

50
**

45

0.06

0.75

Error score of pointing task

Error score of pointing task

**

0.50

40

35

4

0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02

0.25

**

Evaluation of the the comparison stimuliʼsweight compared to the standard stimuli

high
low

**

65

0.01

0.7

0.8

0.9 1.0 1.1
CD ratio＊＊ : p<0.01

1.2

1.3

(a) Pseudo haptic rating task

0.00

days, calculated as 12 months × 1.5 days), 2 - twice or thirda year (2.5 days), and 1 - not use at all (0 days).
Once the conversion was applied, each of the three independent variables - the error scores in haptic and pointing
tasks and the number of annual mouse usage days - werestandardized to have a mean of 0 and a standard deviationof 1. The dependent variable was the rating scores forweight when a CD ratio of 0.7 was presented. We thencomputed mean values for each of the independent anddependent variables, grouped by age and gender, before
conducting the multiple regression analysis.
The resulting regression model reported an R-squared
value of 0.796 and an adjusted R-squared of 0.694, suggesting that this model could explain approximately 70%of the variations in the effectiveness of pseudo haptics. Thisshowing that a large part of the variations depending on age
and gender can be explained by the factors we focused on.
The standardized regression coefﬁcients showed that boththe haptic task error scores (β = -6.27) and vision pointing
task error scores (β = -10.6) had a negative relationship withthe effectiveness of pseudo-haptics. This implies that lower
error scores in these tasks were associated with greater
pseudo-haptic effectiveness. On the other hand, the numberof days using a mouse in a year exhibited a minor, positive
association with the pseudo-haptic effectiveness (β = 0.239).

high＊＊ : p<0.01low(b) Haptic pointing task

0.00

high

low

(c) Visual pointing task

Fig. 11. Differences in task results between groups with high (“Usealmost every day”) and low (“Use once or twice a week” - “Not use atall”) mouse use.

3.8.5 How much factors of the accuracy of detecting pointerposition and mouse use frequency explain the variations in
the effectiveness of pseudo-haptics depending on age andgenderTo quantify how much the factors we focused on (i.e., theaccuracy of pointer position detection using vision andproprioception, along with the frequency of mouse use) can
explain the variations of the effectiveness of pseudo-haptics
depending on age and gender, we conducted a multiple
regression analysis. The frequency of mouse usage, initiallycollected on a scale from 1 to 5, was converted to theequivalent number of usage days per year, to create a continuous variable comparable to the error scores in haptic andpointing tasks. The conversion from a categorical variable toa continuous variable was approximated as follows: 5 - use
almost every day (312.84 days, calculated as 52.14 weeks ×
6 days), 4 - once or twice a week (78.2 days, calculated as
52.14 weeks × 1.5 days), 3 - once or twice a month (18.0

D ISCUSSION

Through this study, we were able to clarify the effects of age
and gender on the pseudo-haptics, which were previously
known only empirically. Speciﬁcally, Fig.6 results showsthat the effectiveness of pseudo-haptics in mouse operation
was signiﬁcantly weaker for participants in their 50s and
60s than for participants in younger age groups (H1). The
results also show that males perceived the effect of pseudohaptics more strongly than did females (H2). These results
are consistent with some optical [10] and cross-modal illusions [14], [24], indicating the differences in effect due to age
and gender.
Since the pseudo-haptics research so far has been conducted mainly at universities, it seems that many of theparticipants were young (e.g., in their 20s). Therefore, it canbe said that the experiments were conducted with people
who are relatively affected by pseudo-haptics in general. To
popularize pseudo-haptics as a haptic presentation technology to the more general public, it is important to be able
to robustly present it to older people and females who are
relatively less likely to perceive an effect.
Next, we discuss the reasons for the differences in theeffectiveness of pseudo-haptic illusions by age and gender,
by referring to other experimental results. The relationships
between the effectiveness of pseudo-haptics and proprioceptive accuracy in mouse manipulation obtained from theresults of the haptic pointing task suggest that the higher
the proprioceptive accuracy in mouse manipulation, thestronger the perceived effect of pseudo-haptics (Fig.9(a)).
This result suggests that the higher the accuracy of proprioception in mouse pointer manipulation, the more sensitive
to the motion prediction error caused by the visual effectof pseudo-haptics, and the stronger the illusion effect. This
explanation that the sensitivity to motion prediction error

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics. This is the author's version which has not been fully edited andcontent may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TVCG.2023.3295389

JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. XX, NO. X, XXXX XXXX

increases the amount of illusion of pseudo-haptics is consistent with the argument of Honda et al. [45]. This implies
that our results do not support the hypothesis based on the
MLE framework [40] as a mechanism of pseudo-haptics.
In addition, Fig.9(b) shows that not only proprioception
but also accuracy of visual perception may affect the effectiveness of pseudo-haptics. Speciﬁcally, it shows that theeffectiveness of pseudo-haptics is larger for the participantgroup with higher accuracy in visual detection of the pointerposition than in the group with lower accuracy. There isa possibility that the higher accuracy of visual detection
contributed to the sensitivity of the prediction error, which
led to a larger intensity of the pseudo-haptic effect. Thesepossibilities can be inferred from the results of the multiple
regression analysis.
The results of the haptic pointing task in terms of age
and gender showed that pointing accuracy was the highest
for those in their 40s in terms of age (Fig.7(a)). This result
is not consistent with a previous study, which showed thatproprioceptive accuracy decreases with age [51]. This result
can be explained by the ratio of the number of people
who used a computer mouse in daily life in age group(Fig.10). The reason that men in their 40s are familiar withthe mouse might be that they have been using a mouseat work daily. Figs.10(a) and 7(a) show an inverse relationship between the ratio of the “using computer mousealmost every day” group by age and the median errorof the haptic pointing task by age. Fig.11(b) shows thatpeople who are accustomed to manipulating the pointerhave high proprioceptive accuracy of the pointer position,suggesting that the results of the haptic pointing task are
deeply related to the habituation of mouse operation. In
addition, the results shown in Figs.11(a) and (b) and 9(a)suggest that people who are accustomed to manipulating
the pointer with the computer mouse and who have higher
proprioceptive accuracy of the pointer position are moresensitive to the mismatch between the actual mouse pointermovement and visually presented pointer movement, andthis enhances the effectiveness of the illusion. Conversely,
the results of Figs.8(a) and 10(a) show no correlation between the results of the visual pointing task and mouse use
frequency. This may be related to the age-related decline
in perceptual ability. We did not control for age-related
perceptual and motor impairments because we consideredit important to obtain uncontrolled results considering theapplication. In addition, Fig.7(b) shows that males havehigher accuracy in the haptic pointing task than females,i.e., higher proprioception accuracy in mouse manipulation.
This result might be related to the frequency of daily mouse
use among the participants in this experiment, as shownin Fig.10(b). Therefore, the result that the effectiveness ofpseudo-haptics was higher in males than in females, which
differs from our hypothesis H2, may be related to the abilityof the male and female participants in our experiment tomanipulate computer mice.
Thus far, pseudo-haptic methods speciﬁc to various interface devices, including mouse and cursor, touchscreen,or gesture in the VR space have been developed [4]. Our
result that the effect of pseudo-haptics changed dependingon the familiarity with the mouse interface suggests thatthe perceptual intensity depends on the habituation to the12interface device used for presenting pseudo-haptics. For example, since younger generations, such as those in their 10s
or 20s, are more familiar with smartphones, pseudo-haptics
presented using smartphones would be more effective foryounger generations than for older generations. Further, if a
new interface that replaces the mouse appears in the future
for everyday use, pseudo-haptics speciﬁc to the mouse witha desktop environment might be less likely to be effective.
In summary, the results of this study indicate that thepseudo-haptic illusional effect is stronger for people withhigher sensory accuracy, both visual and proprioceptive, in
detecting pointer position. Therefore, it is thought that theillusory effect of pseudo-haptics can be enhanced by making
the user clearly aware of the fact that the movement of an
object that reﬂects the movement of the body, such as apointer, deviates from the original movement. This results
support our hypothesis H1-B regarding the relationshipbetween participant’s age and the effectiveness of pseudohaptics. This seems to contradict the previous ﬁnding [30]that “it is important to hide the actual physical motion of
the user or to keep it away from the visual presentation tostrongly generate the effect of pseudo-haptics.” However,
it is possible that visual presentation and prior training
help people recognize objects that reﬂect bodily movements,
such as pointers, as their own movements and recognizethat these movements have deviated from their original
movements.
The results of this study may provide a hint for improving the effectiveness of the illusion effect of pseudo-haptics.

5

L IMITATIONS AND F UTURE W ORKS

In this study, we examined the pseudo-haptics of pointermanipulation using a mouse in a desktop environment.
In pseudo-haptics research, it is known that similar visual
stimulus manipulations can produce similar effects (e.g.,
the presentation of a sense of weight [5], [30], [50]) in 3D
as well as in 1D/2D. If the mechanism of pseudo-haptics
is common, it is expected that the ﬁndings of individual
differences in 1D/2D will be the same in 3D. The results ofthis experiment suggest that familiarity with mouse operation may affect the amount of illusory effect. Therefore, it
is considered that familiarity with the system operation andaccuracy of input position sense may also affect the strengthof the pseudo-haptics effect in other environments, such as
VR. However, a different type of pseudo-haptics, such as
displaying the deformation of a virtual object, may have a
different effect, so it is necessary to verify their effects.
Because we conducted an online experiment to collectdata from a large number of participants, we were not able
to fully control the experimental environment, nor could we
conduct detailed interviews with each participant. In thisexperiment, the type of mouse, display size, and resolution
used by the participants were not standardized, and thesedifferences may constitute a bias. For example, if there
is a bias in the type of display used depending on theage of the participants, it cannot be denied that this bias
may have affected the results. Therefore, beyond factors
such as familiarity with mouse use in daily life and theaccuracy of pointer position detection through vision andThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics. This is the author's version which has not been fully edited andcontent may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TVCG.2023.3295389

JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. XX, NO. X, XXXX XXXX

proprioception, the experienced environment might inﬂuence the differences in the effects of pseudo-haptics acrossages and genders. This suggests the need for more detailed
veriﬁcation in the future.
Furthermore, we have not yet been able to clarify why
the effectiveness of pseudo-haptics is not high for those
who do not ﬁt into this category, for example, those who
do not feel a strong pseudo-haptic effect despite a good
performance in the haptic/visual pointing task. Moreover,users who are familiar with interactive systems, such as
gamers, are likely to be skilled in interpreting the mechanical properties of virtual objects. Therefore, they are more
likely to perceive the presentation of visual displacement inpseudo-haptics, and the illusory effect may appear stronger
than people who don’t usually play games. Such user
attributes should also be collected through questionnaires
to clarify the relevance of the effect to pseudo-haptics. To
evaluate the magnitude of the pseudo-haptic effect, we
adopted the task design, following previous studies on
pseudo-haptics where participants answered the impressionof the weight of an object with manipulation of the C/Dratio [59]. Thus, we could obtain the results on gender andage differences in effectiveness of pseudo-haptics in theordinary task design in pseudo-haptics studies. However,the demand characteristics might affect the participants
responses. Using an evaluation metric comparable with theactual weight, we could accurately assess the effectivenessof pseudo-haptics [5].
In addition, due to the rule of the crowdsourcing service
we used, we were unable to collect data from participants
under the age of 20. In the case of pseudo-haptics, there are
few reports on the illusional effect on teenagers and evenyounger children, whereas studies on optical illusions havebeen conducted on young people as young as 4 or 5 years
old. It is possible that there is a speciﬁc tendency toward theeffectiveness of pseudo-haptics in children.

6

C ONCLUSION

The purpose of this study is to identify how user’s age
and gender affect the effectiveness of pseudo-haptics and to
identify the factors that contribute to these differences. We
collected data on the weight perception of people of various
ages and genders. They were presented with pseudo-haptic
stimuli that generated the perception of weight during computer mouse operation in a desktop PC environment, andwe investigated the changes in the illusional effect depending on these differences in age and gender. In addition, toclarify the factors that affect pseudo-haptics, we investigatedthe effect of the habituation to the mouse operation and of
the accuracy of visual and proprioceptive localization of thepointer.
The results of the experiment suggested that the effectof pseudo-haptics was signiﬁcantly weaker for participantsin their 50s and 60s than for participants in the younger
age groups. Moreover, the results suggested that males
perceived the effects of pseudo-haptics more strongly than
did females. As a result of further examination, it was foundthat the pseudo-haptic effect was higher in people who
used the mouse more frequently and had higher visual andproprioceptive accuracy in identifying the pointer position.

13

It can be concluded that the effectiveness of the illusion isstronger in people who have higher sensory accuracy inthe visual localization sense and proprioception of mouse
operation, and those who are more sensitive to the deviation
caused by the visual feedback of pseudo-haptics. The resultsof this study not only suggest the factors that cause individual differences in the effectiveness of pseudo-haptics but
also provide hints for improving the pseudo-haptic effect.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was partially supported by JSPS KAKENHI(Grant Numbers 19K20315 and 21H03478).

R EFERENCES
C. Spence, “Crossmodal correspondences: A tutorial review,” Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, vol. 73, no. 4, pp. 971–995, 2011.
[2] I. Rock and J. Victor, “Vision and touch: An experimentally createdconﬂict between the two senses,” Science, vol. 143, no. 3606, pp.
594–596, 1964.
[3] A. Lécuyer, “Simulating haptic feedback using vision: A surveyof research and applications of pseudo-haptic feedback,” Presence:
Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 39–53,
2009.
[4] Y. Ujitoko and Y. Ban, “Survey of pseudo-haptics: Haptic feedback
design and application proposals,” IEEE Transactions on Haptics,
vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 699–711, 2021.
[5] M. Samad, E. Gatti, Hermes et al., “Pseudo-haptic weight: Changing the perceived weight of virtual objects by manipulating
control-display ratio,” in Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2019, pp. 1–13.
[6] Y. Taima, Y. Ban, T. Narumi, T. Tanikawa, and M. Hirose, “Controlling fatigue while lifting objects using pseudo-haptics in a mixed
reality space,” in 2014 IEEE Haptics Symposium (HAPTICS). IEEE,
2014, pp. 175–180.
[7] A. Nomoto, Y. Ban, T. Narumi, T. Tanikawa, and M. Hirose,“Supporting precise manual-handling task using visuo-haptic interaction,” in Proceedings of the 7th Augmented Human International
Conference 2016, 2016, pp. 1–8.
[8] Y. Ban and Y. Ujitoko, “Hit-stop in vr: Combination of pseudohaptics and vibration enhances impact sensation,” in 2021 IEEE
World Haptics Conference (WHC). IEEE, 2021, pp. 991–996.
[9] A. Lécuyer, J.-M. Burkhardt, S. Coquillart, and P. Coiffet, “Boundary of illusion: an experiment of sensory integration with apseudo-haptic system,” in Proceedings IEEE Virtual Reality 2001.
IEEE, 2001, pp. 115–122.
[10] G. Noelting, La structuration progressive de la ﬁgure de Müller-Lyeren fonction de la répétition chez l’enfant et l’adulte. Coopérative Les
Presses de Savoie, 1961.
[11] C. Declerck and B. De Brabander, “Sex differences in susceptibility
to the poggendorff illusion,” Perceptual and Motor Skills, vol. 94,
no. 1, pp. 3–8, 2002.
[12] S.-D. Knudson, J. Woodland, and A. E. Wilson, “Sex differences
and spatial separation in the poggendorff illusion,” Comprehensive
Psychology, vol. 1, pp. 24–22, 2012.
[13] R. E. Dewar, “Sex differences in the magnitude and practicedecrement of the müller-lyer illusion,” Psychonomic Science, vol. 9,
no. 6, pp. 345–346, 1967.
[14] A. S. Bertelsen, L. A. Mielby, N. Alexi, D. V. Byrne, and U. Kidmose, “Individual differences in sweetness ratings and crossmodal aroma-taste interactions,” Foods, vol. 9, no. 2, p. 146, 2020.
[15] J. Piaget, The mechanisms of perception. Routledge, 2013.
[16] S. Santostefano, “A developmental study of the delboeuf illusion,”
Perceptual and Motor Skills, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 23–29, 1963.
[17] C. Hanley and D. J. Zerbolio, “Developmental changes in ﬁve illusions measured by the up-and-down method,” Child Development,
pp. 437–452, 1965.
[18] H. Leibowitz and J. Judisch, “The relation between age and themagnitude of the ponzo illusion,” The American Journal of Psychology, vol. 80, no. 1, pp. 105–109, 1967.
[19] P. Fraisse and P. Vautrey, “The inﬂuence of age, sex, and specialized training on the vertical-horizontal illusion,” Quarterly Journalof Experimental Psychology, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 114–120, 1956.
[1]

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics. This is the author's version which has not been fully edited andcontent may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TVCG.2023.3295389

JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. XX, NO. X, XXXX XXXX

[20] M. J. Doherty, N. M. Campbell, H. Tsuji, and W. A. Phillips,“The ebbinghaus illusion deceives adults but not young children,”Developmental Science, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 714–721, 2010.
[21] A. Shaqiri, M. Roinishvili, L. Grzeczkowski, E. Chkonia, K. Pilz,
C. Mohr, A. Brand, M. Kunchulia, and M. H. Herzog, “Sex-relateddifferences in vision are heterogeneous,” Scientiﬁc Reports, vol. 8,
no. 7521, pp. 1–10, 2018.
[22] C. Papageorgiou, X. Stachtea, P. Papageorgiou, A. T. Alexandridis,
G. Makris, G. Chrousos, and G. Kosteletos, “Gender-dependent
variations in optical illusions: evidence from n400 waveforms,”
Physiological Measurement, vol. 41, no. 9, p. 095006, 2020.
[23] A. J. Bremner, M. J. Doherty, S. Caparos, J. De Fockert, K. J. Linnell,
and J. Davidoff, “Effects of culture and the urban environment on
the development of the ebbinghaus illusion,” Child Development,
vol. 87, no. 3, pp. 962–981, 2016.
[24] D. W. Massaro, L. A. Thompson, B. Barron, and E. Laren, “Developmental changes in visual and auditory contributions to speech
perception,” Journal of experimental child psychology, vol. 41, no. 1,
pp. 93–113, 1986.
[25] K. Sekiyama and Y. Tohkura, “Mcgurk effect in non-english listeners: Few visual effects for japanese subjects hearing japanesesyllables of high auditory intelligibility,” The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, vol. 90, no. 4, pp. 1797–1805, 1991.
[26] K. Sekiyama and D. Burnham, “Impact of language on development of auditory-visual speech perception,” Developmental Science,
vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 306–320, 2008.
[27] S. Hisanaga, K. Sekiyama, T. Igasaki, and N. Murayama, “Language/culture modulates brain and gaze processes in audiovisual
speech perception,” Scientiﬁc Reports, vol. 6, no. 35265, pp. 1–10,
2016.
[28] F. B. Dresslar, “Studies in the psychology of touch,” The American
Journal of Psychology, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 313–368, 1894.
[29] R. Nyssen and J. Bourdon, “A new contribution to the experimental study of the size-weight illusion,” Acta Psychologica, vol. 12, pp.
157–173, 1956.
[30] A. Lécuyer, S. Coquillart, A. Kheddar, P. Richard, and P. Coiffet,“Pseudo-haptic feedback: can isometric input devices simulate
force feedback?” in Proceedings IEEE Virtual Reality 2000 (Cat. No.
00CB37048). IEEE, 2000, pp. 83–90.
[31] Y. Ban, T. Narumi, T. Tanikawa, and M. Hirose, “Controlling
perceived stiffness of pinched objects using visual feedback ofhand deformation,” in 2014 IEEE Haptics Symposium (HAPTICS).
IEEE, 2014, pp. 557–562.
[32] Y. Ujitoko, Y. Ban, and K. Hirota, “Presenting static friction sensation at stick-slip transition using pseudo-haptic effect,” in 2019
IEEE World Haptics Conference (WHC). IEEE, 2019, pp. 181–186.
[33] A. Lécuyer, J.-M. Burkhardt, and L. Etienne, “Feeling bumps andholes without a haptic interface: the perception of pseudo-haptic
textures,” in Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human factors
in Computing Systems, 2004, pp. 239–246.
[34] Y. Ujitoko, Y. Ban, and K. Hirota, “Modulating ﬁne roughness
perception of vibrotactile textured surface using pseudo-haptic
effect,” IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics,
vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 1981–1990, 2019.
[35] H. Bjørkå, K. Daniliauskaite, L. A. Hansen, Á. Magnúsdóttir,J. Pærregaard, S. Seraﬁn, and L. E. Bruni, “Feeling objects in virtualenvironments: Presence and pseudo-haptics in a bowling game,”
Proceedings of Enactive 2007, 2007.
[36] M. Rietzler, F. Geiselhart, J. Gugenheimer, and E. Rukzio, “Breaking the tracking: Enabling weight perception using perceivable
tracking offsets,” in Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2018, pp. 1–12.
[37] I. M. K. van Mensvoort, “What you see is what you feel: exploiting
the dominance of the visual over the haptic domain to simulate
force-feedback with cursor displacements,” in Proceedings of the
4th conference on Designing interactive systems: processes, practices,
methods, and techniques, 2002, pp. 345–348.
[38] A. Kashihara and G. Shiota, “Knowledge construction with visualand pseudo-haptic senses,” IEICE Trans, pp. 104–116, 2015.
[39] T. Horiguchi and A. Kashihara, “Pseudo-haptics presentation for
promoting historical understanding,” in International Conference on
Learning and Collaboration Technologies. Springer, 2016, pp. 156–
164.
[40] M. O. Ernst and M. S. Banks, “Humans integrate visual and haptic
information in a statistically optimal fashion,” Nature, vol. 415, no.
6870, pp. 429–433, 2002.

14[41] S. Gepshtein and M. S. Banks, “Viewing geometry determines how
vision and haptics combine in size perception,” Current Biology,
vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 483–488, 2003.
[42] A. Kokubun, Y. Ban, T. Narumi, T. Tanikawa, and M. Hirose,“Representing normal and shearing forces on the mobile device
with visuo-haptic interaction and a rear touch interface,” in 2014
IEEE Haptics Symposium (HAPTICS). IEEE, 2014, pp. 415–420.
[43] D. M. Wolpert, Z. Ghahramani, and M. I. Jordan, “An internal
model for sensorimotor integration,” Science, vol. 269, no. 5232,
pp. 1880–1882, 1995.
[44] G. Ariff, O. Donchin, T. Nanayakkara, and R. Shadmehr, “A
real-time state predictor in motor control: study of saccadic eye
movements during unseen reaching movements,” Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 22, no. 17, pp. 7721–7729, 2002.
[45] T. Honda, N. Hagura, T. Yoshioka, and H. Imamizu, “Imposed
visual feedback delay of an action changes mass perception basedon the sensory prediction error,” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 4, p.
760, 2013.
[46] S. Takamuku and H. Gomi, “What you feel is what you see: inverse
dynamics estimation underlies the resistive sensation of a delayed
cursor,” Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, vol.
282, no. 1811, p. 20150864, 2015.
[47] “Lancers(https://www.lancers.jp/).”[48] H. E. Ross and P. Roche, “Sex, handedness and weight discrimination,” Neuropsychologia, vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 841–844, 1987.
[49] C. Maguinness, A. Setti, E. Roudaia, and R. A. Kenny, “Does thatlook heavy to you? perceived weight judgment in lifting actions inyounger and older adults,” Frontiers in human neuroscience, vol. 7,
p. 795, 2013.
[50] Y. Ban and Y. Ujitoko, “Enhancing the pseudo-haptic effect on
the touch panel using the virtual string,” in 2018 IEEE Haptics
Symposium (HAPTICS). IEEE, 2018, pp. 278–283.
[51] H. B. Skinner, R. L. Barrack, and S. D. Cook, “Age-related decline
in proprioception.” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, no.
184, pp. 208–211, 1984.
[52] K. Y. Haaland, D. L. Harrington, and J. W. Grice, “Effects of aging
on planning and implementing arm movements.” Psychology andaging, vol. 8, no. 4, p. 617, 1993.
[53] H. J. Block and B. M. Sexton, “Visuo-proprioceptive control of thehand in older adults,” Multisensory Research, vol. 34, no. 1, pp.
93–111, 2020.
[54] X. Skoura, P. Personnier, A. Vinter, T. Pozzo, and C. Papaxanthis,“Decline in motor prediction in elderly subjects: right versus
left arm differences in mentally simulated motor actions,” cortex,
vol. 44, no. 9, pp. 1271–1278, 2008.
[55] L. Schmidt, L. Depper, and G. Kerkhoff, “Effects of age, sex andarm on the precision of arm position sense―left-arm superiority
in healthy right-handers,” Frontiers in human neuroscience, vol. 7, p.
915, 2013.
[56] H. Sigmundsson, M. Haga, and B. Hopkins, “Sex differences inperception: Exploring the integration of sensory information withrespect to vision and proprioception,” Sex Roles, vol. 57, no. 3, pp.
181–186, 2007.
[57] C. I. Sandström, “Sex differences in localization and orientation.”
Acta Psychologica, 1953.
[58] L. J. DeLoach, M. S. Higgins et al., “The visual analog scale in
the immediate postoperative period: intrasubject variability andcorrelation with a numeric scale,” Anesthesia & Analgesia, vol. 86,
no. 1, pp. 102–106, 1998.
[59] T. Kawabe, Y. Ujitoko, and T. Yokosaka, “The relationship between
illusory heaviness sensation and the motion speed of visual feedback in gesture-based touchless inputs.” Frontiers in psychology,
vol. 13, pp. 811 881–811 881, 2022.
[60] A. Naceri, R. Chellali, and T. Hoinville, “Depth perception within
peripersonal space using head-mounted display,” Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 254–272, 2011.
[61] E. Adams, “Models of man, social and rational: Mathematicalessays on rational human behavior in a social setting,” The Journalof Philosophy, vol. 59, no. 7, pp. 177–182, 1962.
[62] J. A. Krosnick, “Response strategies for coping with the cognitive
demands of attitude measures in surveys,” Applied Cognitive Psychology, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 213–236, 1991.
[63] D. M. Oppenheimer, T. Meyvis, and N. Davidenko, “Instructional
manipulation checks: Detecting satisﬁcing to increase statisticalpower,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 45, no. 4, pp.
867–872, 2009.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics. This is the author's version which has not been fully edited andcontent may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TVCG.2023.3295389

JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. XX, NO. X, XXXX XXXX

15[64] J. O. Wobbrock, L. Findlater, D. Gergle, and J. J. Higgins, “Thealigned rank transform for nonparametric factorial analyses using
only anova procedures,” in Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on
Human factors in Computing Systems, 2011, pp. 143–146.
[65] J. Peck and T. L. Childers, “Individual differences in haptic information processing: The need for touch scale,” Journal ofConsumer Research, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 430–442, 2003.
[66] A. Krishna and M. Morrin, “Does touch affect taste? the perceptual
transfer of product container haptic cues,” Journal of Consumer
Research, vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 807–818, 2008.

Yuki Ban received his MS and PhD degrees
in information science and technology from the
University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan, in 2013 and2016, respectively. He was a researcher at Xcoo
Inc. research from 2016 to 2017. He is currently a project lecturer at the Department ofFrontier Sciences at the University of Tokyo. His
current research interests include cross-modal
interfaces and biological measurement.

Yusuke Ujitoko has been a researcher at
NTT Communication Science Laboratories since2020. He was a member of the R&D Groupin Hitachi, Ltd. from 2016 to 2020. He received his PhD from the University of ElectroCommunications, Japan, in 2020. He received
his BE degree in mechanical engineering and
MAE degree in interdisciplinary information studies from the University of Tokyo, Japan, in 2014
and 2016, respectively. His research interests
include applied haptic perception and interfaces.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/