2017 IEEE World Haptics Conference (WHC)
Fürstenfeldbruck (Munich), Germany
6–9 June 2017

Cross-Field Haptics: Multiple Direction Haptics Combined with
Magnetic and Electrostatic Fields
Satoshi Hashizume1 , Kazuki Takazawa1 , Amy Koike1 , and Yoichi Ochiai1
Abstract— We present a new method of rendering haptic
textures that utilizes electrostatic and magnetic fields. In conventional research, a single physical quantity is used to render
haptic textures. By contrast, our method combines multiple
fields (electrostatic and magnetic). Although these fields haveno direct interference, combining them provides benefits suchas the ability to produce multi-resolution haptic images andsynergistic effects on haptic perception. We investigate theincrease in the variation of texture by comparing each single
field method. Furthermore, we conduct user experiments andquantitative measurements.

I. INTRODUCTION
Representing texture is a major issue during fabricationand manufacturing in many industries. Thus, approaches
to fabricating everyday objects and digitally expressing
their texture have become popular research topics. Althoughchanging the texture of objects in the digital world is easy(i.e.
simply by setting texture parameters), achieving it in the realworld is difficult.
Recently, computer graphics have been employed in thereal world for digital fabrication. For example, digital fabrication technologies have been used widely in laboratories
and for consumer uses. Fabricated (e.g., 3D-milled, 3Dprinted) objects represent their specific textures. Some methods exist for modifying textures after fabrication. For designand other industrial applications, having fabricated objects
that are malleable (similar to computer graphics in the digital world) would be useful. In human computer-interaction
and graphics communities, concepts such as programmablematter and radical atoms have been proposed.
Tactile feedback enables displaying texture and affordance.
In conventional studies, interaction using tactile feedback
has been actively researched. Most haptic feedback systems
currently being studied are categorized as those that employ
either wearable or non-wearable devices. Tactile feedback
using wearable devices often employ force feedback devices(e.g., users wear the feedback devices on their arm [1]or fingertips [2]). Wearable devices can provide strong
tactile feedback and tactile presentation in any condition.
However, implementing larger wearable devices is difficult
because mounting the device on the user is necessary. By
contrast, tactile feedback that uses non-wearable devices
mainly employs environmental-type tactile displays such as
magnetic [3], electrostatic [4] and acoustic [5] fields. Force
feedback devices [6] [7] have also been frequently employed
in non-wearable devices and produce texture-like sensations*This work was not supported by any organization
1 University of Tsukua pota1401@hotmail.co.jp

370

978-1-5090-1424-8/17/$31.00 ©2017 IEEE

through a handheld stylus. The user does not necessarily
wear the device and the user’s load becomes a low-levelload.
In the present study, we aim to research new materialinteractions and to develop a new tactile device to express
various textures. The proposed system physically deforms
and changes the physical force between the finger and device.
To achieve this, we combine magnetic and electrostatic fields.
We use ferrofluid [8], which is a flexible liquid used in amagnetic field, and electrovibration [9] with adsorption force
used in an electrostatic field to develop this device.
We compared the tactile sensations in a single and multiple field. Through verification, we determined that haptic
feedback using multiple fields provides a wide range oftactile sensations compared with that using a single field. By
combining different types of force (e.g., pull and push), theproposed system can display various textures. To the best of
our knowledge, this is early study that combines multi-field
physical quantities to render haptic textures.
The electrostatic and magnetic fields do not influenceeach other. Specifically, from our experiment(see Fig. 7), we
determined that the fields do not influence each other’s tactile
presentation.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. First,
we review related studies and principles. Then, we describe
both the equipment used for implementation and the resultsof the experiments on haptic textures. Finally, a conclusions
is provided. The proposed technology will facilitate new
relationships between people and programmable textures in
the real world.
II. RELATED WORK
Many related studies on haptic texture representation havebeen conducted. One approach is to use wearable devices toprovide additional vibration to the user fingers [10]. Anotherapproach is to employ haptic displays, which provide haptic
feedback about smooth surfaces. The technologies employedin the latter approach include ultrasonic vibrations, electrostatic forces, and magnetic forces. These technologies havebeen applied to trackpads [11], pointing devices [12], andaugmented reality (AR) systems [13].
A. Magnetic Field
Tactile presentation of magnetic fields include both direct
and indirect presentation. For direct tactile feedback, placing
a magnet on the finger [2] is possible. Zhang et al [14]rendered a 3D model in mid-air using an electromagnet array.

In a direct tactile presentation, powerful tactile feedback ispossible without touching the screen.
Indirect tactile feedback expresses the deformation ofa surface. ForceForm [15] [16] achieves dynamic interaction by placing a surface with an attached magnet on anelectromagnet array. In addition to providing haptics, BubbleWrap [17] allows for user interaction in witch hardness is
detection by wrapping an electromagnet array and magnets
in a cloth.
Ferrofluid is another mainstream method for tactile presentation that employs a magnetic field. Ferrofluid changes
its viscosity based on the given magnetic field. Expressing an softness of an object by altering the viscosity of
the ferrofluid is thus possible. Inaddition, expressing thebumpiness of a surface through fluid deformation is also
possible. Linetic[18], which uses ferrofluid, combines halleffect sensing and actuation through electromagneticallymanipulated ferrofluid. Magneto-rheological fluid [19] have
similar properties to ferrofluid. When no magnetic field
is provided, magneto-rheological fluid acts as a newtonian
fluid such as water. When a magnetic field is provided,
magneto-rheological fluid acts as non-newtonian fluid (Bingham fluids) such as butter. MudPad[3], which use magnetorheological fluid, has a very low reaction time and canprovide instant multi-point feedback for multitouch inputs.
In this study, we used ferrofluid.
B. Electrostatic Field
We present haptic feedback using a technique called
electrovibration [9]. In 1954, Mallinckrodt et al discovered
the effects of electrovibration. Electrovibration creates arubbery feeling when a person drags a dry finger over a
conductive surface covered with a thin insulating layer thatis excited with a high voltage signal. Force is generated in the
direction in witch a movement is resisted by electrovibration.
Therefore, the user can feel the pull force.
TeslaTouch [4] uses electrovibration, which adds a signal
to an electrode. Interaction and touch displays were developed using electrode without a power unit. REVEL [13]employs TeslaTouch for AR. However, unlike TeslaTouch,
REVEL uses reverse electrovibration that adds a signal toa user’s finger. TeslaTouch is also used as a display for thevisually impaired and for AR display [20] [21].
Electrovibration can provide haptic feedback without using
a complicated actuator and device. However, moving a finger
is unnecessary because the tactile presentation is related to
the force generated between a moving finger and the surface.
Therefore, providing one point haptic feedback such as abutton is impossible.
C. Acoustic Field
Ultrasonic technology utilizes a squeeze film effect toreduce the friction of a flat surface and reproduces the texture
by modulating ultrasonic vibrations. Diminished Haptics [22]renders real-world textures using a squeeze film and enables
expressing various textures.

fefm

Insulator
Conductive Electrode
Ferroﬂuid
Electromagnet Array

Fig. 1. System laysers. Note that fe is frictional force generated electrovibration and fm is push-up and push-down force generated by ferrofluid

Providing tactile sensations in mid-air is possible without
encumbering the user with an actuator when using ultrasound [23] [24]. The position of the focal point can bechanged because it is a representation of tactile behavior.
MidAir [5] reflects a virtual image in the air and provides
tactile feedback using an ultrasonic speaker based on thevirtual image and finger location.
In [25], virtual objects were represented by air jets from anarray of nozzles. In [26], air vortices were used to provide
impact in midair. These can be explained as aerodynamic
methods.

D. Cross-Field Haptics
This study combines multiple haptic technologies because
they help overcome each other’s disadvantages and improve
interaction width.
wUbi-Pen [27] is a pencil-type tactile interface. wUbiPen consists of a vibrator, linear vibrator, speaker and pin
array. In addition, it provides functions such as feedback
drag, drop, and moving. Minamizawa et al [1] developed atactile presentation that combines one-point kinesthetic andmultipoint tactile feedback. They improved the accuracy of
the feedback by combining haptic technologies. Impacto [28]was designed to render the haptic sensation of hitting andbeing hit in virtual reality. The researchers in [28] combined
tactile stimulation with electrical muscle stimulation. CrossField Aerial Haptics [29] draw a tactile interface in the air by
combining ultrasonic waves and laser plasmas. Hashizume etal [30] developed touch-type haptic device that combined
magnetic and electrostatic field. The researchers in [30]described an implementation method. We experiment inaddition to the explanation about an implementation method.
Cross-field haptics is not a widely studied field. However,
we decided to use the electrostatic and magnetic fields
simultaneously. Using both fields helps remove their drawbacks and is intended to offer wider tactile presentation. The
magnetic field generates deformations that push up and downusing ferrofluid. The electrostatic field generates force inhorizontal directions using electrovibration. Upward, downward, rightward, and leftward directions can be achievedby combining adsorption force generated by electrostaticadsorption and the deformations generated by ferrofluid.

371

III. IMPLEMENTATION
A. Proposed System
Our device consists of an electromagnet array layer, aferrofluid layer, and a conductive electrode layer (Fig. 1).
1) Electromagnet array layer: Ferrofluid was controlledusing an electromagnet. The outer diameter of the electromagnet was 34 mm. The electromagnet possessed a holding
force of 18.36 kgf. Furthermore, to ensure that a groove of
the magnetic field was not created on the screen, 12 coils(three vertical and four horizontal) were laid on the 12 ×17
cm screen.
2) Ferrofluid layer: Ferrofluid, which appears as a black
fluid, is a liquid whose viscosity changes in response toa magnetic field. Ferrofluids are prepared by dissolving
nanoscale ferromagnetic particles in a solvent such as wateror oil and remain strongly magnetic even in a fluid condition.
That ferrofluids form spikes along magnetic field lines whenthe magnetic surface force exceeds the stabilizing effectsof the fluid weight and surface tension is well known.
If a magnetic field is provided the viscosity is linearly
controllable using a magnetic field. In this study, we focusedon the upward force of ferrofluid. When viscosity changes,
the force pushing up a finger by vibration is generated byswitching the magnetic field in the electromagnet.
3) Conductive electrode layer: Electrovibration [4] uses a
conductive electrode. Electrovibration provides haptic feedback using electrostatic adhesion. Furthermore, it provides
high-voltage electric vibration to the electrode. When a bodyis connected to ground and a finger moves on the electrode,force is generated. Force is generated in the direction inwitch a movement is resisted. Therefore, a frictional force isgenerated.
Electrovibration is employed in two ways: adding a signal
to a pole (electrovibration) and adding a signal to a body
(reverse electrovibration). We chose electrovibration in thisstudy. Often, the electricity generated between a metal plate
and an aluminum seat penetrates to a conductive pole.
Then, an electric current passes on to a body. Therefore
covering a pole with an insulation layer is necessary. The
insulating layer should be as thin as possible (on the order ofseveral micrometers). In this study, a transparent conductive
film on the electrode, which is an insulation coating agent(Hayacoat), was applied as the insulating layer. When thistransparent electrode sheet is mounted on a touch or liquid
crystal panel, if offers a clear advantage of bending easily.
In addition, an insulation coating agent has the advantage ofbeing easy to fabricate.
B. Control
Arduino DUE and a personal computer were used forcontrolling a circuit. A finger witch a marker attached istracked with a camera, and the tracking position is used
as input. A projector sends the image to a device based
according to location of the tracked finger. An electronic
signal is sent both to the electromagnet and to the electrodehaving a signal generator based on a tracked coordinate (Fig.
2).

372

Projector
CameraImage

Projector
CameraComputerﬁngre position

Signal Generator
Haptics Device

ComputerFig. 2.

System overview
12V

3.3V
Microprocessor

Fig. 3.

Ferrofluid control circuit

A wave pulse of 12 V is input to the electromagnet thatdrives the ferrofluid (Fig. 3). The frequency of the wave pulse
is controlled by a microprocessor. A signal corresponding to
the location of the finger is input to the electromagnet. Not allof the electromagnets run simultaneously. An electromagnet
of a necessary minimum is run and, therefore, allowing an
excessive electric current to run is not necessary. Magnetic
force conforms to the law of a reverse square and magnetic
force become weak. Therefore, having the distance of theferrofluid be as close as possible to an electromagnet isrequired.
Using a high-voltage electronic signal for electrovibration(Fig. 4) is necessary. electrovibration circuit combines a
555 timer and chopper circuit that boost pressure from 5
V to generate the voltage of 120 V. A chopper circuit is acircuit combined with FET, diode, coil, and condenser. A
power supply of 120 V is switched by a pulse wave from a
microprocessor using PhotoMOSRelay. The signal switchedis sent to the pole. A wristband for static eliminations isplaced on the user’s body to ensure user’s body is connectedwith ground.
We ensured that the system is safe for humans. The
insulator was pitched by the electrode and the finger, andthus, an electric current did not flow into the human body.
Even if it were to flow into the human body, it would be
only a 0.5 mA electric current, as there are constant current
diodes of 0.5 mA on the ground side that is connected to thehuman body.
C. Mutual Interference of the Field
In our device, electric and magnetic fields do not influenceeach other. We can consider separately and easily control
each haptic feedback. The magnetic field generated fromthe electrostatic field depends only on the electric current
that flows in an electrode. Electrovibration needs an electric
current of only a few mA so generated magnetic field
becomes exceedingly small. Because the operating ferrofluid
needs a strong magnetic field, the magnetic field that occurs
during electrovibration is ignored. In addition, an induced

555 Timer

Chopper

Photo MOS Relay
Micro Processor

Fig. 4.

CRD

conductive film

Electrovibration control circuit

(a)

(b1)

(b2)

(b3)

(c1)

(c2)

(d1)

(d2)

(d3)

(d4)

(d5)

(d6)

electromotive force results from the change in the magnetic
field. Because the additional high voltage in electrovibration
is more than 100V, voltage generated by the induced electromotive force can be ignored.
IV. EVALUATION

(a)

(b1)

(b2)

(b3)

(c1)

(c2)

(d1)

(d2)

(d3)

(d4)

(d5)

(d6)

(a)

(b1)

(b2)

(b3)

(c1)

(c2)

(d1)

(d2)

(d3)

(d4)

(d5)

(d6)

(a)

(b1)

(b2)

(b3)

(c1)

(c2)

(d1)

(d2)

(d3)

(d4)

(d5)

(d6)

(a)

(b1)

(b2)

(b3)

(c1)

(c2)

(d1)

(d2)

(d3)

(d4)

(d5)

(d6)

A. Subjective Evaluation
We conducted an evaluation of our system using six
participants (Minimum age 20, Maximum 21 years old) togauge their experience with tactile feedback. The frequencyof the signal to the electromagnet and the electrode waschanged. To deform the magnetic fluid, two signals of 20
and 100 Hz were added to the electromagnet, and each waspresented to the subject. In order to generate electrovibration,
three signals of 30, 100, and 300 Hz were added to theelectrode and presented to the subject in the same manner. Furthermore, to present deformation and electrostatic
attraction simultaneously, the afore-mentioned signals were
simultaneously added. The participants were given threebasic tasks. First, participants were told to describe the tactile
sensations they experienced. Second, participants were told
to select from the list the material the most closely matched
the tactile sensation they experienced. Third, participants
were asked level the tactile sensations for each of the fivecategories. Participants touched the screen up to 5 minutes,
and then answered the questionnaire.
1) Results: Results are shown in Fig. 5. When no signal was added to the ferrofluid and electrovibration, theparticipants experienced only the soft elasticity of the ferrofluid. Regarding their interaction with ferrofluid only, theparticipants stated that it felt like a vibration or a heartbeat,although a change in texture was not felt. Regarding theirinteraction with electrovibration only, subjects felt friction
and resistance, and participants stated that the texture approximated denim and sandpaper. When both ferrofluid andelectrovibration were applied, the participants experienced
both friction and vibration. When the frequency of electrovibration was low, most participants felt the material to be likerubber. However, when the frequency was high, the material
felt like sandpaper. When we combined the magnetic andthe electric field, we found that the viscosity, fineness andbulkiness seemed diminish as compared to when using asingle field.
B. Quantitative evaluation
We focused on mutual interference of two fields of thefinger vibration when a finger was traced on the surface. We
measured the finger vibration in the case of: no haptic interaction, interaction only with a magnetic field , interaction

Fig. 5. Ratings of stickiness, fineness, smoothness, pleasantness and degrees of friction and vibration. (a) no haptic presentation, (b1)30Hz electrovibration, (b2)100Hz electrovibration, (b3)300Hz electrovibration, (c1)20Hz
ferrofluid interaction, (c2)100Hz ferrofluid interaction, (d1)30Hz electrovibration and 20Hz ferrofluid interaction, (d2)100Hz electrovibration and
20Hz ferrofluid interaction, (d3)100Hz electrovibration and 20Hz ferrofluid
interaction, (d4)30Hz electrovibration and 100Hz ferrofluid interaction,(d5)100Hz electrovibration and 100Hz ferrofluid interaction, (d6)100Hz
electrovibration and 100Hz ferrofluid interaction

only with an electrostatic field, and interaction with combined magnetic and electrostatic fields. Furthermore, to confirm that the electrostatic and magnetic fields did not affecteach other, we measured the interaction during electrovibration when a magnetic field is present and interaction of ferrofluid when an electrostatic field is present. A haptic device
for evaluation was composed of two electromagnets and 45 ×85mm conductive electrode. Acceleration of x, y, and z axes
were measured using a three-axis accelerometer(M3AXISADXL345) attached to the participant’s fingernail (Fig. 6).
Participants move the index finger to trace the screen at 80
mm / s. Signals of 50 and 100 were added to a conductive

373

(b)

(a)

F
i
ng
e
r

(c)

3a
x
i
sa
c
c
e
l
e
r
a ons
e
ns
or
Ha
pic
sde
v
i
c
e

Fig. 6. Experimental overview: three-axis accelerometer attached to thefingernail with finger trace on the surface.
1.5 g

1.5g

(a)

1

1

0.5

0.5

Fig. 8. (a) wool texture rendering, (b) reproduction of heart motion, (c)reproduction of paramecium caudatum.

(c)manipulate these two fields, related research applications canalso be implemented.
A. Texture Rendering

760 ms

0

-0.5

X

Y

Z

(b)

1

0.5

0.5

760 ms

0

X

-1
1.5 g

1

Y

Z

(d)

B. Drag & Drop
760 ms

0

-0.5

-0.5

-1

An application that expresses various textures is possible(Fig. 8(a)). To realize this, we changed the frequency of thesignal which add to electrode and frequency of the signal
which add to electromagnet. The study in [4] expressed
texture using friction; our application expresses texture using
the force of ferrofluid in addition to friction.

-0.5

-1

1.5g

760 ms

0

X

Y

Z

-1

X

Y

Z

Fig. 7. Results for case of: (a)no haptic interaction, (b)interaction only witha magnetic field, (c)interaction only with an electrostatic field, (d)Interaction
with combined magnetic and electrostatic fields.

electrode and electromagnets respectively.
1) Results: Results are shown Fig. 7 for vibrations of afinger in cases of no haptic interaction, interaction only witha magnetic field, interaction only with electrostatic field, andinteraction with combined magnetic and electrostatic fields.
Fig. 7 shows that the vibration waveforms of the finger are
all different. When no haptic interaction occurs (Fig. 7 (a)),
the finger does not vibrate greatly. This is because the screen
is smooth. In the case of interaction only with a magnetic
field (Fig. 7 (b)), the waveforms of all the axes oscillate.
Deformation of the screen appears as the finger vibration.
In the case of interaction only with an electrostatic field(Fig. 7 (c)), the finger vibrates like a catching on the surface.
This is because an adsorption force is generated between
the finger and surface as a result of electrovibration. In thecase of interaction between the magnetic and electrostatic
fields (Fig. 7 (d)), both the deformation of the screen andthe adsorption power are characterized. By magnetic andelectrostatic fields are applied simultaneously, either one of
the generated forces does not decrease. The result shows
without the two fields interfering with each other.
V. APPLICATIONSIn this study, we propose an application that combined
magnetic and electric fields. Because we can independently

374

Assisting GUI operation is possible by using the PushPull haptics such as drag & drop, which is a basic GUI
operation. Using electrovibration our application produced
friction when dragging files, icons and other similar items.
A tactile illusion is created that is similar to that experienced
in the real world. When objects arrive at a destination, wechange the degree of stickiness of the ferrofluid. The user candetermine whether the object has arrived at its destinationby the hardness of the surface. This can be a useful guidefor operation, and the moving speed the to the destination
increases.
C. Body Tissue Simulation
Cross-field haptics can mimic the body tissue such as theheart and liver (Fig. 8(b)). In surgical operations, accurate
operation to match the state of the body tissue is essential.
The behavior can be matched easily if the specific organ
can be expressed. To reproduce organs in virtual space, thetexture of the organ surface, viscosity such as softness, anddeformations such as pulsation must be expressed. Surface
texture can be expressed using electrovibration, and viscosityand deformation can be expressed using the ferrofluid.
VI. D ISCUSSION AND C ONCLUSION
In this study, we developed a method that combines
multiple haptics technologies. We showed that this method
generates multiple direction forces (e.g., up and down, pull)using ferrofluid and electrovibration. We discussed width of
the sense of touch presentation spread from an experimentof cross-field haptics. The device can be manufactured ata relatively low cost thus enabling it to be extended toother uses and applications. However, some problems remain. Because of the vibration force generated by ferrofluid
is strong, the experience of friction with electrovibrationbecame weak. Regulating the amount of electricity added
to an electromagnet is necessary. During implementation ofout method, some difficulties were encountered when using
an insulation film on the electrode and during handling of
the ferrofluid. Devising a simpler method for implementationis necessary for a future study.
Using our method, we can generate multidirectional forces(vertical direction, pulling force) using ferrofluid and electrovibration. We discussed changes experienced by users
based on cross-field experiments. Our quantitative evaluation
revealed that the tactile presentations do not interfere witheach other. Experiments involving participants revealed thattactile sensations changing.
R EFERENCES[1] K. Minamizawa, D. Prattichizzo, and S. Tachi, “Simplified designof haptic display by extending one-point kinesthetic feedback tomultipoint tactile feedback,” in 2010 IEEE Haptics Symposium, March
2010, pp. 257–260.
[2] M. Weiss, C. Wacharamanotham, S. Voelker, and J. Borchers,“Fingerflux: Near-surface haptic feedback on tabletops,” ser. UIST’11. New York, NY, USA: ACM, 2011, pp. 615–620. [Online].
Available: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2047196.2047277[3] Y. Jansen, T. Karrer, and J. Borchers, “Mudpad: Tactile feedback
and haptic texture overlay for touch surfaces,” ser. ITS ’10. New
York, NY, USA: ACM, 2010, pp. 11–14. [Online]. Available:
http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1936652.1936655[4] O. Bau, I. Poupyrev, A. Israr, and C. Harrison, “Teslatouch:Electrovibration for touch surfaces,” ser. UIST ’10.
New
York, NY, USA: ACM, 2010, pp. 283–292. [Online]. Available:
http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1866029.1866074[5] Y. Monnai, K. Hasegawa, M. Fujiwara, K. Yoshino, S. Inoue,and H. Shinoda, “Haptomime: Mid-air haptic interaction witha floating virtual screen,” ser. UIST ’14.
New York,
NY, USA: ACM, 2014, pp. 663–667. [Online]. Available:
http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2642918.2647407[6] K. J. Kuchenbecker, J. Fiene, and G. Niemeyer, “Improving
contact realism through event-based haptic feedback,” IEEE
Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, vol. 12,
no. 2, pp. 219–230, Mar. 2006. [Online]. Available:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2006.32[7] K. J. Kuchenbecker, J. Romano, and W. McMahan, Haptography:
Capturing and Recreating the Rich Feel of Real Surfaces. Berlin,
Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2011, pp. 245–260. [Online].
Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19457-3 15[8] S. Kodama, “Dynamic ferrofluid sculpture: Organic shape-changing
art forms,” Commun. ACM, vol. 51, no. 6, pp. 79–81, June 2008.
[Online]. Available: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1349026.1349042[9] E. Mallinckrodt, A. L. Hughes, and W. Sleator, “Perception by the skinof electrically induced vibrations,” vol. 118, no. 3062, pp. 277–278,
1953.
[10] H. Ando, T. Miki, M. Inami, and T. Maeda, “Smartfinger:
Nail-mounted tactile display,” ser. SIGGRAPH ’02.
New
York, NY, USA: ACM, 2002, pp. 78–78. [Online]. Available:
http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1242073.1242113[11] M. Amberg, F. Giraud, B. Semail, P. Olivo, G. Casiez, and N. Roussel,“Stimtac: A tactile input device with programmable friction,” ser.
UIST ’11 Adjunct. New York, NY, USA: ACM, 2011, pp. 7–8.
[Online]. Available: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2046396.2046401[12] G. Casiez, N. Roussel, R. Vanbelleghem, and F. Giraud, “Surfpad:
Riding towards targets on a squeeze film effect,” ser. CHI ’11. New
York, NY, USA: ACM, 2011, pp. 2491–2500. [Online]. Available:
http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1978942.1979307[13] O. Bau and I. Poupyrev, “Revel: Tactile feedback technology
for augmented reality,” ACM Trans. Graph., vol. 31,
no. 4, pp. 89:1–89:11, July 2012. [Online]. Available:
http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2185520.2185585[14] Q. Zhang, H. Dong, and A. E. Saddik, “Magnetic field control for
haptic display: System design and simulation,” IEEE Access, vol. 4,
pp. 299–311, 2016.

[15] J. Tsimeris, C. Dedman, M. Broughton, and T. Gedeon, “Forceform:
A dynamically deformable interactive surface,” ser. ITS ’13. New
York, NY, USA: ACM, 2013, pp. 175–178. [Online]. Available:
http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2512349.2512807[16] J. Tsimeris, D. Stevenson, T. Gedeon, and M. Adcock, “Using
forceform, a dynamically deformable interactive surface, forpalpation simulation in medical scenarios,” ser. SMI ’13. New
York, NY, USA: ACM, 2013, pp. 19–22. [Online]. Available:
http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2534688.2534693[17] O. Bau, U. Petrevski, and W. Mackay, “Bubblewrap: A textilebased electromagnetic haptic display,” ser. CHI EA ’09. New
York, NY, USA: ACM, 2009, pp. 3607–3612. [Online]. Available:
http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1520340.1520542[18] J. T. K. V. Koh, K. Karunanayaka, and R. Nakatsu, Linetic: Technical,
Usability and Aesthetic Implications of a Ferrofluid-Based Organic
User Interface. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg,
2013, pp. 180–195. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/9783-642-40477-1 11[19] “Design and application of magneto-rheological fluid,” Materials &Design, vol. 28, no. 10, pp. 2658 – 2664, 2007.
[20] C. Xu, A. Israr, I. Poupyrev, O. Bau, and C. Harrison, “Tactile
display for the visually impaired using teslatouch,” ser. CHI EA ’11.
New York, NY, USA: ACM, 2011, pp. 317–322. [Online]. Available:
http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1979742.1979705[21] A. Israr, O. Bau, S.-C. Kim, and I. Poupyrev, “Tactile feedback onflat surfaces for the visually impaired,” ser. CHI EA ’12. New
York, NY, USA: ACM, 2012, pp. 1571–1576. [Online]. Available:
http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2212776.2223674[22] Y. Ochiai, T. Hoshi, J. Rekimoto, and M. Takasaki, DiminishedHaptics: Towards Digital Transformation of Real World Textures.
Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2014, pp. 409–417.
[Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-44193-0 51[23] G. Wilson, T. Carter, S. Subramanian, and S. A. Brewster,“Perception of ultrasonic haptic feedback on the hand:
Localisation and apparent motion,” ser. CHI ’14. New York,NY, USA: ACM, 2014, pp. 1133–1142. [Online]. Available:
http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2556288.2557033[24] T. Hoshi, M. Takahashi, T. Iwamoto, and H. Shinoda, “Noncontact
tactile display based on radiation pressure of airborne ultrasound,”IEEE Transactions on Haptics, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 155–165, July 2010.
[25] Y. Suzuki and M. Kobayashi, “Air jet driven force feedback in virtual
reality,” IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, vol. 25, no. 1,
pp. 44–47, Jan 2005.
[26] R. Sodhi, I. Poupyrev, M. Glisson, and A. Israr, “Aireal:Interactive tactile experiences in free air,” ACM Trans. Graph.,vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 134:1–134:10, July 2013. [Online]. Available:
http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2461912.2462007[27] K.-U. Kyung and J.-Y. Lee, “wubi-pen: Windows graphical userinterface interacting with haptic feedback stylus,” ser. SIGGRAPH’08. New York, NY, USA: ACM, 2008, pp. 42:1–42:4. [Online].
Available: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1401615.1401657[28] P. Lopes, A. Ion, and P. Baudisch, “Impacto: Simulating
physical impact by combining tactile stimulation withelectrical muscle stimulation,” ser. UIST ’15.
New York,
NY, USA: ACM, 2015, pp. 11–19. [Online]. Available:
http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2807442.2807443[29] Y. Ochiai, K. Kumagai, T. Hoshi, S. Hasegawa, and Y. Hayasaki,“Cross-field aerial haptics: Rendering haptic feedback in air
with light and acoustic fields,” ser. CHI ’16. New York,NY, USA: ACM, 2016, pp. 3238–3247. [Online]. Available:
http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2858036.2858489[30] S. Hashizume, K. Takazawa, A. Koike, and Y. Ochiai,“Cross-field haptics: Push-pull haptics combined with magnetic
and electrostatic fields,” ser. SIGGRAPH ’16.
New York,
NY, USA: ACM, 2016, pp. 30:1–30:2. [Online]. Available:
http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2945078.2945108

375