## 1 Introduction  
Since the first microparticle manipulation method based on optical techniques proposed by [PERSON] et al. in 1986 [1], micromanipulation has shown potential in the translation, rotation, pattern, sorting, and separation of particles or cells. In particular, some cell-oriented manipulations, such as cell-cell interaction, cell injection, physical transfection, have been achieved. Micromanipulation via optical techniques named optical tweezers [1] has achieved success and is now the primary tool used in the scientific community. However, consensus has been reached that the benefits of optical tweezers come at the cost of expense, complexity, inefficiency, and potential damage to cells [2], so the applications of such devices are limited. The emergence of lab-on-a-chip technology has motivated effort to replace optical tweezers in recent years [3]. Many alternative manipulation methods have been developed using magnetic [4], dielectrophoretic (DEP) [5], optoelectronic [6], and acoustic [7] methods. Acoustic field and vibration provide an essential tool for accurate, biocompatible, and non-contact manipulation of cells and microparticles, so they have received considerable attention more recently. As a means of manipulating orientation of micron-scale objects such as particles and cells, micro-manipulating devices actuated by vibration will have lower operating costs and be more reconfigurable, flexible, versatile, and biocompatible in the future. For its development, especially in practical applications, achieving a more comprehensive, extensive, and profound understanding of vibration actuated manipulations is vital. Notably, vibroacoustic methods cannot manipulate molecular-scale particles like optical or magnetic methods, as stated in the review by [PERSON] et al. [8] and [PERSON] et al. [9]. Due to the diffraction phenomenon caused by acoustic wavelengths and the highly nonlinear characteristics of fluid on the nanometer scale, the effective range of vibroacoustic manipulation is generally limited to the micron or submicron scale, which is also the scale mainly studied in this review. Since these micromanipulation schemes are usually actuated by vibro-acoustic phenomena, we refer to the concept of micromanipulation actuated by acoustic waves and streaming flow as vibration-induced acoustic wave (VAW) and vibration-induced streaming flow (VSF), respectively. VAW and VSF are two different vibration-induced physical phenomena. Acoustic radiation force (ARF) and acoustic stream are the two main mechanisms of VAW, referred to as acoustophoresis [10]. Due to the scattering between particles in the medium, an acoustic field forms in the propagation of VAW, where a radiation force exists in the gradient direction [11]. A difference exists between acoustic streaming and VSF. Here, acoustic stream refers explicitly to the phenomenon of nonlinear acoustic force propagation caused by second-order sound pressure. Although the acoustic stream is a widespread phenomenon, its performance usually needs to meet two conditions: high frequency vibration and appropriate particle size. VSF is generated by the action of a Reynolds stress, defined as the mean value of the acoustic momentum flux [12]. Streaming flow has no strict requirements for high vibration frequency and particle diameter. In other words, vibration is not a sufficient condition for streaming flow. However, VAW and VSF often occur simultaneously and are difficult to eliminate their mutual influence. To ensure the operability and achieve the desired effect, we discuss the physical principles of the two mechanisms above to determine and explore the functions performed by each. The principles of forces induced by the acoustic wave and streaming flow are complicated, but these issues are vital for their study. Therefore, we introduce these forces briefly in Section 2.