Talk:Haptic technology

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Technical details?[edit]

There doesnt seem to be a Wiki area for describing how Force Feedback works. Hopefully someone can shed some light on the subject with comparisons between previous attempts at FF. Please? :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.87.231 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 3 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link on 'HowStuffWorks' describing the Playstation Dualshock controller and it describes how the vibration (basically 1 DOF vibration haptics device) motor works. Other devices like Sensable's, Force Dimension's and Novint's have a full 3 DOF (cartesian x,y,z force vectors... at least) feedback points. These are obviously very different (and much more expensive) than the simple vibration motors which Immersion_Corporation viciously guards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tz-Auber (talk • contribs) 07:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Greek word that is the etymological base for "haptics" should have a rough breathing mark over the initial alpha (looking like a single open quote mark). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.234.90.30 (talk) 20:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Novint link?[edit]

Hey all, I was told that I was not allowed to add a link to Novint's homepage (despite being prominently featured in the Games section) because it was "commercial" while other commercial links exist on the link page. (Sensable, Force Dimension, etc..) Anyone know what's up with that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tz-Auber (talk • contribs) 06:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to work on this page a bit... One of the first things to do would be to reorganize the external links section and make a subsection specifically for the commercial links (and add in Novint). Hopefully that will solve the problem. Any feedback on my edits is welcome...--Aokamura 01:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some feedback for those people who seem to want Novint product info clobbered from this article: I agree that Wikipedia should not be used as an advertisement site. But that does not mean that Wikipedia should be purged of all mention of commercial products. And that goes especially for this article on haptics when there is a singular breakthrough in what has become commercially available for the mass market. As for the editing practice of reversion, I see that as a radical action that should be reserved for correcting people who clearly do not share the goal of improving Wikipedia's articles. If someone spams an article with ads or vandalizes an article THEN a reversion would be appropriate. But if a Wikipedian puts forth their best effort toward making an improvement to an article, that would be the type of activity to be encouraged. It is the cumulation of those types of efforts that make Wikipedia great. Vybr8 (talk) 10:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For Ham Pastrami, I just saw that you are a member of the Video Games WikiProject. Now I am especially puzzled that you are pressing me for justifying my addition as noteworthy. Before you persist with your view that Novint Falcon info does not belong in this article on haptics, you might want to go find one of these thingies and give it a try. It is a revolutionary leap in computer interfaces. Perhaps the problem is that people from that company have been shamelessly promoting themselves here. I don't know the full history. But if that was the case I would think that one of them would have created an article about the company itself. I was surprised to see that there was no Novint article on Wikipedia, so I created it myself. Again, I have no connection to that company myself, other than the fact that I bought one of their gizmos and am totally freaked out by it. Vybr8 (talk) 10:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While you are entitled to your opinion with regard to the usefulness of the content and the application of Wikipedia's features, you should be aware that no actual policies or guidelines support those views. Reverting/undoing is simply a convenient way to return the article to a version that is believed (by the reverting editor) to be better, which is also a form of improvement and deserves the same amount of good faith as the act of adding the content in the first place. As for your specific claims regarding Novint or their products, the fact that you have personally been impressed does not meet WP:NPOV or WP:OR, and your invitation for me to try it myself would similarly fail those standards, regardless of what my opinion is. If it is, indeed, a "revolutionary leap" in haptics by even the slightest measure of objectivity, simply find a reliable source stating something to this effect. If there is no indication that this device is notable and opinions about it cannot otherwise be verified, it does not belong anywhere on Wikipedia. I stated this earlier in my edit summary; that if you could find a source, then you were free to re-add the content (according to what the source had to say). But you did not make that effort. No one told you that you were prohibited from mentioning Novint or the Falcon, you were simply asked to follow the standards of the encyclopedia when doing so. You apparently feel exempt from those standards and did not follow through with finding adequate sources. Please do not find blame in other editors for asking that the quality of the article be upheld. Ham Pastrami (talk) 01:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


- Can we please reword the description of the falcon? "Set to revolutionize" is a bit too much like marketing to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.105.194.7 (talk) 09:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- I agree with unsigned and Ham Pastrami. Generally speaking, a new device is only revolutionary once it's actually gone and revolutionized something, otherwise it's just marketing. Look at what happened with the Segway. Until then, the Falcon is just another haptic device and deserving of nothing more than a cursory mention. Tuba.terry (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I removed the comments in question. We can't talk about what will happen due to WP:CRYSTAL, and Wikipedia is not a brochure. -Verdatum (talk) 23:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback on Article[edit]

  • Haptic technology section is a bit cumbersome. I suggest reorganizing it into something like pratical and entertainment uses of haptic technology... then alphabetize and combine the subsections where possible.
  • The bit about the night club should be at the top of the page, or at the very least not under 'Haptic Technology'.
  • Would be nice to have another picture, maybe at the top.

guiltyspark 23:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • One key implementation of haptic technology that is missing is the BMW iDrive controller. That was where I first encountered the term "haptic profile".
  • Under "Commercial Applications", the first application, Tactile electronic displays, seems to have an incomplete sentence, "The two most popular kinds of tactile electronic displays."

184.64.172.26 (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Content and title of article[edit]

There was confusion and overlap between this article and Haptics. I have moved the info about human touching behaviour to Haptics. Now this article should be only about haptic technology. To that end I propose that the article is renamed Haptic technology. In any case I am not that keen on an article title being an adjective. Any other suggestions? Matt 20:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. I'm a bit confused over the sudden introduction of temperature near the end of the article. While I agree that temperature could be a component of a haptic system, the example given is of uisng air-holes to keep the user's hands cool during extended use. If the temperature isn't being actively controlled (as by a computer), then I don't think of it as being haptic. --Vrmlguy 09:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Game controls[edit]

I know I'm being pedantic, but I think both parts of the following statement need to be sourced.

Many have believed these controllers to be providing force feedback when in reality true force feedback involves the feedback of a resisting force to the user.

"Many have believed" are usually considered weasel words, and the definition of "force feedback" needs a cite. Heck, I may do it if I get around to it.

-- trlkly 07:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled[edit]

No mention of Wii in this article. Is Wii considered a haptically-informed device? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.141.54 (talk) 15:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The word haptic is an adjective, and the article Haptic is actually about haptic technology. There are some other articles that use the adjective 'haptic', including Haptic perception and Haptic communication. This was suggested last year in an earlier comment on this page. Currently Haptic technology redirects to Haptic, and it should be the other way around, I think.--Cooper24 (talk) 07:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support though I prefer the noun-based form Haptics technology, which would be the straightforward conversion from the disambiguated form Haptics (technology). That way we are clearly describing a domain of technology rather than a property possessed by individual technologies. However, either name is preferable to the current one. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to take care of the move for you (as there seems to be no opposition), but could a decision be made as to whether you'd like it at Haptics technology or Haptic technology? Thanks, -- Natalya 11:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's been done! -- Natalya 16:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more comment on the word 'haptic': the Greek verb from which it derives is correcdt, but for some strange reason, the standard dictionary/lexicon form of the verb was not used: Greek verbs are listed by first person singular indicative, not by the infinitive (as done here). That is, it should be απτομαι, not απτεσθαι. And yes, I am neglecting accents and breathing marks. But should this be corrected in the article, the correct accent/breathing should be retained: it is correct now. 98.97.86.230 (talk) 23:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Further reading" links from Robot[edit]

  • Flanagan, J.R., Lederman, S.J. Neurobiology: Feeling bumps and holes, News and Views, Nature, Vol. 412, pp. 389-91 (2001). doi:10.1038/35086674
  • Hayward V, Astley OR, Cruz-Hernandez M, Grant D, Robles-De-La-Torre G. Haptic interfaces and devices (Portable Document Format). Sensor Review 24(1), pp. 16-29 (2004).
  • Robles-De-La-Torre G. & Hayward V. Force Can Overcome Object Geometry In the perception of Shape Through Active Touch. Nature Vol. 412 pp. 445-8 (2001). doi:10.1038/35086588
  • Robles-De-La-Torre G. The Importance of the Sense of Touch in Virtual and Real Environments (Portable Document Format). IEEE Multimedia 13(3), Special issue on Haptic User Interfaces for Multimedia Systems, pp. 24-30 (2006).

I'm fixing up Robot for its WP:GAR review, and these links in the Further Reading section on haptic technology don't seem to me to be sufficiently tied to that article. Feel free to add them to this article if you like. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 13:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

holographic projections?[edit]

It's a common misrepresentation, but holograms are not projections. And the article given as a reference doesn't even use holographic technology(Typical reporters not fully understanding what they are writing on). It uses a curved mirror and a regular computer monitor to create an illusion of an object in a 3D space, much like the old Time Traveler arcade game. And that is far from being a hologram. It still uses haptic technology but I just though you guys would like to get your facts straight. Laserlight31 (talk) 14:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled[edit]

Needs to mention Smartphones especially since there are options within settings "enable haptic feedback" etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.244.121.144 (talk) 15:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should the article have mention of the new Steam controller by Valve?[edit]

Steam just released information about a Steam controller that has haptic feedback of some kind. It seems to use trackpads that can do more than most trackpads as far as haptic goes. Does it seem like this article shoould have information about it? Workster (talk) 19:27, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Section: Design, By Generation is misleading[edit]

I have removed the section "Design, by generation". The rationale is below.

1) This section leads the reader to believe that all haptic devices can be placed into one of these four categories, and that all haptic devices follow this progression. Neither of these points are true.

2) The section does not cite any reference for the given classification, so right now this seems like some editor's personal opinion.

3) This section appears to be heavily biased towards flat panel displays such as the kind found in smart phones rather than a general classification scheme for all haptic devices.

4) This section contains factual errors.

First let me summarize the classification scheme proposed in the current draft: First gen: Whole-device vibration feedback. Second gen: Localized vibration feedback, as well as better-tuned vibration. Third gen: Localized vibration feedback with specialized feedback effects. Fourth gen: Pressure sensitive device input.

The most glaring problem is that this section does not harmonize with the rest of the article. Many haptic devices are mentioned that simply make no sense under this classification- such as using force feedback in airplane controls or robotic teleoperation. These devices do not use vibration feedback, and are quite old (stated in the article as the 1950's). In general this section is written about haptic feedback in electronic devices, but the broader definition of "mechanical feedback" given in the article introduction encompasses a much broader range of devices. For example, force feedback is provided by the very old, simple, and non-electronic reach extender tool, and is in fact an essential aspect of the tool.

The section includes at least one major factual error in the fourth generation, and is quite out of date at any rate. The Microsoft Surface Pro tablet uses a pressure sensitive pen to provide pressure sensitive input directly on a display, and was released in Feb 2013. A company called Wacom has been producing pressure sensitive input pads for quite a long time indeed- I don't know exactly when they started but I remember that a product called the ArtPad II had pressure-sensitive input and was old enough that its software came on floppy disks. Either the author isn't clear about what exact functionality they're referring to, or they are very uninformed.

24.107.185.147 (talk) 11:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Haptic technology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Haptic technology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:56, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with lead Primary Illustration.[edit]

There's a problem with the illustration of the lady in a VR helmet.

There's no haptic technology in that picture. Those data gloves that she's wearing are an input device, they're not haptic gloves.

Do we have a better image? The picture of the rumble-pack and the vibration motor are both a little sad, but they would work.

I have a number of 3DSystems/Geomagic haptic arms in my office that I could photograph, but that's because I work at 3dSystems. I don't want to be the person who adds that to the article for fear of COI concerns, but if people think that would be a valuable photograph I could take it easily enough. ApLundell (talk) 19:13, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A haptic feedback device used with a simulation.
I'm getting this idea that this is not a well-watched page. Which is a shame, because haptics is becoming a more important topic.
I am certainly not a pro photographer, but I'd like to propose this image as the new lead.
It is not perfect, but unlike the current lead, it's not merely decorative. It **does** actually show a haptic technology in use.
I should make it clear, though. I do have a COI, I work for the company that manufacturers these.
If this image isn't acceptable, perhaps a photograph of some vibration motors could be used. The tiny kind used by phones. They're not visually interesting, but they're by far the most common form of haptic feedback in use today.
Another option would be the rumble motor out of a game controller from the PS2 era. That'd be a little out of date, but the advantage of those older rumble motors is that it's visually obvious how they work. ApLundell (talk) 20:21, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a section for "Skin-Integrated Haptic Technology" or creating a new Wiki for said topic[edit]

Hi all,


I'm doing research for an Info Science course and have come across some research about "wearable pneumatic vibrotactile actuator technology" that can be mounted on a fingertip and looks like those small latex Band-Aids you can wrap around your hands. I'm still in the beginning part of my research, but so far what I've come across is fascinating and I'd like to update this article with this up-to-date information.


Anyways, I just wanted to convey my thoughts. As a first-time Wikipedian, I'm happy to be here and I look forward to contributing more to this collective and insightful space! :)


Acarajé No 1 (talk) 05:09, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Haptic_technology&oldid=1202581999"