Volume 22 (2003), number 2 pp.

117–132 COMPUTER GRAPHICS for um

Recent Developments and Applications of Haptic Devices

S. D. Laycock and A. M. Day

School of Information Systems, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK

S.Laycock@uea.ac.uk; Amd@sys.uea.ac.uk

Abstract
Over recent years a variety of haptic feedback devices have been developed and are being used in a number of
important applications. They range from joysticks used in the entertainment industry to specialised devices used in
medical applications. This paper will describe the recent developments of these devices and show how they have
been applied. It also examines how haptic feedback has been combined with visual display devices, such as virtual
reality walls and workbenches, in order to improve the immersive experience.
Keywords: Haptics, Force feedback, Haptic Gloves, Exoskeleton, Workbenches, Motion platforms, Locomotion
Interfaces.
ACM CSS: H.5.2 Information Interfaces and Presentation—Haptic I/O; I.3.8 Computer Graphics—Applications;
I.6 Simulation and Modelling—Applications

1. Introduction receptors. Force feedback is able to provide large forces

Haptic feedback is becoming more viable as the processing
power of computers increases and the technology used to
build the haptic devices develops. The inclusion of haptic
feedback in applications has been shown in several cases
to improve interaction [1–3]. This paper aims to outline the
main types of haptic feedback device by illustrating a variety
of devices which are commercially available and under
current research. The applications in which these devices
have been utilized will also be discussed. The aim is to show
the extent to which haptic feedback has been used and to
provide inspiration for future developments.
The first section will give a selection of terms which will
be used throughout this paper. The following sections will
describe some of the devices currently available and their
applications. These devices range from small one finger
desktop devices to motion platforms capable of exerting
forces on rows of seats in a theatre.
1.1. Terminology
1.1.1. Force Feedback
capable of stopping the user’s motion, for example when
colliding with a virtual wall. This paper will mainly be aimed
at devices capable of force feedback, however, some devices
allowing tactile feedback will also be included.
1.1.2. Tactile Feedback
Tactile feedback is sensed by a humans receptors which lie
much closer to the surface of the skin. It is experienced from
heat, pressure and vibration. Feeling the texture of a surface
is one example of tactile feedback.
1.1.3. Haptic Feedback
The definition of the word haptic taken from the Oxford
English Dictionary is; “Of, pertaining to, or relating to the
sense of touch or tactile sensations.” [4]. This definition
seems to link it more closely with tactile feedback. The
term Haptic Feedback is now widely used to include Tactile
Feedback and Force feedback.
1.1.4. Degrees of Freedom (DOF)

Force feedback links the user to the computer by applying For every haptic device the degrees of freedom are specified.
forces on the user. These forces are sensed by low-bandwidth This quantity describes how many translations and rotations

c The Eurographics Association and Blackwell Publishing Ltd

2003. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road,
Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148,
USA. 117
118 S. D. Laycock and A. M. Day / Haptic Feedback Devices
are utilized by the haptic device. A haptic mouse for instance
moves in the x-y plane and so has two degrees of freedom
(DOF). Three-dimensional devices are able to translate
along the x-axis, y-axis and the z-axis and are classed as
three DOF. Three-dimensional devices which are also able
to rotate about all three axes have six DOF. Arm and hand
haptic devices can have more degrees of freedom, as the
force feedback can be applied to other points such as the
forearm and wrist.
1.1.5. Actuators
The actuator is the component that allows a haptic device to
exert the force on the user. One of the most common types
of actuator used in haptic devices today is the electric motor.
The type of actuator used is crucial to the design of any
haptic device. A trade off has to be made between the power
the actuator is able to produce and its volume and weight.
This issue will be discussed further in the following section
regarding the design of a good haptic feedback device.
2. Requirements for the good design of a Haptic
Feedback Device
In order to produce a good haptic feedback device several
requirements need to be taken into account. It is important to
examine closely the human sense of touch when construct-
ing these requirements. It is difficult to produce a complete
set accurate for all devices as the ideal device requirements
vary for different devices and depend on the application.
These requirements have been compiled from the follow-
ing sources [5], [6] and [7]. A common goal as set out by
Ellis [8] describes the need to allow unimpeded motion but
to be able to exert high fidelity forces and torques. The me-
chanical constraints for the device should include low iner-
tia, backlash, weight and friction. When using a device it is
important that if the contact point of the device is not collid-
ing with anything in the virtual world then negligible friction
is perceived. A friction level of 5% of the force range was
set by Adelstein and Rosen during their design phase [9].
The low friction enables the user to move the device freely
when not in contact. Obtaining negligible friction can be a
problem particularly when high stiffness is required. High
stiffness implies a stiff mechanical interface which needs to
be constructed from metal. These heavy materials increase
the friction as well as increasing the overall weight of the
device. This provides a conflict between obtaining high stiff-
ness whilst keeping low friction. When considering the con-
struction of a force feedback device there is a choice between
serial and parallel mechanisms. Serial mechanisms are more
compact and can be fast. The down side is that as each sec-
tion is added to the chain the total inertia increases and the
total stiffness decreases. Parallel mechanisms do not exhibit
the above problem and have a much higher stiffness. The
disadvantage over serial mechanisms is that the mechanism’s
elements can physically interfere.


c The Eurographics Association and Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003
Ensuring the device is statically balanced is another
design consideration. This means that the centre of mass of
the moving parts remains stationary regardless of movement.
If this property can be achieved then there is no need
for active gravity compensation and the average torque
required from the actuators is zero. The device should also
be designed so that it does not intrude into the visual space,
meeting this requirement can be difficult particularly with
exoskeleton style devices (see section 5). The materials that
are used to construct such devices need to be considered.
Some parts of the device will need to be strong enough
to take the stress and strain applied by the user and the
actuators. Steel is often used if high forces are required;
aluminium when smaller forces are required. However, these
materials make the devices heavy, which can cause problems
for haptic gloves, arm exoskeletons, and portable devices.
Another consideration, which affects the overall weight of
the device, is the type of actuators incorporated. Actuators,
as discussed previously, provide the forces for the device. In
most cases a good actuator should be compact and light as
well as capable of producing the necessary power to deliver
the forces. There are tradeoffs between power, volume and
weight since actuators capable of producing large forces are
generally heavier and are larger in size than those actuators
capable of smaller forces. The weight of the actuators
used is a critical factor when considering portable devices,
particularly when multiple DOF are required. For certain
devices these constraints can be relaxed. In motion platforms
used in flight simulators the weight and size of the actuators
is less critical compared to the greater power output that
is required. There are various actuators available including
hydraulic, electric and pneumatic. Hydraulic actuators are
able to produce large forces but there is a potential hazard
from hydraulic fluid leaks. The oil used as the hydraulic fluid
may not be safe if the device is to work in hygienic areas
such as hospitals. In the worse case the flammable liquid
posses a fire risk. Pneumatic actuators tend to be much safer
but the force they can produce is limited. Electric actuators
are the most common, as they are reasonably safe and can
provide forces suitable for many small haptic devices. The
actuators should also be backdrivable. This means that the
user should be able to move the device around without
opposition from the actuators. This property coupled with
low friction and inertia aid in achieving unimpeded motion.
Often haptic devices will be used for long periods of time
and so they must be comfortable to use. The weight of a
device needs to be taken into consideration. If parts are very
heavy then moving them around may cause fatigue in a
short space of time particularly if the device is grounded,
to some extent, on the user. The position in which the user is
expected to operate the device also needs to be considered.
For small desktop devices it is important that the hand and
wrist can be positioned comfortably. Many small devices
allow the wrist to be supported by the surface on which
they sit, similar to operating a mouse. A pilot study of
 S. D. Laycock and A. M. Day / Haptic Feedback Devices
wrist motion was undertaken to show that a square region
of side 150 mm could be utilized as the workspace area and
that 50 g masses were acceptable for applications requiring
approximately 30 min to complete [8]. For larger devices,
ensuring a comfortable position for operation can be more of
a problem. The freedom of motion relates to the requirement
that the workspace should be sufficient for the application
and should not restrict the user in natural movement. For
the motion of larger devices such as arm exoskeletons the
characteristics of the human arm need to be noted. In order
for humans to perceive forces smoothly the device must
match or exceed the human sensing resolution. The joint
position sensitivity (JND – Just Noticeable Differences) for
the finger, wrist, elbow and shoulder are as follows: 2.5◦ , 2◦ ,
2◦ and 0.8◦ [10]. Another factor is the forces that are able to
be produced. The maximum forces that can be sustained for
long periods of time is particularly important. For a male
test case Tan et al. [10] determined the sustained forces to
be; wrist 64.3 N, elbow 98.4 N, shoulder 101.5 N and for a
female test case; wrist 35.5 N, elbow 49.1 N, shoulder 68.7 N
(side) and 87.2 N (front).
Shimoga details five main approaches to touch feedback
these are; Visual, Pneumatic, Vibro-tactile, Electro-tactile
and Functional Neuromuscular Stimulation [11]. Pneumatic,
Vibro-tactile and Electro-tactile devices will be discussed
in this paper. For tactile devices the weight is even more
significant as the parts of the device that interact with the
operator such as the array of pins in Vibro-tactile devices are
attached to the operator. As mentioned at the beginning of
this section looking at the characteristics of human touch is
a critical task when designing devices. Air pockets and air
rings transmit forces to the user in pneumatic devices. The
pressure produced by these devices need to be appropriate
for the human’s ability to sense pressure. This pressure
should be just above 0.2 N/cm2 . The reasons for this value
is due to the fact that the human finger cannot sense pressure
below this value and that large forces deteriorate the sensing
ability.
When considering Vibro-tactile devices Shimoga lists
the following properties of the cutaneous mechanoreceptors
as crucial information for the design of touch feedback
devices: The receptors within the skin, their mean receptive
areas, spatial resolution, responsive frequency range and the
frequency for maximum sensitivity. The spatial resolution of
the fingertip has been determined using a test called the two-
point limen [7]. The average separation at the fingertip was
found to be 2.5 mm and the palm less sensitive at 11 mm.
Single-point vibrations at the fingertip can be sensed at a
bandwidth of at least 300 Hz [8]. Tactile devices are also
produced which convey temperature information to the user.
Humans can experience temperature without discomfort
between 13 and 46 ◦ C. Typically the human finger tip can
sense a temperature change of 1 ◦ C.


c The Eurographics Association and Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003
119
3. Desktop Devices
The most common devices in use today are those which
can be operated in a desktop environment. These devices
range from the conventional mouse with added tactile or
force feedback to haptic gloves with limited movement. The
difference in price range of these devices is large. The Log-
itech Wingman force feedback mouse costs approximately
60 EUR [13] and Immersion’s CyberGlove and CyberGrasp
combination costs about 50 000 EUR [14]. The technology
and design of some of the devices available will now be de-
scribed, starting with tactile feedback devices for the desktop
environment.
3.1. Tactile Devices
Tactile devices have been in use since the 1970’s to act as
aids for blind and deaf people. More recently this technology
has been developed to provide additional information for
human–computer interaction. The first devices to be com-
mercially available for haptic feedback in the desktop envi-
ronment were the force and tactile feedback mice. Logitech
produce a tactile mouse tilted the iFeel MouseMan. This
mouse is able to vibrate as the user interacts with buttons and
menus on the desktop and windows applications. The mouse
can also be used with a variety of games. Some reviewers
have stated that the vibrations produced by the mouse do not
seem particularly natural and may in fact become tiresome
in the windows environment [15]. However, very positive
feedback has also been presented with regard to its appli-
cation to a variety of games. The tactile feedback that the
mouse exhibits is controlled by software called TouchSense
produced by Immersion Corp.
At the University of East Anglia experiments were
undertaken with a variety of tactile mice to investigate their
use in a collection of perceptualization tasks [16]. Tactile
mice were designed with the base mouse comprising of
an Apple Macintosh single-button mouse. The feedback
was provided through the sound channel of the Macintosh
Quadro 950. Mono and Stereo speaker mice were developed
using typical personal computer speakers stripped to just the
coil, magnet and casing. The speaker could then be attached
to the side of the mouse to provide vibrotactile stimulus
to an area onto which the user could rest their finger. The
preferred mouse produced was the solenoid mouse due to
its low noise and comfort of use. One experiment involved
the user choosing a shorter line displayed within a collection
of slightly longer lines. The task was completed with and
without the aid of tactile feedback. The results showed that
visual clutter could be overcome with the inclusion of tactile
feedback.
Besides mice, tactile feedback has also been applied to
the input devices in laptop computers. At the IBM Almaden
Research Centre the Tractile device has been developed [17].
This device is located in the TrackPoint position on the
120 S. D. Laycock and A. M. Day / Haptic Feedback Devices
laptop and looks the same as the TrackPoint. An actuator
is used to vibrate inside the TrackPoint at a maximum rate
of 30 Hz. The goal of this device is to produce tactile
vibration with a compact design and power consumption
suitable for laptop computers. This device has been used
in experiments to investigate the effects of tactile feedback
in steering tasks. The experiment was designed such that
the user is required to navigate around a circular tunnel
keeping within the edges. This task is assumed to resemble
menu navigation. The results of this experiment showed that
the steering performance was increased with the use of the
tactile device and that it is important to ensure that the visual
feedback corresponds to the tactile feedback.
The use of tactile feedback is not just limited to the desk-
top environment. There are several applications which use
tactile feedback to aid users in a variety of tasks. In numer-
ous activities where humans find themselves interacting with
machines problems can arise where the interface overloads
the users’ sensors. Driving a car is one task which requires
concentration on the surroundings and leaves little time to
check the dashboard’s collection of dials. The University
of British Columbia has developed a tactile steering wheel
which could warn the driver of a variety of messages such
as low fuel [18]. They have undertaken experiments to show
that with the addition of tactile feedback the user is able to
distinguish when warnings occur faster than visual feedback
alone. The steering wheel comprises of a pneumatic pocket
covered with a vinyl steering wheel cover. The pneumatic
pocket can be inflated and deflated rapidly using a pump to
provide vibratory stimulus that can be localised to a specific
area. In most tactile devices, which use vibration as the stim-
ulus, the part of the device which touches the user moves
orthogonal to the users skin. At McGill University a device
which utilizes an array of 64 closely packed piezoelectric
actuators to create lateral stress fields in the skin covering the
finger pad has been developed [19]. This device illustrates a
new approach to providing tactile feedback although further
research is needed to achieve the perceptions of texture from
this device. A new design for a USB driven tactile display is
currently being developed at McGill University. It has 100
taxels at a 1 mm pitch. It is thought that it will be able to
move the skin ±50 µm per taxel.
In addition to tactile responses through pressure on the
skin devices are also available to provide information based
on temperature. The Displaced Temperature Sensing System
produced at CM Research is able to provide temperature
information through a device attached to the fingertip [20].
The device is capable of producing temperatures between
10 and 35 ◦ C. It has some interesting possibilities for
applications such as providing temperature information to
the user of a prosthetic limb or in tele-robotics.


c The Eurographics Association and Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003
3.2. Two and Three DOF Desktop Devices
This section includes force feedback devices which exhibit
two or three degrees of freedom. One such example is
the LogiTech Wingman force feedback mouse. This device
allows the user to feel the graphical user interface by
applying force feedback in the x-y plane. The user is able
to feel buttons and items on the start menu and is also able
to receive force feedback when resizing a window. This is in
the form of stretching sensations similar to that of stretching
a rubber band. There are several other mice available such as
the MouseCat produced by Haptic Technologies [21]. Haptic
Technologies has since been acquired by Immersion Corp.
This mouse was originally aimed at the visually impaired,
to allow them to operate a computer with a graphical
display which could be felt via the mouse. The MouseCat
is supplied with software which allows the user to interact
with the Windows environment and extra sounds are played
for the icons on the screen. This software is known as
TouchWindows. Tests have shown that users learn Windows
significantly faster when using this software [21].
Another inexpensive category of devices is the force feed-
back joystick. The ordinary joystick which provides no force
feedback delivers only information regarding the position of
the stick. There are two main types of configurations for
joysticks; these are Spherical Jointed Joysticks, which use
only rotations, and Cartesian configurations that allow trans-
lations as well as rotations. Cartesian joysticks have the ad-
vantage of a larger workspace and the ability to translate
giving increased mobility to the user. However, they also
need an increased amount of desk space.
There are several types of joysticks available for personal
computers. Microsoft has produced the Force feedback
joystick called the Force Feedback 2 [22]. This device costs
approximately 100 EUR and contains a 16 bit 25 MHz on
board processor. As well as being applied to games this
device has also been adapted for the rehabilitation of patients
with brain injuries [23]. The Joystick has been adapted with
the addition of a handle designed for patients less able to grip
the original handle of the joystick and with a support for the
user’s arm. The main advantage of this system is the ability
to allow patients to use the programs over the Internet (in the
form of Java Applets), to provide personalised programs of
therapeutic exercises.
Force Feedback is becoming increasingly popular in
gaming with 12% of all personal computer games being
touch sense enabled [24]. Joysticks and Mice are some of the
devices used in these games. Over 200 games are available
for the SideWinder Force Feedback 2 Joystick. There are
also other devices such as the SideWinder Force Feedback
Wheel retailing at approximately 180 EUR. Force feedback
is provided through a steering wheel to allow the user to
experience a variety of sensations including the roughness
of the terrain. Logitech have also produced a very successful
 S. D. Laycock and A. M. Day / Haptic Feedback Devices
force feedback wheel, the GT, which sold over 350 000. Its
successor the Driving Force wheel was released in 2001
for the Playstation 2 retailing at 130 EUR and is expected
to be popular. For a variety of force feedback devices for
the games industry see [25] [26]. Other larger devices are
also available in the entertainment industry and these will be
discussed in later sections. In 1999 Immersion released the
Impulse Engine 2000 a two DOF joystick. It consists of a
13 cm hard plastic handle mounted on top of a metal box.
It is marketed as a research quality force feedback joystick
exhibiting smooth drive torque with minimal compliance
and friction [27]. Two or more devices can be interfaced with
a single system allowing for joint participation in tasks such
as surgical simulations.
Joysticks and mice are common interfaces but many
haptic devices have been designed which adopt a novel
approach. The first of this type of device to be discussed is
called the Pantograph [28]. It has two degrees of freedom
and was developed at McGill University, Montreal. This
device was originally conceived in 1993 with the following
requirements: a large work area, simplicity and fidelity. The
device uses a simple five-bar linkage that is characterised
by an acceleration response. It has negligible friction and
so when no forces are applied the impression of sliding
over an icy surface is detected. Several versions of this
device have been developed, the original was designed for
the rehabilitation of the visually handicapped in an office
environment. In 1995 a smaller version was developed which
was used in experiments in micro gravity. Recently the
Pantograph has been redesigned to allow for a resolution of
10 µm or less.
The devices described in the preceding sections all work
in two dimensions. The interaction of current graphical user
interfaces is in two dimensions and has been for many
years but humans operate in three dimensions. The two
dimensional interface constrains the user from being able
to interface with the computer as naturally as possible.
Computers are nearing the stage where three-dimensional
interfaces and three-dimensional force feedback devices are
becoming a viable option for the average computer user.
Today the rendering of a virtual environment can almost
be completely left to the graphics card and today’s 2 GHz
processors can replace the dual processor systems that used
to be required.
Force feedback devices capable of working in three
dimensions will now be discussed. The next generation of
personal computers will be able to effectively utilize these
devices. However, the constraining factor will be the cost
of a three-dimensional force feedback device. We will start
our discussion with a device that does not have actuators
for each DOF, but is able to give the user the impression
of three dimensional force feedback. It is called the PenCat,
a two and a half degrees of freedom device produced by
McGill University [29]. Forces are applied to the degrees


c The Eurographics Association and Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003
121
of freedom in the horizontal plane. The vertical movements
are passively actuated by an elastic return. This device has
the ability to make the user believe they are touching three-
dimensional surfaces when actuators are only providing
forces in two dimensions.
Most haptic devices have some static friction, which
accounts for approximately 5% of the output. The Maglev
is a magnetically levitated joystick [30]. This device uses
Lorentz actuators that ensure no friction is perceived. The
entire device is contained in a desktop height cabinet. The
user interacts with a single moving part located in the
centre of a bowl mounted in the top of the cabinet. One
disadvantage of the Lorentz actuator is the fact that heating
occurs when electrical current flows through for long periods
of time. This means the device can only be used accurately
for short periods of time. The work area of this device is
relatively small, 15–20 degrees of rotation and 25 mm of
translation is the range of motion available. It gives the
user restricted movement but is useful for many desktop
applications, particularly those which require small forces.
The reason is that as friction is non-existent in the device it
allows small forces to be perceived accurately.
FCS Control Systems have recently produced the Haptic-
Master [31]. A three DOF force controlled robot arm capable
of a maximum force of 250 N. The ability to produce large
forces coupled with a maximum deceleration of 50 m/s2
allow high fidelity contacts to be perceived. This device is
aimed at applications such as simulation and training, reha-
bilitation and virtual design. It was found to perform very
well in terms of the fidelity of forces when operated by the
author. When colliding with complex polygonal models such
as a tooth the feeling of every part of the tooth seemed very
realistic. The final device to be discussed in this section is
the Excalibur device a linear haptic display [32]. This device
operates on a larger scale compared to the rest of the de-
vices already mentioned with the workspace area measured
at 300×300×200mm. It is able to provide a continuous force
of 100 N or a peak force of 200 N. The device is constructed
on a large square surface with guide rails along each edge.
The device only exhibits three DOF but with large force
capabilities it would be well suited to telerobotics, mainte-
nance analysis and CAD style applications.
3.3. Five-Seven DOF Desktop Devices
The devices discussed previously allow the user fairly
limited movement in terms of DOF and the work area, with
the exception of excalibur. The next set of devices are those
with slightly larger work areas and between five and seven
DOF. The first category concerns those devices which are
manipulated using a tool of some kind. This can be a pen
based device or a device which allows the user to attach a
specific type of tool corresponding to the application. The
advantages of the pen based device are; it is familiar to the
122 S. D. Laycock and A. M. Day / Haptic Feedback Devices
user, can easily be used to represent the handles of tools
and can be held in many ways to match the required tool.
Unlike force feedback gloves the size of the device is not
partly dependant on the size of the user.
In 1991 a project began at the University of Colorado
with the aim to design and develop a high fidelity haptic
interface [33]. As discussed in section 2 the actuators are
an important component in a haptic device which must be
designed appropriately. For this device maximum forces to
be produced were set at 10 N. To be able to achieve this
force whilst maintaining low friction a new dry friction
concept was developed. This requires no seals for containing
the lubricating fluid of previous friction drives and is
extremely stiff whilst possessing no backlash or cogging.
This device was largely completed in 1999 and over the
past three years the main focus of the research has looked
at how well haptic interfaces can improve the understanding
of large complex multidimensional data sets. This device
uses a parallel mechanism to produce force in five DOF.
The haptic interface project is now looking towards a
new theme: to investigate how well users can convey
three-dimensional concepts directly in three dimensions.
One possible application is to use the haptic interface in
connection with teaching three-dimensional vector calculus
concepts to students.
Another example of a pen based device is the Phantom
produced by SensAble Technologies. There are five devices
available in the Phantom range [34]. These devices start with
the Phantom Desktop which has been designed for the office
environment. This device has a work area which can be fully
utilized with only hand and wrist movements. It has been
used in a wide variety of applications including art, design
and medicine. When tried by the author smooth unimpeded
movements can be made and sufficient forces for desktop
applications are applied. The user must take care in not
applying too much force as the limit of the device can be
exceeded relatively easily.
Two-dimensional paint programs and design programs are
well established but commercial three-dimensional art pro-
grams that use input devices capable of three-dimensional
force feedback are not commonplace. The Phantom has been
used as the three-dimensional input device capable of force
feedback in art and design applications that allow painting
[35], sculpture [36][37], engraving [38] and carving [39].
DAB [35] is an example of a haptic paint program which
allows the user to paint onto a virtual two-dimensional
canvas using a virtual three-dimensional paintbrush. The
Phantom Desktop is incorporated to provide the haptic
feedback for this program. The user holds the stylus of
the device like a paintbrush and the bristles of the brush
are modelled such that realistic strokes can be produced
under physical rules. A variety of brushes are simulated to
allow a variety of effects to be utilized. Three-dimensional


c The Eurographics Association and Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003
modelling has also been developed. Freeform [37] produced
by SensAble Technologies is one example of a modelling
tool using the Phantom. The user is able to interact with a
deformable object representing virtual clay. The model is
constructed by modifying a volumetric representation. This
program is used by designers and artists. The designer uses
the stylus to operate a virtual carving tool on the screen.
At the University of North Carolina a modelling tool based
on subdivision surfaces has been developed called inTouch
[36]. This tool allows a mesh to be modified at several
levels to achieve the desired shape. The user can also paint
onto the surface of the object using the haptic device as the
paintbrush.
The Phantom has been incorporated into many medical
applications. One such application is the examination of
the human thigh [40]. The system uses a spring damper
model to represent a deformable human thigh. The data
for the thigh has been obtained using echography and the
system is used to train practitioners to detect thrombosis in
the vein. The Phantom has also been used as the device to
provide feedback for virtual reality training when diagnosing
prostate cancer. The stylus is not used in this example the
user’s index finger is placed in the thimble gimbal [41].
Astley and Hayward [42] detail the constraints that need
to be adhered to when linking a haptic feedback device to
surgical simulations. They give several techniques which can
allow the update rates of the haptic and visual rendering to be
achieved. These techniques result due to observations made
regarding the amount of detail and feedback that is required.
For instance they suggest that the user is focused on a small
region of interest when probing a virtual body. The region
of interest can be represented with high detail compared to
parts of the object outside of the region of interest.
Phantom Premium is the range of haptic devices which
allow a larger work area and can produce larger forces with
six DOF. There are three devices in the Premium range
each with varying size of work area and maximum exertable
force. Ford Motor Company uses a large Phantom for testing
the design of a vehicle. The user is able to feel the interior
of the car. This is a type of virtual prototyping. Virtual
prototyping is the process of constructing a prototype of a
design in a virtual environment and is outlined in a paper
by Chen at SensAble Technologies [2]. Prototyping in this
way reduces the time taken to construct the model and also
reduces the need for modifications that may be required
further along the design stage. Chen’s paper describes how
the Phantom Premium 3.0 can be used in virtual prototyping.
It describes the range of areas to be product visualisation,
fit analysis, dynamic simulation and maintenance analysis.
Chen uses the example of the haptic device being integrated
with Boeing’s VPS system for maintenance analysis. In one
test the user is required to move a teapot around simulated
landing gear. Their tests have shown that haptic feedback is
almost essential in order to make the task possible and that
six DOF is significantly better in this case when compared
 S. D. Laycock and A. M. Day / Haptic Feedback Devices
to three DOF. Virtual prototyping can also be performed in
a distributed environment; Adidas use SensAble’s devices to
help design their shoes in a virtual distributed environment
[24].
Another six DOF device is the Freedom 6S, commercially
available through MPB Technologies, in association with
Prof. V. Hayward [43]. This device can produce a maximum
force of 2.5 N and exhibits a resolution in the same league
as the Phantom Desktop. The Freedom 6S has a larger
workspace when compared to the Phantom Desktop and
is being promoted for a variety of applications ranging
from animation through CAD to telemanipulation. It is the
result of a 14 million dollar project started in 1992 to be
used in telerobotic applications. The level of fidelity is very
high, so much so that it is claimed that surgeons using the
device should not be able to feel the difference between
using a real scalpel to cut through tissue and using the
Freedom 6S to cut through virtual tissue [44]. A six DOF
device capable of 25 N maximum force has also recently
become commercially available. This device is called the
Delta Haptic device based on the delta manipulator and
was designed at the Institut de Systèmes Robotiques [45].
This device also uses a parallel design and has base
mounted actuators. These properties help to ensure a high
stiffness and a low inertia. Experimental results have proven
promising when testing the device for navigating a mobile
robot through a maze.
Many haptic devices have been applied to and purposely
built for medical applications. A device originally designed
for this purpose is the Freedom-7 [5]. This device has seven
DOF and its design allows it to be adapted to simulate
scissors, knives and forceps. The original concept for this
device was recorded by Hayward in 1995. The work area
relates to an ellipsoidal volume of axis lengths 130 × 160 ×
180 mm. The work area is roughly the same as the low range
of the Phantom Premiums although it has an extra DOF. This
extra DOF comes from the ability to translate 10 mm relative
to the rest of the device. The extra DOF can be utilized for
the opening and closing of scissors and forceps. When this
extra DOF is not required the device can be optimised to
use only six DOF. Two advantages of this device are its
small footprint ensuring a low visual intrusion and static
balance. This device is made from aluminium. Research is
currently being undertaken to see how advanced materials
can be used which could lead to a lighter construction with
higher stiffness and higher structural damping [5].
Minimal invasive surgery is performed very frequently
as it has advantages for the patient such as faster recovery,
less damage to healthy tissue and smaller scars. However,
this procedure has its disadvantages for the surgeon. These
are restricted vision, difficult hand–eye coordination and
handling of instruments with limited mobility. To be able
to train doctors and students more effectively to complete
these procedures devices have been constructed such as


c The Eurographics Association and Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003
123
the Laparoscopic Impulse Engine. This is a five DOF
device produced by Immersion Corp. The device is well
suited to Laparoscopy and Endoscopy procedures with a
maximum force of 8 N and an accurate position resolution
of 0.025 mm. It is claimed to bring unprecedented levels of
realism to surgical simulations. This device has been used in
the Karlsruhe Endoscopic Surgery Trainer [46]. This system
was developed to aid in the training of minimal invasive
surgical procedures and the first commercial system
was installed at MIS-training System at the University
Hospital/Tuebingen Germany in 1996. A rough imitation
of the outward human abdomen is utilized in conjunction
with electromechanical instrument guidance and tracking
systems. A variety of surgical instruments and endoscopic
cameras can be imitated. The feedback is provided through
two Laparoscopic Impulse Engines. A new device for
laparascopic applications is the Laparoscopic Surgical
Workstation by Immersion Corp. It provides the force
feedback to a new training system by Reachin Technologies
titled The Reachin Laparoscopic Trainer [12]. It consists
of a 19” flat panel display controlled by a PC with dual
1.8 GHz processors plus graphics card. The trainer will take
the user through several steps of showing an informative
video, to guiding the user through the procedure before
allowing them to perform a number of tasks. An important
feature is the ability to perform skill assessment. This is
achieved by recording every movement that the laparoscopic
instruments make. This performance data can be analysed to
provide information regarding errors, any possible damage
to patient tissue and variation from the ideal path.
The devices discussed previously consist of rigid materi-
als linked together. Another way of manipulating the part of
the device held by the user is by attaching it to strings or steel
cables which can be tightened and relaxed to move a part in
a required direction. The advantages of these stringed force
feedback devices are their low weight and small inertia. They
also tend not to intrude in the visual space of the user since
only thin cables and a small structure which supports them is
required. The disadvantage is that the cables can only apply a
force in one direction, if the device needs to move back in the
other direction another string and actuator is required. For
a complete device this can mean a large number of strings
and actuators. One such stringed device is called the Space
Interface Device for Artificial Reality (SPIDAR) [47]. The
original design was a cube with four cables extended from
four vertices of the cube. At each vertex was an actuator and
pulley system capable of applying the forces to the cable.
The other end of each cable was attached to a centrepiece
where the user’s finger was placed. Later the SPIDAR II
was produced. This device uses eight cables which allow
forces to be applied to both one finger and a thumb. More
recently the Scaleable-SPIDAR has been developed capable
of providing greater forces and a much larger workspace.
This device is discussed in section 8.
124 S. D. Laycock and A. M. Day / Haptic Feedback Devices
4. Haptic Feedback Gloves
Haptic feedback gloves open up the world of force feedback
by allowing the user to pick up and feel virtual objects in
a much more natural way. This ability is required in many
applications. The first problem in designing a device for
producing force feedback to the hands is the weight of the
parts that are needed. The heaviest parts of the device are
usually the actuators. These are often placed on the arm or
back rather than the hand which can quickly cause fatigue,
as well as needing a large amount of space on the hand.
Another concern for the developer is deciding which hand
movements to apply force feedback to. Including the wrist
the human hand has 26 DOF. To apply force feedback to all
these would require many actuators and additional linking
materials that would make the device uncomfortable to wear
as well as increasing the price significantly. One way to
reduce the problem of weight is to mount the device onto
a desk or wall for support. The University of Tokyo did
this when they produced their glove in 1994 [48]. It is a
mechanical exoskeleton, which stands on a desk, into which
the user places their hand. Eleven DOF can be utilized when
operating this device. The Sensor Glove II, which allowed
20 DOF, was developed between 1995–1999.
Most of the early portable feedback devices allowed
limited force feedback, for example the University of
Tsukuba’s Hand Master developed in 1992 [7]. It is a simply
designed string based device which allows force feedback
to the thumb and first finger. In the case of the finger an
actuator is placed on the back of the hand which tightens
a cable stretched along a beam to a pulley. The cable is
attached to the fingertip. In 1993 a design was patented for a
glove which had both force and tactile feedback. The tactile
feedback consisted of a three by three array of micropins
which are positioned at each fingertip. The addition of
tactile feedback to the glove allowed texture of objects to be
perceived and therefore increased the information the user
can retrieve when touching a virtual object. In 1995 Virtual
Technologies produced the CyberTouch Glove based on the
patent [7]. Virtual Technologies has now been acquired by
Immersion Corp. A force feedback glove titled CyberGrasp
is also produced by Immersion Corp [49]. It is able to
produce 12 N per finger and allows the user the freedom of
a 1 m radius hemisphere for working.
The human–machine Interface Laboratory at Rutgers
University has a history of producing haptic feedback gloves
with their Rutgers Masters Range. Recently produced is
the Rutgers Master II-New Design (RMII-ND) [50]. This
glove allows 16 N forces to be exerted onto the thumb,
index finger, middle finger and ring finger. It uses pneumatic
actuators arranged in a direct drive configuration. The
advantage of this is the lack of cables and pulleys to promote
a more compact and light weight structure. The weight
of this device is approximately a third of the weight of


c The Eurographics Association and Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003
the CyberGrasp discussed above. The disadvantage of this
device is that the structure is located near the palm and so
the users’ movement is limited to a certain extent. However,
this design does have the advantage of not being able to force
the user’s fingers backwards.
At the University of Tsukuba a device aimed at allowing
two hands to experience tactile feedback is being developed.
With this device, known as FEELEX, the user is not required
to wear an array transmitting the feedback but instead an
array of actuators is mounted to a base. Attached to the
actuator array is a flexible screen made from rubber with
a top layer of white nylon cloth. An image is then projected
straight onto the cloth from above. The user is then able to
look directly at the image and feel the surface to obtain both
visual and haptic information. Due to the fact that the user is
not required to wear any equipment several people can use
this system at the same time. There are some limitations with
this system such as the inability to represent a sharp edge and
actuator overload caused by too much force being applied by
the user [51].
5. Arm Exoskeleton Haptic Devices
Applications can be envisaged where the workspace and
forces provided by devices discussed previously would
simply have too many limitations. This leads us to devices
that allow the user’s arm to experience force feedback. The
most common configurations to achieve this are exoskeleton
constructions.
The user places their arm inside the device and forces can
be applied to separate points along the arm and hand. It is
often the case that separate devices are used for the arm and
hand. The force feedback for the hand can be reflected using
one of the gloves discussed in the previous section. With the
increase of the forces involved and the fact that the user is
actually inside the device makes safety an important issue.
The Sarcos Dextrous Arm Master, [52], was originally
designed for underwater telerobotic applications. The arm
is attached to a base resting on the floor. This device has
ten degrees of freedom with 97.7 N-m of torque at the
shoulder, 50 N-m at the elbow, 22 N-m at the wrist and
5.5 N-m at the hand. High pressure oil is used by the
actuators to provide the force feedback but this has the
disadvantage of the risk of oil leaks. The Dextrous arm
is available for telerobotic applications where a slave is
also supplied to mimic the movements of the master. A
full body suit is also available from Sarcos which allows
the user to control a humanoid robot or a character in a
virtual environment with 32 DOF, however, this suit does
not provide force feedback. The Sarcos Dextrous Arm
Master has been linked with the Utah’s Alpha 1 CAD
system to manipulate virtual mechanisms [54]. Another arm
manipulator based on an exoskeleton design is the Master
Arm produced at the Southern Methodist University. This is
 S. D. Laycock and A. M. Day / Haptic Feedback Devices
a unilateral aluminium manipulator grounded to a chair. The
device is strapped to the right arm and inflatable cushions are
used for force feedback. It is used as part of the Pneumatic
Haptic Interface which allows the users to feel objects in the
computer generated environment [56].
One smaller desktop device capable of producing force
feedback to the whole hand and arm is the CyberForce pro-
duced by Immersion Corp [49]. This device is proficient in
producing force feedback to the users arm and in conjunction
with the CyberGrasp the user can also experience force feed-
back to each finger. The workspace is limited to 300 mm by
300 mm and a maximum force of 8.8 N can be experienced
making this device perfect for the desktop environment. This
device currently retails at approximately 70 000 EUR [14].
Devices, which are grounded on the users body, can
provide an increased freedom to make the experience more
natural. One disadvantage of this is that the user has to
support the weight of the device. Considerations of weight
and expense have probably limited the developments of
portable force feedback devices for the arms. A portable
joystick has been designed at the Univeristy of Tsukuba.
This joystick has three degrees of freedom and weighs 500 g.
The joystick is strapped to the users’ arm and allows freedom
to move around [57]. Some larger force feedback devices
will be introduced in sections 7 and 8.
6. Workbenches
The connection between the three-dimensional force
feedback device and the graphics projected on the two-
dimensional screen still needs further developments.
Problems arise when the user is required to use the device
some distance from the virtual object. It can require
a prolonged training period in which the user has to
get accustomed to moving a three-dimensional object
and watching the interactions a small distance away on
the monitor. If the user could appear to manipulate the
three-dimensional object directly then this would be an
improvement.
The Reachin Display has achieved this ability to see
and feel the object in the same place by using a semi-
transparent mirror onto which the display from the monitor
is projected. CrystalEyes glasses are incorporated to allow
the user to perceive the object in three dimensions [53]. With
the Reachin system one hand is used for navigation and the
other is used to touch the virtual objects. For the navigation
a SpaceMouse can be used and for the haptic feedback a
Phantom device is used. There are two types of system
these are called the Desktop Display and the Developer
Display. The Desktop Display uses a Phantom Desktop
whereas the Developer Display uses a Phantom Premium
1.5 haptic display. The Reachin display currently starts at
a price of approximately 36 000 EUR [14]. Arsenault and
Ware have conducted experiments using apparatus similar to


c The Eurographics Association and Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003
125
the Reachin Display to find out the affects of force feedback,
head tracking and correcting the perspective view of the
display [58]. Their results showed that the performance of
the task was improved by 20% when head tracking and
force feedback was used in combination with this apparatus.
Another system similar to the Reachin display is the Visual-
Haptic Workbench developed at the University of California
[59]. This system includes a CRT suspended from the ceiling
projecting onto a mirror beneath. The user looks at the
mirror wearing CrystalEyes glasses and manipulates the
environment with two-Phantom devices. A separate device
is used for the index finger and the thumb of the operator.
Larger examples of this amalgamation of three-
dimensional viewing and force feedback are the haptic
workbenches. These types of system usually consist
of a virtual reality workbench, glasses and a haptic
feedback device. The workbench and glasses ensure
three-dimensional objects can be perceived and the haptic
feedback device allows objects in the virtual environment
to be felt. In general these devices allow a larger workspace
than the Reachin Display described previously. One of the
early workbenches was the Grope workbench [60]. The
Grope project was started in 1967 with the aim of the
project being to link visual and haptic display for use in
research regarding molecular docking systems. The project
consisted of four stages of development, the first stage
concerned a two dimensional system and the final stage
completed the initial aim, a 6-D molecular docking system.
This final system is called the Grope III and consists of an
Argonne Arm attached to a Sun4 and uses a large screen
for visual display capable of producing stereovision via a
Tektronix alternating polarizing plate. The use of this device
in research undertaken by chemists regarding molecular
docking has proved the usefulness of haptics in scientific
visualisation of this nature.
Another workbench is the Nanomanipulator [61]. This
system allows the user to interact with an environment
magnified a billion times. This system was constructed
in 1992 when a Scanning Tunnelling Microscope built at
UCLA was linked with a Head Mounted display at UNC.
An Argonne III remote manipulator was used to provide the
force feedback. The use of the head mounted display allowed
the user to be surrounded by the microscopic environment
while touching and modifying the object.
More recently a haptic workbench has been constructed
at the University of Utah [55]. The system was constructed
to allow research to be carried out into the benefits of haptic
scientific visualisation. Their research concerns the use of
their system for volumetric CT/MRI/MRA data, computa-
tional fluid dynamics data and finite element solutions to
bioelectric field problems. For the visual display a Fakespace
Immersive Workbench is used in combination with Stereo-
graphics CrystalEyes LCD shutter glasses. To provide the
haptic feedback a SensAble Phantom 3.0 haptic device is
126 S. D. Laycock and A. M. Day / Haptic Feedback Devices
used and a pinch glove can be operated with the subdominant
hand to allow the user to navigate menus.
7. Human-Scale Haptic Devices
Human-scale devices concern those systems that allow the
entire human body to be inside the virtual environment.
These systems are particularly useful when the application
requires an immersive experience with visual and force
feedback.
At the University of Tsukuba, Hashimoto and Iwata
have undertaken research into using immersive projection
displays and haptic feedback [62]. Their system comprises
of a prototype Ensphered Vision display and a HapticMaster.
The HapticMaster produces good fidelity of forces but the
three pantograph mechanisms tend to impede the users’
motion. The Ensphered vision display consists of a single
projector and two mirrors allowing a field of view of 360◦
horizontal and 125◦ vertical. The movement inside the
display is limited due to the static haptic device being
used. The advantage is the large workspace which can
be seen seamlessly and without distortion or perspective
problems. This system has been applied to medical data
applications to allow a user to navigate and interact with
Computed Tomography (CT) volume data. The visual
display surrounds the user to provide better visual feedback
compared to the workbenches described in the previous
section but the freedom of motion provided by the haptic
device is limited to an eight-inch radial dome which in
some applications will not be satisfactory. The next device
to be discussed allows forces to be experienced over a much
larger workspace.
The device is described as a Safe Large Workspace Haptic
device produced at Harvard University [63]. The design was
motivated by the requirement to provide safe, repeatable,
accurate and smooth controlled resistance to the user over
a large workspace. It is very versatile in its application to
sports training and rehabilitation. This is due to the end
effectors ability to accommodate a variety of components
and objects to grip sports equipment and support the users’
body. This device can be used comfortably by a 6ft 4in tall
person when training for a number of sports such as javelin
and shotput. The maximum force of 500 N and workspace
volume of a sphere three meters in diameter make this device
applicable to natural body movements and strong enough
to support the user. Another device of similar workspace
volume is the Scaleable-SPIDAR. It is a large-scale version
of the SPIDAR, mentioned in section 3.3, which permits the
user to experience force sensations of weight, contact and
inertia [64]. The design is similar to the SPIDAR discussed
but this time the user stands inside the cube instead of
just placing their hand inside. A prototype has been built
to the dimensions of a 3 m cube with a 100-inch display
screen. The prototype allows finger rings to be worn on


c The Eurographics Association and Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003
both hands to allow a maximum force of 30 N to be felt.
Experiments have been undertaken into how useful this
design is in terms of providing haptic feedback to virtual
environments. These experiments have shown that the force
feedback provided increases the user’s ability to complete
the task. The advantage of this device is the limited intrusion
into the workspace. The weight of the parts of the device
which interface with the user is negligible. Problems can
arise if you move faster than the motors can reel the cable
in, this causes the cable to be suspended under its weight
and can provide false information regarding the position of
the hand. Another disadvantage is that the user is limited to
the size of the cube. The following device also uses a cable to
provide the force feedback but it is a portable device which
gives the user an increased freedom of motion.
This device is being developed at the Research Centre
for Advanced Science and Technology, at the University of
Tokyo. The system combines a portable haptic device with
immersive projection displays such as CAVE displays. It is
known as hapticGEAR [65], which consists of a backpack,
worn by the user, containing actuators. A wire stretches in
front of the user and a pen is attached to the wire to provide
force feedback to the hand. This design ensures that the
user’s visibility is not effected and that most of the weight
can be located on the back which is less likely to tire the
user. A major advantage of this system is the freedom of
movement and therefore the large workspace which can be
exploited. This system has been applied to virtual prototyp-
ing such as in manipulating a full size model of a car.
To allow truly immersive experiences the key will be in
allowing the user to feel forces on any part of the body when
it collides or touches virtual objects. The previous device
could possibly be developed to allow cables to be linked
on key joints on the user to apply forces by tightening and
releasing the joints. The current problem is that the actuators
required are still relatively heavy when compared to the
power they can produce. Locating all the actuators required
for this type of system on the back would prove too heavy
for the user to carry for any length of time comfortably.
The weight of the design has constrained full body force
feedback devices by grounding them in order to take the
pressure off the user.
An early design for a full body haptic display is a non-
portable design using an exoskeleton approach. This design
was called “Immerse” produced by Zechner in 1993 [7]. This
suit uses a head mounted display for the visual feedback.
The problem with this design is the restriction in movement,
as the user is not permitted to walk freely. Some research
has been developed which incorporates an Omni-directional
treadmill to allow the user to walk around whilst staying in
a relatively small area [66]. The device has been developed
for the US Army Dismounted Infantry Training Program.
Section 9 includes other locomotion interfaces to allow
natural motion.
 S. D. Laycock and A. M. Day / Haptic Feedback Devices
To allow users to feel as though they are moving over a
relatively large distance when in fact they have only moved
a few centimetres leads us to Motion Platforms.
8. Motion Platforms
Motion platforms allow the user’s whole body to be moved
so that they can perceive sensations such as moving quickly,
falling and moving over rough terrain without actually
leaving a small area.
One of the first uses of the motion platform in virtual
environments was the application to flight training. Many
flight simulators have been constructed to train pilots in a
variety of simulated environments. The force feedback is
usually provided from actuators located in a base mounted
on the floor. The motion platform then sits on top of the
base and actuators. The arrangement of these platforms
is often based on designs, by Stewart in 1965 [67]. This
design consists of six actuator arms connected between the
base and the motion platform and was used for early flight
simulators, as well as in some Joysticks such as the Haptic
Master [68]. Several types of actuators can be used including
hydraulic, pneumatic, and electrical. The hydraulic actuators
are probably the best suited to motion platforms, particularly
the large motion platforms, as they are accurate and can
produce large forces. However, the flammable hydraulic
fluid pushed through at high pressure has a potential to leak.
Pneumatic and electrical techniques used in the PemRam
may become commercially viable and should be much safer.
The largest flight simulator is produced by NASA Ames
Research Centre called the Vertical Motion Simulator,
VMS [69]. The cab has a range of motion consisting of
seventy feet vertically, 40 feet lateral movement and 8 feet
longitudinal movement. Eight 150 horsepower motors are
required to move the platform which weighs 70 tons. The
size of this simulator and the larger range of motion make
it possible to achieve critical conditions such as during take
off. This device has six DOF to match the degrees of freedom
of a real aircraft. The motion platform allows for a variety of
different cabs to be attached to it to simulate a range of craft.
These include helicopters, space shuttles and fighter jets.
Motion platform technology is also applied to the
entertainment industry. This ranges from single user arcade
games to multi-user theatre simulations in which the entire
audience experiences motion. Universal Studios houses a
ride based on a roving motion platform called Men In Black
– Alien attack [70]. This ride allows the audience to expe-
rience forces on the pod in which they sit. These forces are
applied to give the impression of aliens interacting with the
pod and the impression of movement at high speed. Single
user chairs are also available in the entertainment industry.
A chair titled the ”R & R chair” provides motion to the user
and display when the user moves the joystick. A small air
compressor is used to provide power to the chair [71].


c The Eurographics Association and Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003
127
August Designs Inc, have produced a Ship Motion Simu-
lator [72]. This is a motion platform similar in configuration
to the Stewart Platform. It allows the user to simulate the
physical motion of a variety of boats from small rafts to large
container ships as well as wave conditions. They believe this
simulation to be particularly valuable for the training and
testing of personnel and equipment for use on board ships.
The surface area of the motion platform measures 4 feet by
5 feet and the device is priced at approximately 85 000 EUR.
Alternative devices to the motion platforms developed are
headsets that can be worn which stimulate the area of skin
near to the ear by transmitting signals that affect the users
balance. By varying the signals produced by these headsets
the user can be made to feel unbalanced. Virtual Motion has
produced one such example of a virtual motion headset [73].
9. Locomotion Interfaces
In the previous section devices were discussed which gave
the user the feeling of motion whilst the user stayed in a
relatively small area. To simulate more natural movements
through larger virtual environments locomotion interfaces
can be incorporated. They allow the user to walk through
a virtual environment and require energy to do so. These
interfaces provide advantages for applications in training and
simulations involving tasks where humans are required to
move naturally through an environment. In particular where
the users fatigue has an impact on how the simulation is used
as apposed to performing a task whilst sitting in a chair.
The Sarcos Treadport is one example of a locomotive
interface [74]. The Treadport consists of a 4 × 8 ft treadmill,
a mechanical tether and a CAVE-like visual display. The
mechanical tether is attached to the user which prevents
them from walking through virtual walls. A safety line is
suspended from the ceiling preventing the user from falling
if they become unbalanced. Providing the user does not
move too rapidly the system will allow the user to squat and
crawl on their hands and knees. The mechanical tether can
provide force feedback to the user to simulate walking up
and down slopes without the need of moving the treadmill
to the desired incline. Psychophysical experiments have
shown this approach to be reasonably successful. Currently
the research undertaken at the University of Utah involves
the evaluation of the benefits of three dimensional force
application to the body.
Another locomotion interface is the Torus Treadmill
produced at the University of Tsukuba [75]. The torus
treadmill consists of 12 conveyor belts positioned side by
side with 2 mm gaps. Each conveyor belt is driven by an AC
motor to achieve a maximum conveyor speed of 1.2 m/s. The
belts are moved in the perpendicular direction to the rotation
of the belt to allow the user to walk in any desired direction
indefinitely. Due to the speed restrictions of the belts the user
may have to walk slower than they would naturally walk.
128 S. D. Laycock and A. M. Day / Haptic Feedback Devices

Table 1: Comparison of Tactile Feedback Devices

Title Developer Year Effect No. of Stimuli

CyberTouch Immersion Corp 1995 0–125 Hz 4 fingers, thumb, palm

Tractile Device IBM Almaden Research Centre 1999 30 Hz 1
Pneumatic Steering Wheel University of British Columbia 2001 10Hz 1 - (8 or more)
Lateral Skin Stretch McGill University 2000 - 64 actuator/112 contactor/36 gap
Fingertip Stimulator University of Exeter 2001 25–400 Hz 100 contactors
TouchMaster Exos, Inc 1993 210–240 Hz 4 fingers, thumb
Tactool System Xtensory, Inc 1995 Impulsive 30 g 2 fingers
Vibration 20 Hz
Displaced Temperature Sensing System CM Research - Temperature 10–35 ◦ C finger
Temperature Display Hokkaido University 1993 Temperature −10–60 ◦ C fingertip

- indicates information not available

Table 2: Comparison of Desktop Haptic Feedback Devices

Title Developer Year DOF Max Force(N)/ Resolution(mm) Workspace(mm)

Torque(N-m)

MouseCat Haptic Technologies 1997 2 10 - 125 × 75

Pantograph McGill University 1993 2 10 - 100 × 160
PenCat McGill University 1998 3 - - 100 × 60 × 25
Impulse Engine 2000 Immersion Corp 1999 2 8.9 0.02 152 × 152
Phantom Desktop SensAble Technologies 1993 3 out/6 in 6.4 0.02 160 × 130 × 130
Freedom-7 McGill University 1998 7 5/0.6 0.02 130 × 160 × 180 7th
dof:10
HapticMaster University of Tsukuba 1994 6 17.6/0.54 0.4 sphere Ø400
Freedom 6S MPB Technologies 1999 6 2.5/125 0.02 220 × 240 × 220
SPIDAR Tokyo Institute of Technology 1990 3 4 per string 0.5 900 × 600 × 600
SPIDAR II Tokyo Institute of Technology 1994 6 to 12 4 per string 0.5 300
Maglev Carnegie Mellon University 1996 6 55/6 0.003 15–20◦ rotation, 25
translation
FEELEX 2 University of Tsukuba 2001 Screen 10.8 at top of rod 8 50 × 50
Haptic Interface University of Colorado 1999 5 8 0.005 sphere Ø300
Delta Haptic Device Institut de Systèmes Robotiques 2001 6 25/0.2 < 0.1 trans < 0.04◦ rot cylinder Ø360 × 200
Excalibur Haptic Technologies 1999 3 200 0.008 300 × 300 × 200

- indicates information not available

The motion of the feet is measured by magnetic sensors.
When the displacement is determined the belts can be moved
in the opposite direction to cancel out the step. The overall
walkable area of the treadmill is one metre square.
10. Conclusions
This survey is intended to give insight into the types of haptic
feedback device available and some of the applications
incorporating haptic feedback. The Tables 1–4 allow easy
comparison of the lastest force and tactile feedback devices.
The most common category of haptic feedback device is
the desktop device. The Phantom devices being the most
common to be used in a variety of applications ranging from
sculpture to medical training. A large category of haptics is
devoted to medical applications with a series of specialised
devices to train users in performing surgical and exploratory
procedures. Currently the technology is too expensive for the
standard user to purchase their next computer accompanied
by a six degree of freedom haptic feedback device, however,
in the near future we should see the force feedback mouse
become a prominent feature in the Windows environment.
The addition of the three degrees of freedom desktop device
will certainly follow.
Towards the high end of the range of haptic feedback
devices future developments could include the production of
a portable haptic feedback suit which would provide force
feedback to all parts of the users body in a large scale

c The Eurographics Association and Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003
 S. D. Laycock and A. M. Day / Haptic Feedback Devices 129

Table 3: Comparison of Haptic Feedback Gloves and Arm Exoskeletons

Title Developer Year DOF Max Force(N)/ Workspace(mm)

Torque(N-m)

Sensor Glove University of Tokyo 1994 11 - -

Sensor Glove 2 University of Tokyo 1998 20 - -
Sensor Arm University of Tokyo 1998 7 - -
Hand Master University of Tsukuba 1992 2 per finger 7–20 at fingertip Joint Angle 60◦
CyberForce Immersion Corp 2001 6 8.8 300 × 300
CyberGrasp Immersion Corp 1999 5 12 per finger 1000 radius
RMII-ND Rutgers University 2000 4 16 per finger 2000 radius
Sarcos Dextrous Arm Master Sarcos 1991 10 97 N-m shoulder 180◦ shoulder
50 N-m elbow 105◦ elbow
50 N-m wrist 105◦ × 180◦ × 100◦ wrist
5.5 N-m hand 80◦ thumb
Pneumatic Haptic Interface Southern Methodist University 1999 - 854N/28-58 N-m* -

- indicates information not available

* operating at 100psi

Table 4: Comparison of Large-Scale Haptic Devices

Title Developer Year DOF Max Force(N)/ Resolution(mm) Workspace(mm)

Torque(N-m)

hapticGEAR University of Tokyo 2001 3 15.7 10 Portable (Back grounded)

WearableMaster University of Tsukuba - 3 1.9 - Portable (Arm grounded)
Scaleable-SPIDAR Tokyo Institute of Technology 2000 6 15 3000 × 3000 × 3000
HapticMaster FCS Control Systems 2000 3 250 < 0.004 1 rad, 280–360 radius, 400 height
Large Haptic Device Harvard University 1996 6 500/550 - sphere Ø3000

- indicates information not available

workspace. This idea seems a very exciting prospect with
applications in training for a variety of purposes including
military as well as fully immersive meetings in virtual
distributed environments. The current limitations of actuator
technologies prevent this design from becoming a reality at
the present time.
References
1. R. J. Adams, D. Klowden and H. Blake. Virtual Training
for a Manual Assembly Task. vol. 2(2), 2001.
2. E. Chen. A six degree of freedom haptic system for
desktop virtual prototyping applications. In Proceed-
ings of the First International Workshop on Virtual
Reality and Prototyping, pp. 97–106. 1999.
3. A. Crossan, S.A. Brewster and A. Glendye. A horse
ovary palpation simulator for veterinary training. In
Proceedings of PHANToM Users Research Symposium,
pp. 79–86. 2000.
4. Oxford English Dictionary Online. http:
//dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/00102461.
5. V. Hayward, P. Gregorio, O. Astley, S. Greenish,
M. Doyon, L. Lessard, J. McDougall, I. Sinclair, S.
Boelen, X. Chen, J. P. Demers, J. Poulin, I. Benguigui,
N. Almey, B. Makuc and X. Zhang. Freedom 7: a
high fidelity seven axis haptic feedback device with
application to surgical training. In ISERS ’97. 1997.
6. T. H. Massie and J. K. Salisbury. The PHANTOM
haptic interface: a device for probing virtual objects. In
ASME Winter Annual Meeting. Symposium on Haptic
Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator
Systems. Chicago, IL, 1994.
7. G. C. Burdea. Force and Touch Feedback for Virtual
Reality. John Wiley and Sons, Inc, New York, 1996.
8. R. E. Ellis, O. M. Ismaeil and M. G. Lipsett. Design
and Evaluation of a High-Performance Haptic Interface.
Robotica, 321–327, 1996.

c The Eurographics Association and Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003
130 S. D. Laycock and A. M. Day / Haptic Feedback Devices
9. B. D. Adelstein and M. J. Rosen. Design and implemen-
tation of a force reflecting manipulandum for manual
control research. In Advances in Robotics:1992, vol. 42,
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, pp. 1–12.
1992.
10. H. Tan, M. Srivasan, B. Eberman and B. Cheng. Human
Factors for the Design of Force-Reflecting Haptic
Interfaces. In Proc. of ASME WAM, vol. 55-1, AMSE,
New York, pp. 127–134.
11. K. B. Shimoga. A survey of perceptual feedback issuses
in dexterous telemanipulation: part II, finger touch
feedback. In Proc. IEEE Virtual Reality Symposium ’93,
IEEE Computer Societ Press, pp. 271–279. 1993.
12. Reachin Laparoscopic Trainer. http:
//www.reachin.se/products/
reachinlaparoscopictrainer/.
13. Logitech Wingman Force Feedback Mouse. http://
www.compuvisor.com/logwinforfee1.html.
14. Engineering Systems Technologies. http://www.
est-kl.com, Price List, Distribution and Research,
2002.
15. Logitech iFeel MouseMan. http://www.viperlair.
com/reviews/misc/mouse_gear/ifeelmm.htm.
16. R. G. Hughes and A. R. Forrest. Perceptualisation using
a tactile mouse. In R. Nagel and G. M. Nielson (eds),
Proceedings of IEEE Visualisation ’96, October 27–
November 1, 1996, San Francisco, California, ACM
Press, New York, pp. 181–188. 1996.
17. C. S. Campbell, S. Zhai, K. W. May and P. P. Maglio.
What you feel must be what you see: adding tactile feed-
back to the trackpoint. In Human-Computer Interaction
— Proceedings of INTERACT, pp. 383–390. 1999.
18. M. Enriquez, O. Afonin, B. Yager and K. Maclean.
A Pneumatic Tactile Alerting System for the Driving
Environment.
19. V. Hayward and J.M. Cruz-Hernandez. Tactile display
device using distributed lateral skin stretch. In Sympo-
sium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and
Teleoperator Systems. IMECE 2000 Conference, Nov.
5–10. 2000.
20. Displaced Temperature Sensing System. http://www.
cmresearch.com/haptic.html.
21. MouseCAT, VisuaAide. http://www.visuaide.
com/mousecat.en.html.


c The Eurographics Association and Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003
22. Microsoft SideWinder Force Feedback 2 Joystick.
http://www.microsoft.com/products/
hardware/sidewinder/devices/Ffb2/default.
asp.
23. D. Reinkensmeyer, C. Painter, C. Yang, E. Abbey
and B. Kaino. An Internet-Based, Force-Feedback
Rehabilitation System for Arm Movement after Brain
Injury. http://www.csun.edu/cod/conf2000/
proceedings/0080Reinkensmeyer.html.
24. William Van Winkle. Touch the Future: Haptics Is Here.
In Laptop Buyer’s Guide & Handbook. August 2000.
25. Gaming Joysticks, Wheels and Gamepads.
http://www.immersion.com/products/ce/
gamingjoystick.shtml.
26. Gaming Mice and trackballs. http://www.
immersion.com/products/ce/gamingmice.
shtml.
27. Impulse Engine, Immersion. http://
www.immersion.com/products/custom/
impulseengine.shtml.
28. V. Hayward and C. Ramstein. The PANTOGRAPH:
a large workspace haptic device for a multi-modal
human-computer interaction. In ACM/SIGCHI, Confer-
ence on human factors in Computing Systems. April,
1994.
29. V. Hayward. Survey of haptic interface research at
McGill University. In Workshop in Multimodal Telep-
resence Systems, pp. 91–98. March, 2001.
30. P. J. Berkelman, Z. J. Butler and R. L. Hollis. Design
of a hemispherical magnetic levitation haptic interface
device. In 1996 ASME IMECE, November 17–22, 1996,
vol. 58, Atlanta, pp. 483–488. 1996.
31. FCS Control Systems. http://www.fcs-cs.com/
robotics/.
32. R. Adams, M. Moreyra and B. Hannaford. Excal-
ibur - a three axis force display. In Proc. ASME
International Mechanical Engineering Congress and
Exhibition. Nashville, TN, 1999.
33. C. D. Lee, D. A. Lawrence and L. Y. Pao. A high-
bandwidth force-controlled haptic interface. In Proc.
9th Annual Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Vir-
tual Environment and Teleoperator Systems. ASME
International Mechanical Engineering Congress and
Exposition. Orlando, FL, 2000.
34. SensAble Technologies. http://www.sensable.
com/haptic/haptic.html.
 S. D. Laycock and A. M. Day / Haptic Feedback Devices
35. B. Baxter, V. Scheib, V. M. C. Lin and D. Manocha.
DAB: Interactive Haptic Painting with 3D Virtual
Brushes, University of North Carolina, http://www.
cs.unc.edu/~geom/DAB.
36. A. D. Gregory, S. A. Ehmann and M. C. Lin. inTouch:
Interactive Multiresolution Modelling and 3D Painting
with a Haptic Interface, University of North Carolina,
2000 http://www.cs.unc.edu/~geom/inTouch
37. Freeform. http://www.sensable.com/freeform/
freeform.html.
38. V. Savchenko. 3D Geometric Modeller with Haptic
Feedback: Engraving Simulation. In Proceedings of
PHANToM Users Research Symposium, pp. 67–78.
2000.
39. T. A. Galyean and J. F. Hughes. Sculpting: an interac-
tive modelling technique. In Siggraph ’91, Computer
Graphics Proceedings, pp. 267–274.
40. D. d’Aulignac, R. Balaniuk and C. Laugier. A haptic
interface for the virtual exam of a human thigh. In IEEE
Int. Conf. On Robotics and Automation, Apr 22–28,
2000. San Francisco.
41. G. Burdea, G. Patounakis, V. Popescu and R. Weiss.
Virtual reality training for the diagnosis of prostate can-
cer. In IEEE Symp on Virtual Reality and Applications,
Atlanta, Georgia, pp. 190–197. 1998.
42. O. R. Astley and V. Hayward. Design constraints for
haptic surgery simulation. In Proceedings of the IEEE
Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation, San Francisco,
CA, pp. 2446–2451. April 2000.
43. Freedom 6S, MPB Technologies. http://www.
mpb-technologies.ca/space/freedom6_2000/
f6s/freedom6s.html.
44. D. Akin. Sensational devices, Focus F7. The Globe and
Mail, 19th January, 2000.
45. S. Grange, F. Conti, P. Helmer, P. Rouiller and Charles
Baur. The delta haptic device. In Mecatronics 2001.
Besancon, July 2001.
46. Karlsruhe Endoscopic Surgery Trainer. http:
//iregt1.iai.fzk.de/TRAINER/mic_trainer1.
html.
47. SPIDAR. http://sklab-www.pi.titech.ac.jp/
~seahak/vr.html.
48. Haptic Interfaces. http://dfs.iis.u-tokyo.ac.
jp/Research/Haptic/index.html.


c The Eurographics Association and Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003
131
49. 3D Interaction Overview, Immersion. http://www.
immersion.com/products/3d/interaction/
overview.shtml.
50. M. Bouzit, G. Burdea, G. Popescu and R. Boian. The
rutgers master II-new design force-feedback glove. In
IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, vol. 7(2),
pp. 256–263. 2002.
51. H. Iwata, H. Yano, F. Nakaizumi and R. Kawamura.
Project FEELEX: adding haptic surface to graphics. In
Proceeding of SIGGRAPH2001. 2001.
52. Tele-Robotics. http://www.sarcos.com/
teleprod.html.
53. Reachin Display. http://www.reachin.se/
products/reachindisplay/.
54. J. M. Hollerach, E. C. Cohen, W. B. Thompson and S.
C. Jacobsen. Rapid virtual prototyping of mechanical
assemblies. In Proc. 1996 NSF Design and Maufactur-
ing Grantees Conf., pp. 477–478. 1996.
55. J. D. Brederson, M. Ikits, C. R. Johnson and C. D.
Hansen. The visual haptic workbench. In Proc. Fifth
PHANToM Users Group Workshop (PUG). 2000.
56. Pneumatic Haptic Interface. http://cyborg.seas.
smu.edu/syslab/PHI/MasterArm.html.
57. Research, University of Tsukuba. http:
//intron.kz.tsukuba.ac.jp/vrlab_web/
research/research_e.html.
58. R. Arsenault and C. Ware. Eye-hand co-ordination with
force feedback. In CHI 2000, pp. 408–414. 2000.
59. The Visual-Haptic Workbench. http://john.
berkeley.edu/EquipmentPages/Phantom.html.
60. F. P. Brooks, Jr, M. Ouh-Young, J. J. Battert and P. J.
Kilpatrick. Project GROPE-haptic displays for scientific
visualization. Computer Graphics, 24(4):August 1990.
61. R. M. Taylor, W. Robinett, V. L. Chi, F. P. Brooks,
Jr, W. V. Wright, R. S. Williams and E. J. Snyder.
The nanomanipulator: a virtual reality interface for a
scanning tunnelling microscope. In Computer Graphics
(SIGGRAPH ’93 Proceedings), vol. 27, pp. 127–134.
1993.
62. W. Hashimoto and H. Iwata. http://intron.
kz.tsukuba.ac.jp/local_page/hashimoto/
whashimo/I2001whashimo.pdf.
63. Y. Matsuoka and L.C. Miller. Domestic rehabilitation
and learning of task-specific movements. In Sixth
132 S. D. Laycock and A. M. Day / Haptic Feedback Devices

International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, 69. Vertical Motion Simulator. http://www.simlabs.

pp. 177–182. 1999. arc.nasa.gov/vms/vms.html.

64. L. Buoguila, M. Ishii and M. Sato. Multi-modal haptic 70. Travelocity.com. http://dest.travelocity.com/
device for large-scale virtual environment. In Proceed- DestGuides/0,1840,TRAVELOCITY%7C4094%7C3%
ings of the 8th ACM International conference. October 7C1%7C228149,00.html.
2000.
71. Virtual Realities, Force Feedback Devices. http://
65. M. Hirose, K. Hirota, T. Ogi, H. Yano, N. Kakehi, M.
www.vrealities.com/force.html.
Saito and M. Nakashige. HapticGEAR: the develop-
ment of a wearable force display system for immersive
72. Ship Motion Simulator, August Designs, Inc.
projection displays. In Proceedings of the IEEE Virtual
http://www.august-design.com/html/
Reality 2001 Conference.
projects/prj_sms.htm.
66. R. P. Darken, W. R. Cockayne and D. Carmein. The
omni-directional treadmill: a locomotion device for 73. Virtual Motion, inc. http://www.vm3.com.
virtual worlds. In Proceedings of user interface software
and technology (UIST)1997, pp. 213–221. 74. R. Christensen, J.M. Hollerbach, Y. Xu and S. Meek.
Inertial force feedback for the Treadport locomotion
67. D. Stewart. A platform with six degrees of freedom. The
interface. In Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Envi-
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, 180(15):371–384,
ronments, pp. 1–14. 2000.
1965.

68. Haptic Master. http://intron.kz.tsukuba.ac. 75. H. Iwata. Walking about virtual environments on an
jp/vrlab_web/hapticmaster/hapticmaster_e. infinite floor. In Proc. Virtual Reality, pp. 286–293.
html. 1999.

c The Eurographics Association and Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003