Accepted for publication at IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces Abstracts and Workshops (VRW), NIDIT 2024
© 2024 IEEE. Personal use of this material is permitted. Permission from IEEE must be obtained for all other uses, in any current or future media, including reprinting/republishing this
material for advertising or promotional purposes, creating new collective works, for resale or redistribution to servers or lists, or reuse of any copyrighted component of this work in other works.
Stiffness Simulation with Haptic Feedback Using Robotic Gripper and
Paper Origami as End-Effector
Khrystyna Vasylevska*
VR&AR Research Unit, TU Wien
Mohammad Ghazanfari*
VR&AR Research Unit, TU Wien
Kiumars Sharifmoghaddam†
Institute of Discrete Mathematics and Geometry, TU Wien
Soroosh Mortezapoor*
VR&AR Research Unit, TU Wien
Emanuel Vonach*
VR&AR Research Unit, TU Wien
Hugo Brument*
VR&AR Research Unit, TU Wien
Georg Nawratil‡
Institute of Discrete Mathematics and Geometry, TU Wien
Hannes Kaufmann*
VR&AR Research Unit, TU Wien
Figure 1: Stiffness simulation with our Zipper Flower Tube: (a) User’s hand encounters uncompressed Origami, (b) hand presses
against Origami, (c) user’s view in VR while pressing against a virtual wall, and (d) side view on the virtual wall deformed from its
normal state (shown in semi-transparent grey).
ABSTRACT
Haptic feedback in Virtual Reality (VR) facilitates the transfer of
virtual experiences into the physical world. In particular, haptic
feedback in architectural design enables designers to feel the ma-
teriality of their creations, with the possibility to apply different
materials, refine designs based on the haptic experience, and assess
requirements at an early stage. In this paper, we assess an innovative
end-effector based on an origami structure and a robotic gripper that
can provide a real-time simulation of material elasticity and stiffness
without requiring a prop change, offering a cost-effective and energy-
efficient solution. The evaluation consisted of a perceptual study
where participants used the origami end-effector and had to push a
thin virtual wall in VR. We tested three types of stiffness rendering
(Soft, Medium, and Stiff). Participants had to answer how stiff the
rendering was and which type of material they could refer to when
touching the virtual wall. Results showed that although the stiff-
ness perception across conditions was not significant, participants
reported different types of materials depending on the condition.
We also discuss the potential of origami-based end-effectors for
improving haptic interaction for architectural design in VR.
Keywords: Origami, encountered-type haptics, virtual reality, rigid-
foldable tubes, material perception.
Index Terms: Human-centered computing—Human com-
puter interaction (HCI)—Interaction paradigms—Virtual reality;
Human-centered computing—Human computer interaction (HCI)—
Interaction devices—Haptic devices; Human-centered computing—
Human computer interaction (HCI)—Interaction paradigms—
Empirical studies in HCI;
*e-mail: firstname.lastname@tuwien.ac.at
†e-mail: ksharif@geometrie.tuwien.ac.at
‡e-mail: nawratil@geometrie.tuwien.ac.at
1 INTRODUCTION
Providing haptic feedback in Virtual Reality (VR) can improve task
performance and presence in a virtual environment by expanding the
perception of virtual objects beyond their visual representation [24].
While haptics is a very active field of research, the existing ap-
proaches for general-purpose haptic interfaces tend to concentrate
on mimicking the shape and size of virtual objects in the physical
world. Yet, for higher fidelity haptic feedback, rendering mechanical
behaviors of objects such as deformation and stiffness is necessary.
For example, for the haptic rendering of a deformable wall or sofa
in a virtual scene, the user expects to touch a deformable physical
object in the real world to synchronize the tactile sensation with the
visual input.
In certain applications, particularly those aiming to transfer expe-
rience from the virtual to the physical world like architectural design,
feeling the materiality of elastic virtual objects can deepen the un-
derstanding of desired tasks [32]. Architects can apply materials
with different stiffness properties and refine their designs, potentially
improving them to better meet the client’s or environmental require-
ments at an early stage. Additionally, dynamic haptic feedback in
VR allows young designers and students to gain additional experi-
ence by seeing and feeling the dynamic behavior of each structure
and material [7].
Although simulating such dynamic behaviors of objects using
closed-loop control of robotic arms is feasible, it comes with sig-
nificant challenges. The haptic device must swiftly respond while
maintaining the capability for real-time stiffness adjustments, which
adds an extra layer of complexity to the haptic rendering task.
Adjustable passive end-effectors can be designed as an enhance-
ment of the robotic arms, capable of adapting to varying environmen-
tal conditions and object interactions without the need for complex
control algorithms. This adaptability is crucial in scenarios where
a high degree of responsiveness is required, whilst the computa-
tional load and mechanical complexity need to be minimized. By
employing such end-effectors, the system can rely on their inherent
mechanical properties to adjust to changes in force and stiffness,
thus simplifying the overall control scheme.
Accepted for publication at IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces Abstracts and Workshops (VRW), NIDIT 2024
© 2024 IEEE. Personal use of this material is permitted. Permission from IEEE must be obtained for all other uses, in any current or future media, including reprinting/republishing this
material for advertising or promotional purposes, creating new collective works, for resale or redistribution to servers or lists, or reuse of any copyrighted component of this work in other works.
This paper presents a first evaluation of our innovative end-
effector Zipper Flower Tube, introduced in a previous research
paper [30], designed for a fast dynamic response based on a com-
plex origami structure and a robotic gripper. Combining origami
with minimal mechanical actuation created a flexible and responsive
prop for dynamic, low-cost, and energy-efficient haptic feedback. It
can simulate different material elasticity and stiffness in real time
without requiring a prop change. We evaluated the performance of
our origami end-effector through a user study.
2 RELATED WORK
Numerous methods have been proposed to provide a haptic ex-
perience for immersed users. However, they all face particular
challenges. Among prop-based haptic feedback solutions, the use
of passive physical props resembling a desired virtual object, also
known as “passive haptics” [16], was shown to deliver very realistic
and robust haptic feedback [9]. It affords a substantial increase in
realism in VR [12], which was also proven at large scales, e.g., a vir-
tual pit [29] or even life-sized virtual environments [17]. The major
shortcomings are the synchronization with the virtual environment
(VE) and scalability, as passive props implicitly are not controlled by
a computer and must be available in every form and every position
required by the simulation.
In contrast, Encountered-Type Haptic Devices (ETHD) [10, 33]
provide haptic sensations by placing a tangible end-effector at a
desired location, using a robotic device, and waiting for the user
to encounter it. ETHDs offer unconstrained free-hand contact with
tangible objects, without keeping users in constant contact with the
object as in common wearable haptic systems. ETHD actuators can
be fixed on stationary platforms [18, 31], grounded on the user’s
body [4, 11, 28], or mounted on mobile platforms like wheeled
robots [20] or quadcopters [1], facilitating haptic experiences in
large-scale walkable VEs. Mercado et al. provide a comprehensive
survey on this subject [19].
While haptic feedback techniques primarily focus on simulating
properties like shape, size, and texture, certain mechanical aspects,
such as stiffness, remain underexplored. Soft object haptic rendering
has proven effective in fields like medical VR [21]. Pseudo-haptic
techniques [15] leverage visual dominance over haptics to manipu-
late the users’ perception and convey a sense of softness. However,
there exists a consistency threshold for pseudo-stiffness methods in
VR, limiting their applicability to a certain flexibility level [2].
In wearable haptic devices, some works address variable stiffness
haptic rendering [23,27,34] but they are often limited to single-finger
interaction, potentially impacting user immersion. Largilliere et al.
[14] proposed a device for soft object haptic rendering with stiffness
control, but it lacks support for full-hand interaction and real-time
stiffness adjustments. Haptic Jamming [26] is a haptic display that
simulates variable stiffness and deformable geometry via coffee
grounds and air pressure. Another approach is Materiable [22], a
pin-based shape display capable of rendering different stiffness and
shapes. Although both devices allow full-hand interaction and real-
time stiffness control, they also can be characterized by complexity,
bulkiness, and high-cost structure. That makes them impractical for
mounting on robotic arms for large-scale haptics. In comparison,
our proposed approach offers a very low-cost, lightweight haptic
display suitable for robotic arm integration.
Origami-inspired haptic props, which are getting increasingly
popular [8, 13], provide simpler mechanical solutions with fewer
actuators than pin displays or wearable haptic devices. Zuliani et
al. [35] introduced a variable stiffness origami joint mechanism for
haptic feedback, relying on the intrinsic stiffness of materials instead
of the common closed-loop force control method [3]. Our proposed
end-effector surpasses this by enabling real-time control of different
stiffness within a single scene without requiring a prop change.
Exploring the use of a low-cost origami structure manipulated by
Figure 2: Zipper Flower Tube’s basis element: (Left) two flat pieces of
a tubular element with connection points shown via arrows, (center)
an assembled element in a half-folded state, (right) two congruent
elements about to be connected via faces in a zippered fashion. By
repeating the process of rotational zipper coupling, the final structure
can be constructed. Note that, a row of faces in each step is marked
in red as a hint to follow the orientation of the elements.
a robotic gripper to simulate varying stiffness, from soft and highly
flexible to semi-rigid, for unconstrained full-hand haptic interaction
remains unexplored. Unlike prior work focusing on medical appli-
cations like touching soft tissues of the human body, we emphasize
the architectural design domain, addressing user interactions with
large-scale objects like walls and providing realistic haptic responses
to applied forces.
3 STUDY SETUP AND ENVIRONMENT
3.1 Zipper Flower Tube
Rigid-foldable origami has many applications, as it can be mate-
rialized by flat panels and rotational hinges. Foldable tubes, in
particular, can be coupled in a zipper fashion (see Fig. 2) to increase
the stiffness of the resulting structure while they expand [5]. This
connection is used in the tubular flower, which consists of rotational
congruent tubes with a deltoid cross-section [25]. A digital illus-
tration of the model can be seen in Fig. 3. Due to their inherent
reconfigurability and out-of-plane stiffness, tubular flowers exhibit a
more robust cantilevering effect during expansion than alternative
origami couplings [6]. Furthermore, their interlocking behavior in
the expanded state distinguishes them from scissor structures and
configurable springs. Our used Zipper Flower end-effector consists
of five pedal tubes with 3.5 sections folded by 250 g/m2 card stock.
The total length of the Zipper Flower Tube during the expansion
ranges between 17.5 cm to 33 cm with a cross-section of 17 cm.
The thickness and the size of the card stock are specifically chosen
to achieve a lightweight and durable result, which can be repro-
duced from pieces, cut by a regular desktop cutter plotter. Therefore,
the final structure is sustainably reproducible from low-cost and
recyclable materials. The resulting structure is robust enough to be
utilized for dynamic haptic feedback. The high-stiffness collapsed
and expanded states allow us to retain the pressure applied by the
user and simulate the stiffness of various materials.
3.2 Mounting
The Zipper Flower Tube is actuated with a Hand-E Adaptive Grip-
per by Robotiq. We designed a custom mounting structure with
FreeCAD and 3D printed it with PLA/PHA material. The resulting
mount in Fig. 4 is fitted with a hook (a) on a supporting structure fix-
ated on one gripper finger (b) to hold the paper origami straight. The
mounting structure on the second gripper finger (c) is equipped with
a ball bearing to allow the opening and closing of the Zipper Flower
Tube. A lateral hook provides additional support to the origami. The
whole assembly with the Zipper Flower on the mounting structure
can be seen in Fig. 4d. The employed origami for our study was
especially sturdy, long, and heavy. For that reason, we extended the
fixed finger mount (Fig. 4b) with an additional support plate opposite
Accepted for publication at IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces Abstracts and Workshops (VRW), NIDIT 2024
© 2024 IEEE. Personal use of this material is permitted. Permission from IEEE must be obtained for all other uses, in any current or future media, including reprinting/republishing this
material for advertising or promotional purposes, creating new collective works, for resale or redistribution to servers or lists, or reuse of any copyrighted component of this work in other works.
Figure 3: Expansion sequence of Zipper Flower Tube in four steps
from right to left. Arrows illustrate the direction of the expansion in the
top view (top), and the rotation of the cross sections in the front view
(bottom). By fixing the positions of the tubes, additional resistance
can be obtained.
Figure 4: Gripper mounting of the Zipper Flower Tube: (a) Hook for
origami, (b) gripper finger with fixed mount and downwards support
plate, (c) gripper finger with rotating mount with ball bearing and side
hook, (d) final assembly with paper origami mounted on the gripper.
to the hook, to give the paper structure further support and avoid
sagging. On the other end of the Zipper Flower Tube, a painted
white 20 cm by 20 cm cardboard panel was added for the haptic
contact with the user. We fixated it inside the origami structure with
a similar hook as in Fig. 4a.
3.3 VR Environment
We created a simple virtual environment with a floor and a wall
enclosure around the user. In front of the participant, we placed
a simple thin wall that changed colors to reflect the change of the
material (green, blue, or purple), and gradually transitioned to red
towards the maximum amount of deformation. The amount of
deformation and the change in the sample wall’s geometry were
calculated to be bound to the force applied. We simulated three
types of materials: soft with plastic deformation, medium with
plastic-elastic deformation that recovered if no pressure was applied,
and stiff with elastic deformation. The maximum deformation was
10 cm at a force of 10 N (except stiff). The medium material was
simulated to resist before the pressure reached 5 N, at which the
contracted fingers of the gripper spread, relaxing the origami. Only
stiff was calibrated to deform 5 cm.
For the experience evaluation after each wall, we used a sim-
ple UI with a hand-interactive Likert-like scale with radio buttons
Figure 5: Experimental setup at the conference.
and confirmation. For free-form questions, we showed the users
a text field where the experimenter manually documented the oral
answer. The participant’s hands were visualized with a light-grey
semi-transparent material accentuating edges, as shown in Fig. 1.
3.4 Technical Setup
The technical setup consisted of two computers connected using a
gigabit network switch that ensured a low-latency wired connection
between them. The Asus ROG Strix Scar 16 (i9 CPU, 32 GB RAM,
and Nvidia RTX 4090) laptop with Windows 10 handled the hand
tracking and rendered a virtual environment in Unity employing the
HTC Vive Pro head-mounted display (HMD). For the hand tracking,
we used an HTC OpenXR integration of camera-based tracking for
the HMD, thus reducing the number of connected devices. The
second computer is an ODROID N2+ single board computer (SBC),
with Ubuntu-mate 18 and Robot Operating System (ROS) Melodic
middle-ware installed. This SBC controlled the Robotiq Hand-E
adaptive gripper and the FT-300 Force/Torque (F/T) sensor, and
maintained data communication with the Unity laptop. Robotic
devices were connected to the SBC via a USB serial connection.
The F/T sensor was rigidly attached behind the robotic gripper and
mounted on a table-mounted tripod at a height of about 1.5 m from
the floor. The tripod was fixated on the table with a metal tension
wire.
4 PARTICIPANTS AND PROCEDURE
The user study was run as a part of the demo at a conference (ACM
SIGGRAPH 23, Los Angeles), where we showcased the concept
of the origami end-effector for five days, six hours per day. Fig. 5
shows the actual setup and the simple virtual environment. We gave
every participant an explanation of the demo before the exposure.
They also could observe others interacting with the origami and had
access to the sample origami. Due to the nature of the arrangement,
we also kept the questions to a minimum, and since the participants’
exposure time was short, we did not measure cybersickness.
The experiment consisted of three different material conditions
(Soft, Medium, and Stiff). We counterbalanced the conditions using
a Latin square. At the beginning of the experiment, users would
be equipped with the HMD to see the VE. They could observe
their virtual hands as well as the virtual wall. Once ready, they
pressed a virtual Start button to proceed with the first condition. The
virtual wall color was set according to the condition (green for Soft,
purple for Medium, and blue for Stiff). Participants were instructed
to push the virtual wall as long as they did not push further than
the virtual capsule limit, representing the maximum displacement
Accepted for publication at IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces Abstracts and Workshops (VRW), NIDIT 2024
© 2024 IEEE. Personal use of this material is permitted. Permission from IEEE must be obtained for all other uses, in any current or future media, including reprinting/republishing this
material for advertising or promotional purposes, creating new collective works, for resale or redistribution to servers or lists, or reuse of any copyrighted component of this work in other works.
that could be done for the condition. Participants could push and
release the virtual wall as long as they wanted. Once done, they
could press the Next button, and then the UI appeared to answer the
following Likert scale question: ”Pick one term that best describes
your current experience.” Possible answers were displayed from left
to right with the following labels: ”Very Stiff (1)”, ”Somewhat Stiff
(2)”, ”Neither Stiff nor Soft (3)”, ”Somewhat Soft (4)” or ”Very soft
(5)”. After answering the Likert questions, people were instructed,
”What material would you relate your experience with? Please, say
aloud.” The experimenter entered the answer in the UI text field and
then we proceeded to the next condition. Participants would repeat
the same procedure for the two remaining conditions and will take
off the HMD to end the experiment.
124 participants tested the setup. To allow many participants to
test the setup regardless the user study, we did not ask participants to
fill in a consent form and a demographics form. Should a participant
not consent to have data recorded, we were launching the experience
without data record. Due to technical difficulties, we removed 18
participants from the first day. We removed 30 participants who
did not complete the experiment or did not provide answers to the
conditions tested. This resulted in 76 participants who performed
the entire experiment with the complete data provided.
5 RESULTS
The gripper sensor data and the timestamps were recorded at 10 Hz.
We computed the magnitude of the gripper data, represented as a 3D
vector, and then resampled and normalized the temporal sequences
so that we could compare the temporal sequence. On average, one
trial lasted around 40 seconds. Fig. 6 shows a typical temporal
sequence of magnitude for each material condition from one par-
ticipant. This shows how the gripper’s magnitude evolved across
conditions during one given trial. A peak shows a participant’s pres-
sure on the origami to experience the stiffness of the material. We
can notice similar pressure behavior across the three conditions.
Figure 6: Typical temporal evolution of the magnitude of the gripper
sensor data over time per condition (soft in green, medium in purple,
and stiff in blue).
Fig. 7 shows the average answer of the perception Likert question
asked after each condition, grouped by sequence order (i.e., the first
condition, second, then the last). Likert answers regarding material
perception were normally distributed. A Friedman rank sum test
with Condition as a within-subject variable showed no statistically
significant effect of the Condition on the Likert answers in general
(χ2(2)=2.06, p=0.35), where average answers were similar across
conditions: M=3.19; SD=1.23 for Soft, M=3.30; SD=1.11 for
Medium and M=3.07; SD=1.12 for Stiff.
Regarding the material description as a free text answer, we
sanitized the text data by putting the text in lowercase, switching
plurals to singulars, removing stem words, and correcting typos
that could have been entered during the experiment. Fig. 8 shows
word-clouds for each condition. Overall, the top ten most recurrent
Figure 7: Box plot of the Likert stiffness perception question ”Pick one
term that best describes your current experience.” grouped by condi-
tion (Soft, Medium, Stiff) and Sequence Order. The color indicated
which condition was tested first
Figure 8: Wordclouds of answers to the question ”What material would
you relate your experience with?” per condition (left for Soft, middle
for Medium, and right for Stiff). The higher a word was mentioned, the
bigger and more centered it is.
answers were: mattress (24), spring (22), foam (21), soft (12), plastic
(11), pillow (10), rubber (10), wood (9), sponge (8), paper (8). In
particular, we noticed that the highest occurrences found for each
condition were: foam (10) for the Soft condition, spring (10) for the
medium condition, and mattress (8) for the Stiff one.
6 DISCUSSION
Our study focused on how origami-based end-effectors could pro-
vide different stiffness feedback. Our objective results found that
correct stiffness perception was not always accurate based on the
conditions tested, but the subjective results reported different mate-
rial perceptions. The overall benefit of using the origami structure
is in the immediacy of the dynamic feedback and the simplicity of
control as opposed to devices like a robotic arm with a high degree
of freedom. A robotic arm requires the motion to be planned and
carefully executed in the right order by a number of actuators, which
takes time and prevents fine interactions. Whereas the origami’s state
is controlled by only a single actuator while it provides immediacy
through its inherent materiality. Another benefit of the origami is the
ability to compress itself which is important for collision avoidance
should it be employed in motion (e.g. mounted on rails or a robotic
arm).
One of the study’s limitations is its brevity of exposure, which
is limited to a demonstration. The participants experienced each
condition only once and in a non-controlled environment. This
suggests that the calibration of the participants’ expectations had to
happen very fast. In Fig. 7, we can observe what might be an order
effect on early calibration. The best and most accurate estimates
were in sequences where the stiff material was first. Overall, the
participants clearly differentiated between the stiff and soft materials,
whereas the medium material with plastic-elastic deformation was
Accepted for publication at IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces Abstracts and Workshops (VRW), NIDIT 2024
© 2024 IEEE. Personal use of this material is permitted. Permission from IEEE must be obtained for all other uses, in any current or future media, including reprinting/republishing this
material for advertising or promotional purposes, creating new collective works, for resale or redistribution to servers or lists, or reuse of any copyrighted component of this work in other works.
Figure 9: Zipper Flower Tubes design variations in expanded and
collapsed states: (left) Flat-foldable zig-zag tube, (center) zig-up-
zag-up tube with adjustable length, (right) semi-discrete flower with
developable strips.
somewhat confusing, especially if introduced first. Future work
should consider additional experiments in a controlled environment
with different conditions and a higher number of repetitions.
We also observed the differences between the participants’ focus
during the experience. Some participants dynamically evaluated
the stiffness as intended by the pressure required to achieve the
maximum deformation. However, some participants were more
fixated on how the final stage of the deformation felt on its own.
They often underrated the light resistance and springiness of the
relaxed (soft) origami and declared it to be ”stiff” when it was fully
collapsed. And vice versa, when a stiffer material was simulated,
and the origami was contracted, providing more resistance from the
beginning - this material was described as ”soft” for its spring-like
behavior. We theorize that this is a reason for the swapped results
that might be somehow connected to the order effect discussed
above. However, further investigation in a controlled environment
must confirm this notion. As it can be seen in Fig. 6, participants
were allowed to press as many times and as strongly as they desire,
as long as they do not reach the pressure limit (which we indicated
with visual feedback on the virtual wall turning red). This might
also explain the intra-individual variability that we observed during
our study.
An alternative explanation would be the deterioration of the
origami from use and insufficient difference in the stiffness levels
for the new users. Although we tried to match our parametrization
to force levels the paper origami could withstand, some of the par-
ticipants applied stronger forces than anticipated when they went
immersed. The dichotomy of expectations and differences in the per-
ceived stiffness is reflected in Fig. 8. We see a certain convergence
per material, and some of the descriptions overlap there to a smaller
degree. One reason could be that the flat cardboard at the end of the
tube may have had an influence on the material perception. For fu-
ture research, we plan to optimize the geometry (design, dimension,
number of sections and pedals) of the Zipper Flower Tube for better
fitting the task, and to use advanced manufacturing methods (e.g.,
3D print with flexible material for the joints realized as compliant
hinges) for its production. Even semi-discrete versions assembled by
developable strips are of interest in this context (cf. Fig. 9). A more
rigid origami will be more durable and facilitate more accurate force
transfer to the F/T sensor which in turn will enable us to provide a
more distinct haptic experience for various materials.
7 CONCLUSION
Enabling the perception of particular materials or shapes is a funda-
mental requirement in the context of immersive early-stage design.
Through the integration of action-origami with minimal mechani-
cal actuation, we developed a flexible and immediately responsive
prop that can provide low-cost and energy-efficient haptic feedback.
Being able to render different stiffness levels haptically in quick
succession with a single prop is ideal for the user experience. In
this paper, we presented a user study that aimed to assess the usabil-
ity of the Zipper Flower Tube. Our results showed that the Zipper
Flower Tube can render different types of stiffness with deformation,
thus providing insight regarding the potential of origami as an end-
effector. Future work should consider improving the Zipper Flower
Tube design to improve its durability and haptic accuracy, as well as
a more in-depth investigation of users’ stiffness perception.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work has been funded by the grant F77 (SFB “Advanced Com-
putational Design”, SP 5 & SP 7) of the Austrian Science Fund FWF.
Special thanks to M. Wimmer, J. Füssl, I. Kovacic, and their students
Shervin Rasoulzadeh and Valentin Senk, for their assistance with
the demo.
REFERENCES
[1] P. Abtahi, B. Landry, J. Yang, M. Pavone, S. Follmer, and J. A. Landay.
Beyond the force: Using quadcopters to appropriate objects and the
environment for haptics in virtual reality. In Proc. of ACM CHI, 2019.
[2] E. Bouzbib, C. Pacchierotti, and A. Lécuyer. When tangibles become
deformable: Studying pseudo-stiffness perceptual thresholds in a vr
grasping task. IEEE TVCG, 29(5), 2023.
[3] C. R. Carignan and K. R. Cleary. Closed-loop force control for haptic
simulation of virtual environments. Haptics-e, The electronic journal
of haptics research, 2000.
[4] I. Choi, E. W. Hawkes, D. L. Christensen, C. J. Ploch, and S. Follmer.
Wolverine: A Wearable Haptic Interface for Grasping in Virtual Real-
ity. In IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and
Systems (IROS), Oct. 2016. doi: 10.1109/IROS.2016.7759169
[5] E. T. Filipov, T. Tachi, and G. H. Paulino. Origami tubes assembled
into stiff, yet reconfigurable structures and metamaterials. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(40):12321–12326, 2015.
[6] E. T. Filipov, T. Tachi, and G. H. Paulino. Coupled origami tubes
for stiff deployable cantilevers. In International Design Engineering
Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineer-
ing Conference, vol. 59247, p. V05BT07A023. American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, 2019.
[7] A. Gregory. Teaching building technology through haptic learning
techniques. In Proc. BTES Conf. Tectonics Teaching, 2013.
[8] P. G. Hernandez, L. Kuang, M. Malvezzi, D. Prattichizzo, P. R. Gior-
dano, C. Pacchierotti, and F. Chinello. Encounter-type haptic device
enabling edges, vertexes and plane palm interaction: the haptic origami
device. In IEEE World Haptics (Work-in-Progress paper), 2023.
[9] K. Hinckley, R. Pausch, J. C. Goble, and N. F. Kassell. Passive Real-
World Interface Props for Neurosurgical Visualization. In Proceedings
of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems
celebrating interdependence, vol. 30, pp. 452–458. ACM Press, New
York, NY, USA, 1994. doi: 10.1145/191666.191821
[10] K. Hirota and M. Hirose. Development of Surface Display. In Pro-
ceedings of IEEE Virtual Reality Annual International Symposium, pp.
256–262. IEEE, 1993. doi: 10.1109/VRAIS.1993.380771
[11] A. Horie, M. Y. Saraiji, Z. Kashino, and M. Inami. EncounteredLimbs:
A Room-scale Encountered-type Haptic Presentation using Wearable
Robotic Arms. In IEEE VR, 2021. doi: 10.1109/VR50410.2021.00048
[12] B. E. Insko. Passive Haptics Significantly Enhances Virtual Environ-
ments. PhD thesis, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2001.
[13] L. Kuang, F. Chinello, P. R. Giordano, M. Marchal, and C. Pacchierotti.
Haptic mushroom: a 3-dof shape-changing encounter-type haptic de-
vice with interchangeable end-effectors. In Proc. IEEE World Haptics
Conference (WHC), 2023.
[14] F. Largillière, E. Coevoet, M. Sanz-Lopez, L. Grisoni, and C. Duriez.
Stiffness rendering on soft tangible devices controlled through inverse
fem simulation. In 2016 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelli-
gent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 5224–5229. IEEE, 2016.
[15] A. Lécuyer, S. Coquillart, A. Kheddar, P. Richard, and P. Coiffet.
Pseudo-haptic feedback: Can isometric input devices simulate force
feedback? In In Proc. IEEE VR. IEEE, 2000.
Accepted for publication at IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces Abstracts and Workshops (VRW), NIDIT 2024
© 2024 IEEE. Personal use of this material is permitted. Permission from IEEE must be obtained for all other uses, in any current or future media, including reprinting/republishing this
material for advertising or promotional purposes, creating new collective works, for resale or redistribution to servers or lists, or reuse of any copyrighted component of this work in other works.
[16] R. Lindeman, J. Sibert, and J. Hahn. Hand-Held Windows: Towards
Effective 2d Interaction in Immersive Virtual Environments. In Pro-
ceedings IEEE Virtual Reality, pp. 205–212. IEEE Comput. Soc, 1999.
ISSN: 1087-8270. doi: 10.1109/VR.1999.756952
[17] K.-L. Low, G. Welch, A. Lastra, and H. Fuchs. Life-Sized Projector-
Based Dioramas. In Proceedings of the ACM symposium on Virtual
reality software and technology - VRST ’01, p. 93. ACM Press, New
York, New York, USA, 2001. doi: 10.1145/505008.505026
[18] V. R. Mercado, T. Howard, H. Si-Mohammed, F. Argelaguet, and
A. Lécuyer. Alfred: the Haptic Butler On-Demand Tangibles for
Object Manipulation in Virtual Reality using an ETHD. In Proc. of
IEEE World Haptics Conference (WHC), 2021.
[19] V. R. Mercado, M. Marchal, and A. Lécuyer. “Haptics On-Demand”:
A Survey on Encountered-Type Haptic Displays. IEEE Transactions
on Haptics, 14(3), 2021. doi: 10.1109/TOH.2021.3061150
[20] S. Mortezapoor, K. Vasylevska, E. Vonach, and H. Kaufmann. Co-
bodeck: A large-scale haptic vr system using a collaborative mobile
robot. In IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality, 2023.
[21] T. Muender, A. V. Reinschluessel, D. Salzmann, T. Lück, A. Schenk,
D. Weyhe, T. Döring, and R. Malaka. Evaluating Soft Organ-Shaped
Tangibles for Medical Virtual Reality. In Extended Abstracts of the
2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI
EA ’22, pp. 1–8. Association for Computing Machinery, New York,
NY, USA, Apr. 2022. doi: 10.1145/3491101.3519715
[22] K. Nakagaki, L. Vink, J. Counts, D. Windham, D. Leithinger,
S. Follmer, and H. Ishii. Materiable: Rendering dynamic material
properties in response to direct physical touch with shape changing
interfaces. In Proceedings of ACM CHI’16, 2016.
[23] S. V. Salazar, C. Pacchierotti, X. de Tinguy, A. Maciel, and M. Marchal.
Altering the stiffness, friction, and shape perception of tangible objects
in virtual reality using wearable haptics. IEEE Transactions on haptics,
13(1), 2020.
[24] E.-L. Sallnäs, K. Rassmus-Gröhn, and C. Sjöström. Supporting Pres-
ence in Collaborative Environments by Haptic Force Feedback. ACM
Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 7(4), 2000. doi: 10.
1145/365058.365086
[25] K. Sharifmoghaddam, R. Maleczek, and G. Nawratil. Generalizing
rigid-foldable tubular structures of t-hedral type. Mechanics Research
Communications, p. 104151, 2023.
[26] A. A. Stanley, J. C. Gwilliam, and A. M. Okamura. Haptic jamming:
A deformable geometry, variable stiffness tactile display using pneu-
matics and particle jamming. In IEEE WHC, 2013.
[27] Y. Tao, S.-Y. Teng, and P. Lopes. Altering perceived softness of real
rigid objects by restricting fingerpad deformation. In The 34th Annual
ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, 2021.
[28] H.-R. Tsai, J. Rekimoto, and B.-Y. Chen. ElasticVR: Providing Multi-
level Continuously-Changing Resistive Force and Instant Impact Using
Elasticity for VR. In Proc. of the ACM CHI, 2019. doi: 10.1145/
3290605.3300450
[29] M. Usoh, K. Arthur, M. C. Whitton, R. Bastos, A. Steed, M. Slater, and
F. P. Brooks. Walking > Walking-in-Place > Flying, in Virtual Envi-
ronments. In Proceedings of the 26th annual conference on Computer
graphics and interactive techniques - SIGGRAPH ’99. ACM Press,
New York, NY, USA, 1999. doi: 10.1145/311535.311589
[30] K. Vasylevska, T. Batik, H. Brument, K. Sharifmoghaddam,
G. Nawratil, E. Vonach, S. Mortezapoor, and H. Kaufmann. Action-
origami inspired haptic devices for virtual reality. In ACM SIGGRAPH
2023 Emerging Technologies, pp. 1–2. 2023.
[31] E. Vonach, C. Gatterer, and H. Kaufmann. VRRobot: Robot Actuated
Props in an Infinite Virtual Environment. In Proceedings of IEEE
Virtual Reality 2017, pp. 74–83. IEEE, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2017.
doi: 10.1109/VR.2017.7892233
[32] K. Wolf, M. Funk, R. Khalil, and P. Knierim. Using virtual reality for
prototyping interactive architecture. In Proceedings of the International
Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia, 2017.
[33] Y. Yokokohji, R. L. Hollis, and T. Kanade. What You Can See Is What
You Can Feel - Development of a Visual/Haptic Interface to Virtual
Environment. In Proceedings of the IEEE Virtual Reality Annual
International Symposium, 1996.
[34] M. Yu, X. Cheng, S. Peng, Y. Cao, Y. Lu, B. Li, X. Feng, Y. Zhang,
H. Wang, Z. Jiao, et al. A self-sensing soft pneumatic actuator with
closed-loop control for haptic feedback wearable devices. Materials &
Design, 223:111149, 2022.
[35] F. Zuliani and J. Paik. Variable stiffness folding joints for haptic
feedback. In 2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent
Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 8332–8338. IEEE, 2021.