Back-of-Device Force Feedback Improves Touchscreen Interaction for Mobile Devices
Abstract
Touchscreen interaction suffers from occlusion problems as fingers can cover small targets, which makes interacting with such targets challenging. To improve touchscreen interaction accuracy and consequently the selection of small or hidden objects, we introduce a back-of-device force feedback system for smartphones. We introduce a new solution that combines force feedback on the back to enhance touch input on the front screen. The interface includes three actuated pins at the back of a smartphone. All three pins are driven by microservos and can be actuated up to a frequency of 50 Hz and a maximum amplitude of 5 mm. In a first psychophysical user study, we explored the limits of the system. Thereafter, we demonstrate through a performance study that the proposed interface can enhance touchscreen interaction precision, compared to state-of-the-art methods. In particular, the selection of small targets performed remarkably well with force feedback. The study additionally shows that users subjectively felt significantly more accurate with force feedback. Based on the results, we discuss back-to-front feedback design issues and demonstrate potential applications through several prototypical concepts to illustrate where the back-of-device force feedback could be beneficial.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Handwriting engages the sensorimotor cortex, visual areas, and language centres (e.g., Broca's area) more extensively than typing.
“From a neuroscientific perspective, studies have shown that handwriting engages the sensorimotor cortex, visual areas, and language centres (e.g., Broca’s area) more extensively than typing.”
From The Neuroscience Behind Writing: Handwriting vs. Typing—Who Wins the Battle? (2025) · cites this paper as [14]
Typing predominantly activates motor regions associated with repetitive finger movements and visual processing, with less direct engagement of areas associated with memory and language.
“Typing predominantly activates motor regions associated with repetitive finger movements and visual processing, with less direct engagement of areas associated with memory and language.”
From The Neuroscience Behind Writing: Handwriting vs. Typing—Who Wins the Battle? (2025) · cites this paper as [14]
Handwriting is a dynamic motor process that engages a network of brain regions primarily associated with motor control, visuospatial coordination, and language processing.
“Handwriting is a dynamic motor process that engages a network of brain regions primarily associated with motor control, visuospatial coordination, and language processing.”
From The Neuroscience Behind Writing: Handwriting vs. Typing—Who Wins the Battle? (2025) · cites this paper as [14]
Studies employing fMRI and TMS have identified the primary motor cortex, premotor cortex, supplementary motor area (SMA), and cerebellum as core areas controlling the execution and refinement of handwriting movements.
“Studies employing fMRI and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) have identified in the primary motor cortex, the premotor cortex, the supplementary motor area (SMA), and the cerebellum as the core areas controlling the execution and refinement of handwriting movements.”
From The Neuroscience Behind Writing: Handwriting vs. Typing—Who Wins the Battle? (2025) · cites this paper as [14]
Cites
Kane, S. K., Jayant, C., Wobbrock, J. O., & Ladner, R. E. (2009) · Proceedings of the 11th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility · doi:10.1145/1639642.1639663 · Cited by 383 · cited 1× · see citing works
“, [35]–[38], showing the potential of using such methods for inthe-pocket operation of a smartphone, or for visually impaired people [39].”
Background
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Neuroscience Behind Writing: Handwriting vs. Typing—Who Wins the Battle?
Marano, G., Kotzalidis, G. D., Lisci, F. M., Anesini, M. B., Rossi, S., Barbonetti, S., Cangini, A., Ronsisvalle, A., Artuso, L., Falsini, C., et al. (2025) · Life · doi:10.3390/life15030345 · Cited by 32 · see citing works
- Authors
- Maiero, J., Eibich, D., Kruijff, E., Hinkenjann, A., Stuerzlinger, W., Benko, H., & Ghinea, G.
- Affiliations
- Hochschule Bonn-Rhein-Sieg (DE)
- Simon Fraser University (CA)
- Meta (United States) (US)
- ORCID
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Haptics
- Published
- 2019-10-01
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 483-496
- ISSN
- 1939-1412 (ISSN-L)
- 2329-4051
- 2334-0134
- OpenAlex
- W2940826321
- Cited by
- 14
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 1.02
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- IEEE Transactions on Haptics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Publication Server of Bonn-Rhein-Sieg University of Applied Sciences (Bonn-Rhein-Sieg University of Applied Sciences) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Interactive and Immersive Displays
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Teleoperation and Haptic Systems
- Keywords
- touchscreen interaction, occlusion, user study
- MeSH terms
- Smartphone, Adult, Equipment Design, Female, Humans, Male, Psychophysics, User-Computer Interface, Touch Perception, Feedback, Sensory
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
