Cited by 245Tactile and Sensory InteractionsTeleoperation and Haptic SystemsProsthetics and Rehabilitation Robotics

Haptic wearables as sensory replacement, sensory augmentation and trainer – a review

Open access
Shull, Peter B., Damian, Dana D.·2015·Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation

Abstract

Sensory impairments decrease quality of life and can slow or hinder rehabilitation. Small, computationally powerful electronics have enabled the recent development of wearable systems aimed to improve function for individuals with sensory impairments. The purpose of this review is to synthesize current haptic wearable research for clinical applications involving sensory impairments. We define haptic wearables as untethered, ungrounded body worn devices that interact with skin directly or through clothing and can be used in natural environments outside a laboratory. Results of this review are categorized by degree of sensory impairment. Total impairment, such as in an amputee, blind, or deaf individual, involves haptics acting as sensory replacement; partial impairment, as is common in rehabilitation, involves haptics as sensory augmentation; and no impairment involves haptics as trainer. This review found that wearable haptic devices improved function for a variety of clinical applications including: rehabilitation, prosthetics, vestibular loss, osteoarthritis, vision loss and hearing loss. Future haptic wearables development should focus on clinical needs, intuitive and multimodal haptic displays, low energy demands, and biomechanical compliance for long-term usage.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12984-015-0055-z

Cites

160 of 160 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Ease of use, comfort level, mobility and appearance need to be seriously considered if the blind are to be expected to use a particular device.

    “Ease of use, comfort level, mobility and appearance need to be seriously considered if the blind are to be expected to use a particular device (Dakopolous & Bourbakis, 2010; Elli et al., 2014; Shull & Damian, 2015).”

    From Designing sensory-substitution devices: Principles, pitfalls and potential1 (2016) · cites this paper as Shull & Damian, 2015

    The ‘Vision aid for the blind’ section identifies comfort as a design tradeoff and calls for information to be mapped intuitively. The Conclusions also emphasize ease of use, wearability, and avoiding interference with natural movement. Our copy does not address appearance or establish that these four factors determine whether blind people will use a device. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • A feedback system that codes the environment through haptics and audition in conjunction may compensate for the drawbacks of using only each individual sense if strengths are strategically utilized and weaknesses avoided.

    “Although this presents many challenges, a feedback system that codes the environment through haptics and audition in conjunction may compensate for the drawbacks of using only each individual sense if strengths are strategically utilized and weaknesses avoided (Shull & Damian, 2015).”

    From Designing sensory-substitution devices: Principles, pitfalls and potential1 (2016) · cites this paper as Shull & Damian, 2015

    The “Vision aid for the blind” section (page not provided) describes haptic feedback that conveys information about objects and obstacles in the environment. The Conclusions (page not provided) advocate combining multiple haptic modalities, but the copy does not say that jointly coding the environment through haptics and audition compensates for the drawbacks of either sense alone. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 161 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [11]Bächlin M Förster K Tröster G SwimMaster: A Wearable Assistant for Swimmer Proc 11th Int Conf Ubiquitous Comput - Ubicomp ’09 2009 New York, New York, USA ACM Press 21
  2. [31]Hernandez Arieta A, Dermitzakis K, Damian D, Lungarella M, Pfeifer R: Sensorymotor coupling in rehabilitation robotics. In Serv Robot Appl. Edited by Yoshihiko Takahashi (Ed.). INTECH Open Access Publisher, 2008;21–36.
  3. [77]Tsukada K, Yasumura M: ActiveBelt: Belt-type wearable tactile display. UbiComp; 2004:384–399.
  4. [84]Ito K, Okamoto M, Akita J, Ono T, Gyobu I, Takagi T: CyARM: an alternative aid device for blind persons.CHI; 2005:1483–1486.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shull, P. B., & Damian, D. D.
Affiliations
  • Shanghai Jiao Tong University (CN)
  • Boston Children's Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Shull, Peter B.
Venue
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
Published
2015-07-20
Volume
12
Issue
1
Pages
59-59
ISSN
1743-0003 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1782270568
Cited by
245
References
161
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 1
FWCI
1.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (51121063)
  • University of Michigan (14X120010006)
  • Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung (143344)
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (973 Program, 51121063)
  • Shanghai Jiao Tong University
  • National Key Research and Development Program of China (2011CB013305)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Teleoperation and Haptic Systems
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Prosthetics and Rehabilitation Robotics
Keywords
sensory impairment, sensory augmentation, rehabilitation, prosthetics, amputation, blindness, deafness, vestibular loss, osteoarthritis, vision loss, hearing loss, wearable devices
MeSH terms
Humans, Prosthesis Design, Sensation Disorders, Prostheses and Implants, Feedback, Sensory, Wireless Technology

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