Guiding and Blocking in Digital Space using Pseudo-haptics

Pseudo-haptic feedback can simulate tactile sensations through movement-based illusions, allowing users to perceive bumps, depressions, and textures without physical haptic devices. By examining how cursor speed variations affect spatial awareness and emotional engagement, the experiment explores potential design principles to create intuitive, perception-driven pseudo-haptic experiences that may elicit emotions.

Pseudo-Haptic Design: How Digital Textures Were Simulated

Instead of using physical feedback, the experiment altered the control/display (C/D) ratio, meaning:

Cursor acceleration simulated a "hole" or depression, creating the illusion of falling into a concave surface.
Cursor deceleration simulated a "bump" or raised area, making movement feel as though the user was climbing over resistance.
A flat (neutral) surface had no movement changes, serving as the control condition.

Each pseudo-haptic zone varied in:

Size (20px vs. 70px radius)
Intensity (low 4 vs. high 12 on a Gaussian curve)

This allowed researchers to examine how different spatial properties influence perception and communication in pseudo-haptic interfaces.

Affective State Measurement and Sentiment Analysis

Beyond performance metrics, the experiment assessed users’ emotional engagement and cognitive load in response to pseudo-haptic interactions.

The Self-Assessment Manikin (SAM) was used to collect qualitative ratings of emotional states, measuring valence, arousal, and dominance to determine whether different pseudo-haptic conditions evoked positive, neutral, or negative affective responses.
Think-Aloud Protocol: Participants were asked to verbalize their immediate reactions and emotions aloud during one of the sessions, providing real-time insights into cognitive and emotional processing during interaction.
Sentiment Analysis: The verbal responses will be analyzed computationally using sentiment analysis techniques to extract patterns in emotional expression, allowing researchers to interpret how pseudo-haptic perception for collaborative and competitive task influence affective engagement in digital environments.

These approaches ensure that the study not only evaluates pseudo-haptic perception but also explores how digital touch illusions shape user experience at an emotional and cognitive level.

Experimental Set-up

Testing Pseudo-Haptics in Collaborative and Competitive Settings

Participants engaged in two interactive tasks designed to explore how pseudo-haptic perception effects:

Cooperative interactions (shared guidance tasks).
Competitive interactions (movement-based challenges).

Each task tested how pseudo-haptic illusions influenced movement coordination, efficiency, and user perception of the other in digital space as well as the emotions that arise in the dynamic.

The experiment involved 36 participants (18 pairs), aged 17 to 25, who interacted within a 600x600 pixel virtual space containing pseudo-haptic zones.

Preliminary
Findings

Perceptual Recognition of Bumps and Depressions

Participants successfully distinguished between bumps, holes, and neutral surfaces in over 92% of cases, confirming that cursor speed variations effectively simulate the sensation of touch.

Larger pseudo-haptic zones (70px) produced stronger effects, making it easier for users to identify spatial variations in the virtual environment.

Emotional and Cognitive Engagement Varied by Condition

Attraction-based pseudo-haptics (depressions) led to smoother, more fluid interactions, improving coordination and task efficiency in cooperative settings.

Repulsion-based pseudo-haptics (bumps) created movement resistance, making competitive tasks more challenging. While this increased strategic play, it also led to frustration and disengagement in high-intensity conditions (coefficient 12).

Sentiment Analysis Will Provide Further Insights into User Experience

Initial verbal responses indicate that pseudo-haptic interactions evoked strong emotional reactions, ranging from curiosity and engagement to frustration and cognitive overload.

Design Considerations

Refining Virtual Textures for More Natural Interaction

Gradual, Gaussian-based movement variations are preferred over abrupt changes, suggesting that pseudo-haptic textures should be smoothly integrated rather than sharply defined.

Larger interaction areas (70px) improve perception and usability, meaning that pseudo-haptic interfaces should feature broad, continuous feedback zones rather than small, isolated patches.

Balancing Perceptual and Emotional Responses in Interaction Design

Pseudo-haptic effects should be carefully calibrated to avoid excessive frustration or disengagement.

Lower-intensity pseudo-haptic cues (coefficient 4) may be more suitable for prolonged engagement, while stronger effects (coefficient 12) can be used for short-term emphasis on specific actions.