Pseudo-haptics

Pseudo-haptics, or pseudo-haptic feedback, uses the visual consequences of a person's actions to alter perceived properties such as weight, stiffness, friction or surface relief. It is an approach to haptics that can use an ordinary input device without a computer-controlled force-feedback mechanism.

Reviewed 21 October 2026. Definitions, movement-gain conventions, cited original texture and weight experiments, and the bounded 2016 B-Reel example. About review dates.

Principle

An illustrative pseudo-haptic mapping makes displayed displacement D' half the physical input displacement D. The display/input gain is defined explicitly; this mapping applies no computer-controlled force.

The software changes the relationship between an input action and its visible result. An object may move less than the hand moving it, or deform differently under an applied input force. The perceived haptic property can consequently differ from the physical properties of the input device. A passive device can still supply real resistance: in early work with a Spaceball, the user pressed against the device while watching a simulated object respond. The computer changed the visual response rather than actuating the device's resistance.

Movement gain can be stated explicitly as displayed displacement divided by physical input displacement. With this convention, a gain below one makes the displayed object move less than the user's input. The literature also calls this relationship the control/display ratio, or C/D ratio, but authors have used that name for opposite fractions. Ujitoko and Ban's 2021 survey therefore avoids the ambiguous abbreviation when describing gain direction.

Properties and techniques

Target property	Example visual manipulation	Physical distinction
Friction	Slow a moving virtual object as it enters a region.	An input device can remain mechanically unchanged.
Stiffness	Change the deformation of a virtual piston for a given input force.	The visible deformation can differ from the device's actual displacement.
Surface relief	Slow a mouse cursor on a simulated uphill slope and accelerate it downhill.	The mouse does not produce a raised or recessed surface.
Weight	Offset the displayed hand and object from the tracked hand while lifting.	Changing the visual offset does not change the controller's mass.

Pseudo-haptics can also accompany physical haptic rendering. A visual effect may complement a different physical cue, or modify perception of a property already presented through a force-feedback device. Ujitoko and Ban distinguish these two uses and recommend evaluating the resulting combined sensation.

Research examples

Desktop surface relief

In a CHI 2004 paper, Lécuyer, Burkhardt and Etienne varied cursor movement over height maps representing bumps and holes. Their three experiments involved 20 participants in total. The first two used separate groups of ten to identify shapes, with and without a visible disk indicating the target's location and extent. The final experiment asked all 20 to draw and rank simulated profiles. Participants could identify the shapes and reproduce characteristics of different profiles. The experiments concerned macroscopic relief on a desktop display; the paper left finer textures and perceptual limits for further study.

Perceivable weight offsets in VR

Rietzler and colleagues' CHI 2018 system used a spring-like software model, with larger offsets representing heavier objects. Their exploratory study recruited ten people; one person's acceptance responses were excluded because that person accepted every tested offset. A second study with 18 participants compared bowling with and without offsets and included weight-discrimination and estimation tasks. Offsets received higher presence, immersion and enjoyment questionnaire scores, with small differences between group medians. Absolute weight estimates varied considerably, so the authors recommended relative differences rather than a calibrated mapping to kilograms. Large accepted offsets came from short interactions.

Animation after release

A 2023 desktop study by Ujitoko and colleagues varied both lifting gain and the falling animation after participants released a mouse-dragged square. It recruited 128 people online and analyzed 78 whose frame rate and screen resolution met the study's selected conditions, because the experimental code had not adequately controlled differences between computers. Lower lifting gains produced higher heaviness ratings. A square remaining suspended after release was judged lighter than several falling conditions, but differences among the nonzero falling accelerations were not statistically significant. The authors could not separate falling speed from falling duration and time spent on the ground. These results concern that desktop task rather than an established rule for all VR interactions.

B-Reel's 2016 exploration

Creative agency B-Reel published an exploratory account titled Simulating Weight in VR in July 2016 and released its Unity project for the HTC Vive. Its direct-link methods attached an object to the controller but could drop it when movement exceeded a threshold. Loose-link methods let an object lag behind the controller through forces or velocity changes. The team also explored visual gauges, controller vibration and collision sounds. Its account describes informal testing and design preferences, without a reported participant count or statistical evaluation. The repository documents Unity 5.4 and Vive requirements; those historical requirements do not establish compatibility with current runtimes.

Design limits

A visible mismatch between a real finger and its virtual target can disrupt the intended sensation, particularly on touchscreens or optical see-through AR displays. Designs reviewed by Ujitoko and Ban include larger visual targets and a visible string connecting the input position to the displaced object. Their survey covers proposed uses in training, assistance and entertainment, while identifying uncertainty about transfer from pseudo-haptic training to real tasks.

The 2018 weight study describes its effect as a weight metaphor dependent on visual attention. The controller's contact pressure does not change when an object is grabbed. Acceptance of short interactions does not establish comfortable limits for prolonged use.