How Can Haptic Feedback Assist People with Blind and Low Vision (BLV): A Systematic Literature Review
Chutian Jiang, Emily Kuang, Mingming Fan · 2025 · ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing · doi:10.1145/3711931
Summary
This comprehensive systematic literature review examines 20 years (2004–2024) of research on haptic assistive tools for people who are blind or have low vision (BLV), analyzing 132 papers from 11 major HCI venues including CHI, ASSETS, UIST, and IEEE Haptics. The review addresses two research questions: how different haptic tools, feedback types, and on-body stimulation positions support various BLV tasks, and what limitations exist in current tools' UX and evaluation methods. The authors identify 14 categories of haptic assistive tools: tactile graphics/maps, refreshable braille displays/pin arrays, tablet/smartphone integrated haptic actuators, haptic mice, haptic gloves, haptic sliders, robot/drone haptic devices, haptic bands, 3D models, white canes, robotic-arm haptic devices, handheld haptic devices, mid-air haptic devices, and electrotactile devices. These tools support four main task categories: graphical information understanding (58/132 papers—the most common), guidance and navigation (26/132), education and training (28/132), and other life and work tasks (28/132) including gaming, braille reading, 3D modeling, and audio production. The review provides a uniquely comprehensive analysis by examining three interconnected dimensions: the type of assistive tool (form factor), the type of haptic feedback mechanism, and the on-body stimulation position. This multi-dimensional approach reveals patterns invisible when examining any single dimension alone—for instance, that tactile graphics/maps dominate graphical information understanding while haptic bands and white canes dominate guidance/navigation, reflecting the different physical and informational requirements of each task type.
Key findings
Five types of haptic feedback were identified: pressure (79/132 papers—most common), kinesthetic feedback (36/132), vibration (32/132), skin-stretch (9/132), and thermal feedback (1/132). Pressure feedback dominates graphical information understanding (43/58) through raised lines, dots, and surfaces that users explore with their fingers. For guidance/navigation, kinesthetic feedback and vibration are equally prevalent (14/26 each), providing directional cues through force application or vibration patterns. Thermal feedback, while rare, shows promise for distinguishing indoor/outdoor areas on maps or indicating food temperature in cooking applications. On-body stimulation positions reveal that fingers (101/132) and hands (37/132) are overwhelmingly dominant, with wrist, waist, ankle, arm, shoulder, foot, and head each appearing in fewer than five papers. This concentration reflects the higher density of mechanoreceptors in fingers (two-point discrimination of 0.3cm) compared to other body areas, though the authors note that underutilized positions like feet and head may offer untapped potential for specific applications. The review identifies three categories of limitations: hardware limitations (environmental effects on sensors, conspicuous appearance, cumbersome/heavy devices), functionality limitations (lack of user control over speed/intensity, difficulty presenting complex structures, low display resolution, few presentation modalities), and UX/evaluation method limitations (lack of user diversity consideration, limited customization options, inconsistent evaluation metrics, user distrust of robots/drones). Based on these findings, the authors provide detailed improvement suggestions organized into hardware improvements (robustness, user-friendliness, portability), functionality improvements (controllability, details, multimodality), and UX improvements (inclusivity, customizability, comparability, trustworthiness).
Relevance
This review provides an essential reference for researchers and practitioners developing haptic assistive technologies. The systematic mapping of tools, feedback types, and stimulation positions to specific tasks offers practical guidance for selecting appropriate approaches—for instance, choosing pressure-based tactile graphics for graphical information tasks versus vibrotactile haptic bands for navigation. The identified limitations point to concrete opportunities for improvement. The dominance of finger-based stimulation, while justified by sensory acuity, may overlook opportunities for wearable solutions that leave hands free for white canes or guide dogs. The near-absence of thermal feedback suggests an underexplored modality with potential for conveying temperature-related information intuitively. The lack of consideration for low-vision users (as opposed to totally blind users) highlights a significant gap—many haptic tools could benefit low-vision users if combined with high-contrast visual elements. For accessibility practitioners, several practical insights emerge: haptic and audio feedback serve complementary rather than competing roles (haptic for spatial structure, audio for labels and values); current commercial speech recognition and LLMs show promise for natural language control of haptic devices; and user customization is critical since haptic perception thresholds vary significantly between individuals. The review also emphasizes the need for real-world evaluation, as laboratory studies may miss challenges like temperature effects on thermal feedback or interference between haptic cues and ambient environmental vibrations.
Tags: haptic feedback · blind and low vision · assistive technology · systematic review · tactile graphics · navigation · orientation and mobility · sensory substitution