Affective Wearable Haptic Interventions: A Systematic Literature Review
Jueun Lee, Tobias Röddiger, Sarah Makarem, Till Riedel, Kai Kunze, Michael Beigl · 2026 · Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies · doi:10.1145/3790116
Summary
This systematic literature review synthesises 83 empirical studies on affective wearable haptic interventions published between 2010 and 2025, drawn from 1,098 articles identified in ACM Digital Library and IEEE Xplore. The review maps the design space of wearable haptic systems intended to influence emotional states and mental well-being through touch, organising the corpus along three primary analytical dimensions: affective goals, haptic modalities, and body placement locations. These dimensions are further characterised by intervention mechanism and interpersonal context. Three affective orientation clusters emerge: valence-arousal affect (targeting emotional states along positive/negative and high/low arousal axes), social affect (targeting feelings arising from interpersonal connection), and embodied affect (emphasising physiological self-awareness and body-based sensations). Interventions predominantly focused on calming and stress/anxiety reduction rather than positive high-arousal states. Vibrotactile stimulation was the dominant modality (57% of studies), followed by thermal (25%), pressure (23%), and C-tactile touch (16%). Body placement concentrated on the forearm (31%), wrist (18%), and hand (17%). Four intervention mechanisms were identified: sensory modality effects (direct affective responses to tactile stimulation), physiological regulation (biofeedback and breathing guidance), multimodal media communication (haptics augmenting audio-visual content), and mediated social touch (simulating interpersonal gestures). A cross-dimensional mapping reveals systematic patterns — CT touch and skin stretch modalities cluster around low-positive affect goals on the forearm, while vibrotactile biofeedback dominates stress and embodied affect interventions on the wrist and chest.
Key findings
Stress and anxiety reduction was the second most common affective goal (33%), calming/low-positive affect was targeted by 24% of studies, embodied affect by 29%, and social affect by 12%. High-arousal positive affect (excitement, awe) was the least represented category (5%). Slow heartbeat vibrations (20-30% below a user's resting baseline) consistently reduced state anxiety across multiple studies, while fast heartbeat signals increased both heart rate and anxiety. Individual differences in interoceptive awareness significantly moderated biofeedback efficacy: people with higher interoceptive sensitivity showed greater HRV improvements from slow haptic heartbeat feedback. Discrepancies between subjective self-reports and physiological outcomes were common — paralleling similar measurement inconsistencies found in ADHD intervention research. The forearm was the most studied body location due to CT afferent density and social acceptability. Most interventions (70%) targeted individual use in controlled laboratory settings. Group-based, dyadic, and real-world deployments remain comparatively underexplored. Publications accelerated markedly from 2018 onward, with thermal and pressure modalities emerging as naturalistic alternatives to vibrotactile feedback. Accessibility-relevant notes include that haptic sensitivity varies significantly for neurodivergent individuals, and social stigma of visible wearable devices affects acceptance.
Relevance
This review is directly relevant to accessible technology design for mental health and emotional well-being. Wearable haptic interventions offer passive, low-effort support mechanisms that could benefit people with anxiety disorders, autism spectrum conditions, ADHD, and other disabilities where touch-based regulation or social connection has therapeutic value. The accessibility considerations raised — including neurodivergent individuals' varying haptic sensitivity, the social stigma of visible wearable devices, and the need for personalised intervention design — are central HCI and assistive technology design challenges. The cross-dimensional framework the authors develop provides practitioners with structured vocabulary for designing affective haptic systems. Limitations include a predominance of lab-based studies, small samples, and inconsistent evaluation methodologies. Future directions include in-the-wild deployments, multimodal biosensing, AI-driven adaptive biofeedback, and group-based social haptic interventions.
Tags: haptic technology · wearable technology · affective computing · mental well-being · emotion regulation · vibrotactile feedback · biofeedback · stress reduction · social touch · systematic review · HCI · accessibility