Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39431169›Full record

Articlei-Perception

Enhancing public entertainment with touch: Possibilities and pitfalls.

Charles Spence, Yang Gao

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in i-Perception. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Charles SpenceCrossmodal Research Laboratory, Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2111-072X
Yang GaoCrossmodal Research Laboratory, Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-9849-9147

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There has long been interest in augmenting cinematic and other forms of public entertainment through tactile and/or bodily (i.e., vestibular) stimulation. In this narrative historical review, the early history of touch (or haptics, as it is sometimes called) and other forms of bodily stimulation (e.g., motion platforms) in the context of entertainment is critically reviewed, with a focus on early cinema as well as other early examples of immersive virtual reality travel experiences. Critically, various challenges have limited the introduction of such additional channels of sensory stimulation. These include technological, financial, cognitive, creative, ethical/artistic, and also legal considerations, given the many patents that currently exist covering commercial digital tactile stimulation (e.g., in the gaming context). Taken together, these challenges help to explain why it is that despite the early interest in "the feelies" (e.g., an envisioning of film that includes tactile sensations by Aldous Huxley, in his novel Brave New World), touch-enhanced cinema and storytelling have never really caught on in the mainstream in the way that, say, the talkies so obviously did following the introduction of sound into cinema in the early decades of the 20th century. Nevertheless, identifying the potential successful use cases that have emerged from previous attempts to augment public entertainments with tactile/bodily stimulation will likely provide useful guidelines for the future tactile augmentation of home entertainment.

Indexed as

cinemaentertainmenthapticsmultisensorytouchvestibular

Identifiers

PMID39431169
PMCPMC11489974

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.