ReviewScience advances2024
A neurocognitive pathway for engineering artificial touch.
Review in Science advances, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Microfluidic-enabled stretchable thermoelectric device array for multimodal haptic interfaces.Microsystems & nanoengineering · 2026Article
- Task demands shift motor learning from adaptation to feedback control in a naturalistic bimanual task.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Wearable technologies for assisted mobility in the real world.Nature communications · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Artificial haptics has the potential to revolutionize the way we integrate physical and virtual technologies in our daily lives, with implications for teleoperation, motor skill acquisition, rehabilitation, gaming, interpersonal communication, and beyond. Here, we delve into the intricate interplay between the somatosensory system and engineered haptic inputs for perception and action. We critically examine the sensory feedback's fidelity and the cognitive demands of interfacing with these systems. We examine how artificial touch interfaces could be redesigned to better align with human sensory, motor, and cognitive systems, emphasizing the dynamic and context-dependent nature of sensory integration. We consider the various learning processes involved in adapting to artificial haptics, highlighting the need for interfaces that support both explicit and implicit learning mechanisms. We emphasize the need for technologies that are not only physiologically biomimetic but also behaviorally and cognitively congruent with the user, affording a range of alternative solutions to users' needs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.