SynthesisFrontiers in psychology2026
Tactile and haptic interaction in STEM learning: a scoping review of embodied and multisensory pathways for conceptual learning processes.
Synthesis in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Conceptual learning in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) often involves phenomena that are abstract, dynamic, and not directly observable. Instruction in many STEM classrooms continues to rely predominantly on visual representations and spoken explanations, which may limit opportunities for learners to engage with scientific concepts through multiple sensory pathways. Within this perspective, tactile and haptic interaction offers an alternative sensory pathway through which learners can explore scientific phenomena through direct sensorimotor experiences. This scoping review examines how tactile and haptic learning approaches are implemented in STEM education and how these interventions translate physical phenomena into perceptible sensory experiences that support conceptual understanding, embodied interaction, and active engagement across diverse educational contexts. Following Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review framework and reported in accordance with PRISMA-ScR guidelines, literature published between January 1, 2015 and December 15, 2025 was systematically identified, screened, and synthesized from five major databases. To strengthen the comprehensiveness of the review and broaden coverage of relevant studies published in mainstream STEM education journals, supplementary targeted searches were conducted during the revision process while maintaining the original review timeframe and eligibility criteria. A total of 23 studies met the inclusion criteria, encompassing tactile models, vibrotactile systems, embodied simulations, and force-feedback interfaces implemented across diverse educational settings. Across the reviewed studies, tactile and haptic interaction supported conceptual access to abstract phenomena, procedural engagement, active participation, and multisensory meaning-making in STEM learning. Synthesizing patterns across the included studies, this review proposes the Tactile and Haptic Interaction (THIn) conceptual model, which explains how physical phenomena are translated into sensory interaction mechanisms and pedagogical processes that support conceptual learning through embodied cognitive experiences. The findings clarify how tactile interaction functions as a sensory-cognitive pathway connecting perception, embodied action, and conceptual reasoning in multisensory STEM learning environments while situating these insights within a broader body of STEM education literature.
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.