Virtual Reality Controller with Directed Haptic Feedback to Increase

Immersion

Tobias Hermann

∗ a

, Andreas Burkard

∗ b

and Stefan Radicke

Hochschule der Medien, Nobelstraße 10, Stuttgart, Germany

Keywords:

Haptic Feedback, Virtual Reality, Input Device, Gaming.

Abstract:

In the context of this paper we propose the Directed Feedback Controller (DFC). This is a prototype controller,

which is able to generate haptic feedback from all directions. Its purpose is to increase the immersion in Virtual

Reality (VR) games. A user study has shown that the current prototype is perceived as very innovative. The

participants enjoyed the experience and would tell their friends about it. In addition, most of the respondents

see great potential in the idea behind the DFC. However, the DFC still has some minor issues. For example,

due to the high weight of the DFC, the participants could not always determine the exact direction of the

impact. Therefore, several ideas for weight reduction are proposed at the end of this paper.

1 INTRODUCTION

In recent years, the demand for Virtual Reality (VR)

technologies has increased continuously. Wearing

a Head Mounted Display (HMD) takes the user to

another world but discrepancies between the experi-

enced and the real world can quickly break this im-

mersion.

As Hunter G. Hoffman shows in his paper, it tears

the user out of the immersion of the Virtual Envi-

ronments (VE) when he reaches through virtual ob-

jects with his cyber hand and receives no feedback

(Hoffman, 1998). We assume that the same applies to

touching objects with a tool in a VE even if the motion

control gives some feedback through vibration.

Sensory modalities such as vision and audition

are already basic requirements of VEs (Bowman and

McMahan, 2007). However, haptics such as force

feedback are relatively underrepresented and unex-

plored in the gaming industry, even though there is

a lot of research on it within papers. Although it

has already been shown that force feedback increases

the user experience of the application as well as real-

ism and immersion (Srinivasan and Basdogan, 1997;

MacLean, 2000).

Even a comparatively weak feedback already adds

a lot to the immersion for the user (Orozco et al.,

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2481-4204

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9131-5897

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5491-345X

∗

Both authors contributed equally to this research.

2012). Our goal was to generate a strong feedback

that really feels like hitting an object, blocking an at-

tack, or perceiving the recoil of ﬁring a weapon. That

formed the motivation to create this prototype of our

haptic feedback controller called ”Directed Feedback

Controller” (DFC). The DFC is able to generate feed-

back from any direction, depending on the colliding

object in the virtual world.

The DFC is primarily designed to simulate heavy

melee and ranged weapons immersively in the VE of

action-packed video games. Another possible appli-

cation for DFC is the simulation of tools inside and

outside games.

We have chosen directional feedback because in

reality you can also feel from which direction a col-

lision with another object or a recoil is generated.

In theory, this should increase the sense of immer-

sion. Also on a gameplay level, this mechanism of-

fers possibilities for new game concepts as an addi-

tional source of information, such as a magic tool that

guides the way based on the direction of the feedback.

In this paper, we ﬁrst describe how the DFC works

and how it is constructed. Then we present the results

of the user test we conducted with a tech demo to in-

vestigate the effects of the DFC on the VR experience.

2 RELATED WORK

The DFC is inspired by technology, which utilizes

haptic feedback for VR applications.

Hermann, T., Burkard, A. and Radicke, S.

Virtual Reality Controller with Directed Haptic Feedback to Increase Immersion.

DOI: 10.5220/0009098302030210

In Proceedings of the 15th International Joint Conference on Computer Vision, Imaging and Computer Graphics Theory and Applications (VISIGRAPP 2020) - Volume 2: HUCAPP, pages

203-210

ISBN: 978-989-758-402-2; ISSN: 2184-4321

203

2.1 Feedback Controllers for Static or

Slowly Moving Objects

The VRHapticDrones are quadcopters, which act as

levitating haptic feedback proxies and are seen as

movable objects in the VR space (Hoppe et al., 2018).

A very unique concept and usage of haptic feed-

back are the Haptic Links (Strasnick et al., 2018).

They are used as connection between two handheld

controllers, which are able to change their stiffness to

simulate different objects like for example a riﬂe or

two onehanded weapons.

Wolverine (Choi and Follmer, 2016) is a wearable

mobile haptic device, which simulates the grasping of

rigid objects in VR. The force feedback is created by

constant stiffness executed with an exoskeleton struc-

ture.

Another approach of using haptic feedback is for

social interactions like touching another person inside

the VE (Boucaud et al., 2019). This work describes

an experiment, which utilizes an interface consisting

of two devices, a sleeve and a glove equipped with

several vibrators, such as those integrated in smart-

phones. The idea is to transmit emotions. By touch-

ing the virtual avatar of another user, a signal is sent

to that user, which generates haptic feedback on both

ends. During the experiment, the second actor is con-

trolled by a simple artiﬁcial intelligence (AI). The

emotions that should be recognized by touch patterns

of duration and intensity are: sympathy, anger and

sadness.

NormalTouch and TextureTouch are hand-held

controllers, which generate feedback via physical dis-

placement (Benko et al., 2016).

The concept of Thor’s Hammer is comparable to

that of the DFC because it is able to generate haptic

feedback from multiple directions and has a similar

shape since the part with the feedback mechanisms is

on top of a handle (Heo et al., 2018). The difference

however is that Thor’s Hammer uses six propellers,

each driven by a motor and designed for continuous

contact instead of short strong impulses like the DFC.

The reason why Thor’s Hammer is less suitable for

fast applications is the latency problems that users had

noticed in the user test for a speciﬁc use case.

Altogether it can be said, that the main focus of

these inventions is to feel haptic feedback of static or

slowly moving objects. These are barley suitable for

fast paced action driven games. While these types of

games are the unique selling point of the DFC.

2.2 Feedback Controllers Suitable for

Action Driven Games

Nevertheless, there are a few other feedback devices

that are also suitable for action games.

The Haptic Vest is a haptic feedback device in-

tegrated into a vest. With this vest, the user wears

several vibrotactile and thermal actuators at different

parts of the body (Garc

ıa-Valle et al., 2017). In their

use case, a train station was simulated where the par-

ticipants can interact with different objects through

which the user perceives tactile interactions. After a

certain time, a ﬁre breaks out in the simulation. If the

participant approaches the ﬁre in the virtual world the

vest increases the temperature via the thermal actua-

tors. Because the vest affects only the torso instead

of being a handheld controller, it has a different focus

compared to the DFC. To further increase the immer-

sion, the Haptic Vest would be a perfect addition to

the DFC.

Aero-plane is a handheld haptic feedback device

as well (Je et al., 2019). It utilizes two mineature jet-

propellers to simulate weighted objects moving on a

2D plane. In reality, the plane is just an illusion based

on the modulation of speed of the two propellers and

the usage of the users wrist as pivot point. Despite

its main focus, it is also capable for the use in action

games like for example burst ﬁre.

The PaCaPa (Sun et al., 2019) simulates a tool in

the hand such as a stick. When the tool collides with

an object in virtual reality, PaCaPa generates haptic

feedback by changing its shape by opening or closing

two movable wing parts. How far these wings open or

close depends on the angle of the collision. Although

it feels realistic and users could even distinguish the

strength of an object, this prototype only works for

one direction as opposed to the DFC.

In this sense, the HaptiVec (Chen et al., 2019) is

probably currently the most similar invention to the

DFC. Just like the DFC, it can be used in action games

and is able to generate feedback from eight different

directions. The HaptiVec is presented as two custom

VR controllers, each containing a 3x5 tactile pin array

in their handles. The pins of this array can go in and

out to give users local pressure sensations depending

on the directional signal given from the application.

Although the HaptiVec contributes to immersion and

helps the user to understand the environment better,

it is clear to the user that it is still a controller, while

the purpose of the DFC is to really feel like a weighty

item, such as a weapon in the user’s immersion. The

feedback from the HaptiVec is meant to represent the

whole body, e.g. it indicates the direction the user was

hit by or raindrops that rattle down on the user. In con-

HUCAPP 2020 - 4th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction Theory and Applications

204

trast the DFC only gives feedback when the item in

the hand of the user hits something or when recoil oc-

curs. Noteworthy, the impact of the DFC’s feedback

is also stronger.

Due to its high weight and strong feedback, the

DFC, unlike the other devices listed, feels less like a

controller and more like a weighty object or a close

combat or ranged weapon, which results in increased

immersion.

3 DESIGN AND

IMPLEMENTATION

3.1 Requirements and Constraints

The motivation behind the DFC is to develop a con-

troller that enhances the gameplay feel and immersion

of using a weapon in VR through a clearly percepti-

ble feedback. The goal of the DFC is to allow users

to feel from which direction the feedback is gener-

ated, both as a source of information and to simu-

late recoil or collision with other objects. The main

focus of the DFC is the generation of strong short

feedback pulses, therefore continuous feedback can-

not be simulated with it. In contrast to ordinary VR

controllers, the DFC has only one button, which sim-

ulates for example the trigger of a pistol. The reason

for the lack of many buttons is that when the user uses

the DFC, he should not have the feeling of holding a

controller in his hand, rather a real weapon or tool,

which should enhance the sense of immersion. While

ordinary VR controllers mostly rely on haptic feed-

back in the form of vibrotactile actuators, the DFC

contains its own mechanism for generating feedback,

which will be explained in the following sections.

Both the ordinary VR controller and the DFC are

not able to track the arm position of the user, so they

cannot be displayed correctly in the VE, which coun-

teracts the sense of immersion.

The weight of the controller is about 1500 g,

which consists of: 110 g per coil, 20 g per plug and

25 g per iron bolt. The sum of these individual parts

is multiplied by 6, since there are two of these parts

per tube and there are three tubes. This adds up to 930

g. In addition there is a 90 g tracking device and the

rest is the casing with 470 g.

The total costs for the proposed DFC prototype

amounted to be about 250 euros.

3.2 Controller Basics

The DFC contains three tubes wrapped with copper

wire at the two opposite ends of the tube, each re-

Figure 1: Feedback generation inside a single tube. (A) No

electricity given, the initial situation of the tube. (B) When

electricity is applied, the copper wire of one of the two coils

becomes a magnet for a short duration (which copper wire

coil is addressed depends on the incoming signal) and pulls

the nearest iron bolt through it. The steel spring slows the

bolt down and pushes it back to its starting position. The

initial situation (A) is restituted again.

sulting in a copper wire coil. Each tube contains two

iron bolts and one steel spring. Due to the insertion of

electricity, one of the two copper wire coils of one or

more of these tubes becomes magnetic and pulls the

nearest iron bolt with its magneticity through it. That

jolt generates the haptic feedback. The steel spring

slows down the iron bolt and then pushes it back to its

start position like shown in Figure 1.

We attached a tracking device to the controller to

track its position and rotation data. The DFC includes

a micro controller which communicates via the Uni-

versal Asynchronous Receiver Transmitter (UART)

with the computer (Osborne, 1980; Nanda and Pat-

tnaik, 2016).

3.3 Previous Iterations and Alternative

Design Approaches

The ﬁrst prototype of the DFC was pistol-shaped and

had only one feedback direction. Since we already

had the idea of generating feedback from different di-

rections, this iteration was only there to test the mech-

anism with the acceleration of the iron bolt by a mag-

netic copper wire coil. We were satisﬁed with the gen-

erated recoil. The second iteration already contained

the directed feedback and had the form of a box, to

which two tubes per axis for two opposite directions

were attached. These contained the iron bolts and the

copper wire coils. The prototype was placed on the

arm joint and it was held by a handle, but the high

Virtual Reality Controller with Directed Haptic Feedback to Increase Immersion

205

weight was uncomfortable for the arm joint and the

prototype itself was not really stable. Our second pro-

totype was overall even heavier than the current itera-

tion of the prototype because it used six tubes instead

of only three. Each tube contained only one iron bolt

and one copper wire coil instead of two as in the cur-

rent prototype, so one tube could only provide feed-

back in one direction and not both directions as in our

current version. Furthermore, the tubes were not or-

thogonally arranged, but directed to the axis system,

two on each axis for the back and forth direction. This

led us to the ﬁnal design of our current prototype, as

described in the following section.

3.4 Design

The casing and handle of the controller were printed

with a 3D printer. The design of the handle is based

on conventional VR controllers and is equipped with

a button that can be used to send a signal to the com-

puter. Inside the casing are three orthogonal tubes,

each of them is equipped with two coils, an iron bolt

and two springs, as depicted in Figure 2. The shape of

the casing results from the orthogonality and symmet-

rical distribution of the axes and the goal of bringing

the center of gravity of the controller as close as pos-

sible to the user’s hand in order to minimize leverage

and imbalance while moving the controller. Based

on these requirements, the ﬁrst design looked like a

sphere. In order to reduce the weight of the casing,

we then left out material that was not necessary for

stability. The orthogonal alignment of the three axes

makes it possible to generate feedback from any di-

rection by combining the pulses.

Figure 2: Directed Feedback Controller. This Computer

Aided Design (CAD) model of DFC casing shows the in-

side of the DFC. The violet part represents the tracking de-

vice attached to the controller. The grey part represents the

casing with the three orthogonal tubes, which contain the

iron bolts and springs. The red part is the handle, which

contains the cables and a button. The casing and the handle

are 3d printed.

4 EXPERIMENT

4.1 Tech Demo

To showcase the functionality of the DFC and to make

it testable for the user study, we created a game as tech

demo. The game is a basic First Person Shooter (FPS)

where the user has to ﬁght waves of enemies with dif-

ferent weapons. The weapons in the game have been

designed to optimally showcase the capabilities of the

controller:

• The melee weapon is a sword, which utilizes the

directional features of the DFC the most. Depend-

ing on which side of the weapon hits the enemy,

feedback is generated from the opposite side.

• The grenade launcher utilizes only the front direc-

tion of the DFC to simulate the weapon recoil.

• The disc thrower releases the mounts at the left

and the right side of a spinning disk, which results

in feedback from both sides and then the disc is

shot afterwards, which results in a feedback from

the front side.

• The shield can block projectiles and melee at-

tacks. The feedback is generated from the angle

of the attack.

• The grappling hook is the weapon, which enables

the user to move around the map. If shot, the user

feels a feedback from the backside at ﬁrst because

of the releasing bowstring and frontal afterwards

when she is pulled to the target.

4.2 User Study Setup

We conducted tests with 22 participants over the

course of two days. 82% of these participants have

played VR games already. 57% played a lot of

videogames, 24% sometimes and 19% rarely or never.

The age distribution was as follows: 77% were 15-29

years old and 23% were 30-44 years old. Every par-

ticipant played for about 10-15 minutes including four

waves of enemies and a tutorial for the game. After

the play session, they had to ﬁll in two surveys about

the controller and the game. One survey containing

ratings on a Likert scale (Likert, 1932), closed-ended

and open-ended questions and an AttrakDiff survey

(Hassenzahl et al., 2003). The time how long ev-

ery participant used every weapon was tracked in the

background by the game itself.

HUCAPP 2020 - 4th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction Theory and Applications

206

5 EVALUATION

After analyzing all the data we collected from our user

study we obtained the following results.

5.1 Weight of the Controller

95% of the participants answered the question consid-

ering the weight of the controller on a scale from too

light (1) to unbearably heavy (4) with the controller is

too heavy (3). The result indicates that the weight of

the DFC should be reduced in future iterations.

5.2 Determination of the Feedback

Direction

As the survey shows, only 23% of the participants

were able to determine the feedback direction. The

reason for this is that the proportion of the weight of

the iron bolt in the total weight of the controller is

only about 1.8%. Even with three times as heavy iron

bolts, we would only achieve a share of 4.4% of the

total weight of the controller and thereby increase the

total weight from 1400 g to 1700 g. In conclusion

either the total weight of the controller has to be re-

duced or the weight distribution has to be optimized.

5.3 Immersion

The question whether the feedback feels realistic was

answered with yes only by 45% of the participants.

On the other hand 77% of the participants answered

yes to the question whether the feedback added to

the immersion. The conclusion is that even when the

feedback does not feel realistic, the mere existence of

stronger and directed feedback adds a lot to the im-

mersion of the game.

In the open-ended questions section of the ﬁrst

questionnaire, one of the participants said: ”I think

the combination is really great, it felt real while play-

ing” and another: ”The controller contributed to bet-

ter immersion due to its heavy weight. Even though

it is exhausting to hold such a heavy controller in the

long run, it reﬂected the weight of the weapon well”.

One participant also said ”Very good / realistic feed-

back - ﬁts very well in combination with the game”.

According to the comments of these participants, the

controller helped them to feel more immersed in the

game world.

5.4 Potential and Entertainment Value

On a scale from not entertained (1) to very enter-

tained (4) 91% of the participants felt very enter-

tained (4) and only 9% somewhat entertained (3). We

had previously told participants that the questions in

this ﬁrst questionnaire were all related to the con-

troller and not to the game, unless otherwise speci-

ﬁed. If you add the results of the AttrakDiff survey

(Hassenzahl et al., 2003) into the equation, one could

argue that the controller is the main reason for the pos-

itive entertainment rating. On a scale from no poten-

tial (1) to big potential (4), 73% of the participants

answered that there is a big potential (4) and 27%

that there is some potential (3) behind the controller

if it would be developed further. That tells us that the

prototype itself is not perfect but the idea of a feed-

back controller is worth further developing. 64% of

the participants answered the question, whether they

would tell their friends about our project on a scale

from never (1) to in any case (4), with in any case

(4). 36% would probably tell their friends (3).

5.5 Design Evaluation

The question considering the design of the controller

from a scale of the controller seems unprofessional (1)

to the controller seems professional (4), 18% of the

participants answered that the controller seems pro-

fessional (4), 68% that it seems solid (3) and 14% that

the controllers seems a little improvised (2). Accord-

ing to the survey, only 27% of the participants were

bothered by the cables, but during the user tests we

made sure the cables did not disturb the participants

by holding them up ourselves, thus keeping them out

of the way. Although we think it would still make

sense to ﬁnd a wireless solution.

5.6 Weapons

The participants were asked in the survey, how much

they liked every single weapon from a scale between

Figure 3: Weapon usage diagram. The y-axis represents

the percentage how long the participants used each weapon

(x-axis) in correlation to the other weapons.

Virtual Reality Controller with Directed Haptic Feedback to Increase Immersion

207

Figure 4: Weapon rating pie charts. Every pie chart repre-

sents one of the ﬁve weapons and the percentages of how

much the participants liked the individual weapons on a

scale from very bad (1) to very good (5).

very bad (1) and very good (5) like depicted in Fig-

ure 3. At this point, we want to compare it with

the tracked time how long they used the different

weapons. The tracking of the weapons usage started

after the tutorial and is showcased as percent usage

compared to the other weapons, see Figure 4.

This is interesting for us because how much a

weapon utilizes the feedback varies between each

weapon. A disconnect between the usage time and

the weapon rating is noticeable at the melee weapon

because the rating is good but the usage is poor. The

melee weapon is the weapon, which makes the most

use of the directional feedback. We conclude from

these results that the melee weapon is fun because of

the feedback you can feel when hitting enemies but

not effective in the context of our game.

The melee weapon is inefﬁcient because all enemy

types except one are ranged and sometimes you can’t

reach them because of the limited range of movement

in the VR area.

5.7 AttrakDiff Survey

In Addition to the other survey questions, we made

use of the AttrakDiff method (Hassenzahl et al.,

2003).

AttrakDiff is an evaluation technique that focuses

on the usability of a product, but at the same time of-

fers a wide range of questions that leave much room

for interpretation. Especially since users have to eval-

uate what they perceive in different areas, it can also

be used to draw conclusions about the feeling of im-

mersion. Through the experience of testing our ear-

lier iteration of the prototype, we have found that At-

trakDiff is a suitable method to evaluate the quality

and novelty of a product.

The participants had to answer the same questions

for our tech demo and the controller separately:

• Game as a Tech Demo - The game was perceived

as attractive and practical. Furthermore the hedo-

nic qualities were also rated positively as depicted

in Figure 5. Due to the game being in VR, it was

evaluated as insulating and compared to the con-

troller rather conventional and conservative.

• Directed Feedback Controller - The controller

achieved very high scores in the areas of nov-

elty, innovation and all other areas except the

”technical/human” category as shown in Figure

5. Whereas according to our opinion the techni-

cal aspect of the controller is not negative because

it is supposed to be a technical device. The fact

that almost all areas of the pragmatic quality of

the controller has reached such positive values is

important because interaction with virtual reality,

which feels awkward, could drastically reduce the

feeling of immersion (Witmer and Singer, 1998).

Since isolation of the physical environment is also

one of the prerequisites for immersion, it is pos-

itive to note that the categories ”isolating - con-

necting” and ”separating me from people - bring-

ing me closer” are low compared to most of the

other values. However, we would have expected

these to be even in the negative range. The high

values in the area of ”hedonic quality - stimula-

tion” lead to the fact that due to the novelty of the

controller the player is fully focused on the novel

tasks, which also supports the feeling of immer-

sion by not paying so much attention to his envi-

ronment at least as long as the feeling of novelty

lasts.

Figure 5: AttrakDiff diagram for the tech demo on the left

and for the Directed Feedback Controller on the right. The

values of the y-axis represent averages (mean with standard

deviation) for the item groups of the x-axis considering the

categories: pragmatic quality (PQ), HQ-I: hedonic quality

(identiﬁcation), HQ-S: hedonic quality (stimulation). The

higher the value the better.

HUCAPP 2020 - 4th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction Theory and Applications

208

6 DISCUSSION

Expertise, gender, age and VR and gaming experience

did not seem to have had any discernible inﬂuence on

the users’ results.

6.1 Weight Reduction

Although the heavy weight makes the DFC feel more

immersive when simulating heavy weapons or tools,

the weight is too high for longer game sessions, which

can be tiring for the arm.

With 660 g, the coils make up almost half of

the weight of the controller. However, lighter coils

would only be possible with fewer windings or thin-

ner wire. If you look at the formula for the magnetic

ﬁeld strength, which is decisive for the strength of the

generated impulse, you can see that both measures to

reduce the weight of the coil would lead to a weaker

magnetic ﬁeld.

H =

I ∗n

√

+ D

(1)

In our case l is the length of the coil and D its di-

ameter. The lower number of windings n has a direct

effect on the magnetic ﬁeld strength. A thinner wire

on the other hand, would not be strong enough and

would thus have an indirect effect on the magnetic

ﬁeld strength, since the amperage I would have to be

reduced.

At about 470 g, the casing accounts for a third of

the total weight. Especially for the screw caps and

the transition from handle to main-body, as shown in

Figure 2, a certain stability has to be guaranteed to

withstand the impacts of the bolts and the movements

of the user. Therefore, not much weight can be saved

on the casing anymore. However, a different shape of

the controller could optimize the weight distribution

so that it feels lighter despite having the same weight.

Another 10% of the weight is contributed by the

iron bolts, which are to be accelerated by the coils.

Lighter bolts are accelerated faster in the magnetic

ﬁeld than heavier ones. The kinetic energy is there-

fore the same as with the heavier but slower bolts.

Nevertheless, a lighter bolt will lead to a weaker re-

sult, because the proportion of the weight of the bolt

to the total weight of the controller is decisive for the

perceived impact.

The most effective way to save weight is to reduce

the number of axes. One way to reduce the number of

axes and to be still able to cover all directions would

be the construction of two interlocking bearings with

one axis in its center. The bearings could be moved

separately by two small stepper motors and the axis

could thus be brought into the correct position. The

question remains open whether the rotation would be

fast enough to avoid too much delay between the trig-

gering event and the generation of the impact. But

with good game design you can create enough time

for these rotations. Using our tech demo as an ex-

ample, you could do this rotation during the time of

changing weapons.

6.2 Future Work and Limitations

As a next step, we would create another prototype

where the weight is reduced and the tubes are repo-

sitioned so that the direction of the feedback can be

recognized better. Because at the current state of the

prototype, it could be argued that directed feedback

does not have enough advantages over normal feed-

back, as so far only 23% of the participants could

identify the direction of the feedback. However, we

are convinced that this value could be drastically in-

creased with some improvements, as the user test also

showed that 73% of the participants see great poten-

tial and 27% some potential in the controller concept.

Afterwards, we would also conduct another user test

testing the same application with a plain controller

that only has the standard vibration or no feedback

integrated, one of the other experimental feedback

controllers listed in Related Work and the DFC. This

could prove that directed feedback contributes even

more to immersion than normal feedback.

7 CONCLUSION

The results of our project and user tests are that there

are still some issues with the DFC. The main issues

are that the controller is too heavy even for a short

play duration like 10-15 minutes and that the direction

of the feedback is barley determinable.

On the other hand, the feedback from the user tests

about the idea itself and the innovation behind it and

the experience was very positive. With a few more

tweaks, it has potential to become something worth

buying and a promising tool to increase the immersion

in VR games.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank the friendly staff of the

”Hochschule der Medien”, who provided us with

equipment and also supported us with organizational

matters, especially Robin Schulte and Beate Schlitter.

We would also like to thank all participants who took

Virtual Reality Controller with Directed Haptic Feedback to Increase Immersion

209

part in our user tests, as well as our friend Philipp

Pferdt for his technical advice and for helping us with

3D printing.

REFERENCES

Benko, H., Holz, C., Sinclair, M., and Ofek, E. (2016).

Normaltouch and texturetouch: High-ﬁdelity 3d hap-

tic shape rendering on handheld virtual reality con-

trollers. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual Symposium

on User Interface Software and Technology, pages

717–728. ACM.

Boucaud, F., Taﬁani, Q., Pelachaud, C., and Thouvenin, I.

(2019). Social touch in human-agent interactions in

an immersive virtual environment. In Proceedings of

the 14th International Joint Conference on Computer

Vision, Imaging and Computer Graphics Theory and

Applications, Volume 2: HUCAPP, pages 129–136.

SciTePress.

Bowman, D. A. and McMahan, R. P. (2007). Virtual re-

ality: how much immersion is enough? Computer,

40(7):36–43.

Chen, D. K., Chossat, J.-B., and Shull, P. B. (2019). Hap-

tivec: Presenting haptic feedback vectors in handheld

controllers using embedded tactile pin arrays. In Pro-

ceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Fac-

tors in Computing Systems, page 171. ACM.

Choi, I. and Follmer, S. (2016). Wolverine: A wearable hap-

tic interface for grasping in vr. In Proceedings of the

29th Annual Symposium on User Interface Software

and Technology, pages 117–119. ACM.

Garc

ıa-Valle, G., Ferre, M., Bre

nosa, J., and Vargas, D.

(2017). Evaluation of presence in virtual environ-

ments: Haptic vest and user’s haptic skills. IEEE Ac-

cess, 6:7224–7233.

Hassenzahl, M., Burmester, M., and Koller, F.

(2003). Attrakdiff: Ein fragebogen zur messung

wahrgenommener hedonischer und pragmatischer

qualit

at. In Mensch & computer 2003, pages 187–196.

Springer.

Heo, S., Chung, C., Lee, G., and Wigdor, D. (2018). Thor’s

hammer: An ungrounded force feedback device uti-

lizing propeller-induced propulsive force. In Proceed-

ings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors

in Computing Systems, page 525. ACM.

Hoffman, H. G. (1998). Physically touching virtual ob-

jects using tactile augmentation enhances the realism

of virtual environments. In Proceedings. IEEE 1998

Virtual Reality Annual International Symposium (Cat.

No. 98CB36180), pages 59–63. IEEE.

Hoppe, M., Knierim, P., Kosch, T., Funk, M., Futami,

L., Schneegass, S., Henze, N., Schmidt, A., and

Machulla, T. (2018). Vrhapticdrones: Providing hap-

tics in virtual reality through quadcopters. In Proceed-

ings of the 17th International Conference on Mobile

and Ubiquitous Multimedia, pages 7–18. ACM.

Je, S., Kim, M. J., Lee, W., Lee, B., Yang, X.-D., Lopes,

P., and Bianchi, A. (2019). Aero-plane: A handheld

force-feedback device that renders weight motion illu-

sion on a virtual 2d plane. In Proceedings of the 32nd

Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software

and Technology, pages 763–775. ACM.

Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of atti-

tudes. Archives of psychology.

MacLean, K. E. (2000). Designing with haptic feed-

back. In Proceedings 2000 ICRA. Millennium Con-

ference. IEEE International Conference on Robotics

and Automation. Symposia Proceedings (Cat. No.

00CH37065), volume 1, pages 783–788. IEEE.

Nanda, U. and Pattnaik, S. K. (2016). Universal asyn-

chronous receiver and transmitter (uart). In 2016 3rd

International Conference on Advanced Computing

and Communication Systems (ICACCS), volume 1,

pages 1–5. IEEE.

Orozco, M., Silva, J., El Saddik, A., and Petriu, E. (2012).

The role of haptics in games. In Haptics rendering

and applications. IntechOpen.

Osborne, A. (1980). An Introduction to Microcomputers

Volume 1: Basic Concepts. McGraw-Hill Osborne

Media, Berkeley California USA.

Srinivasan, M. A. and Basdogan, C. (1997). Haptics in

virtual environments: Taxonomy, research status, and

challenges. Computers & Graphics, 21(4):393–404.

Strasnick, E., Holz, C., Ofek, E., Sinclair, M., and Benko,

H. (2018). Haptic links: bimanual haptics for virtual

reality using variable stiffness actuation. In Proceed-

ings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors

in Computing Systems, page 644. ACM.

Sun, Y., Yoshida, S., Narumi, T., and Hirose, M. (2019).

Pacapa: A handheld vr device for rendering size,

shape, and stiffness of virtual objects in tool-based in-

teractions. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Confer-

ence on Human Factors in Computing Systems, page

452. ACM.

Witmer, B. G. and Singer, M. J. (1998). Measuring pres-

ence in virtual environments: A presence question-

naire. Presence, 7(3):225–240.

HUCAPP 2020 - 4th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction Theory and Applications

210