Jump to content

Haptics in Stroke Rehabilitation

Original Editor - Malisha van der Berg and Rochelle Dsouza Top Contributors - Rochelle Dsouza, Malisha van der Berg, Ahmet Begde, Vidya Acharya, Aminat Abolade and Alexandra Stead


Introduction

Haptics refers to the study and application of touch through human-computer interaction,[1] a term derived from the Greek verb meaning “to touch” or “to handle”.[2] In rehabilitation, haptic technology recreates the sensation of touch, pressure or resistance for a patient interacting with a virtual, robotic or wearable device.[3] This adds a tactile and kinaesthetic layer to feedback that would otherwise be purely visual and auditory.[4]

Interest in combining haptics with virtual reality (VR) and robotics for stroke rehabilitation stems from several factors:

  • Reduced hand function is one of the most disabling and persistent consequences of stroke, and it has a significant impact on a person’s independence in daily activities.[5]
  • Standard visual feedback in VR systems does not fully replicate real-world object interaction. Patients can see a virtual object but cannot feel it, which limits the sense of realism and may reduce the transfer of skills to functional tasks.[4][6]
  • Adding tactile and kinaesthetic feedback increases immersion and engagement, which is thought to support motor relearning through more meaningful, repetitive practice.[7]
  • Haptic-enabled systems can quantify and adjust the assistance or resistance given to a patient in real time, allowing therapy to be graded more precisely than with vision-only VR or conventional exercise.[8]

Despite this rationale, haptic feedback remains an under-explored component of stroke rehabilitation technology. The strength of evidence differs considerably by application. It is reasonably well established for upper limb function but inconclusive for gait and balance.[9][10] A broader systematic review across neurological conditions reaches a similarly cautious conclusion, noting that clinical practice recommendations cannot yet be made because of heterogeneous protocols and generally low to moderate methodological quality.[3]

Historical Development of Haptics in Stroke Rehabilitation

Haptic technology in rehabilitation has developed through several overlapping phases rather than as a single innovation.

Early Kinaesthetic Robotics

The first haptic-enabled rehabilitation devices were largely research-grade robotic systems providing resistance or assistance through a handle or end-effector. These were effective for repetitive practice but costly, technically complex and mostly confined to research laboratories.[11]

Integration with Virtual Environments

As VR software became more accessible, haptic devices were increasingly paired with visual simulations, letting patients both see and feel their interaction with virtual objects.[12] This addressed a key limitation of vision-only VR, where patients could observe a task but received no physical confirmation of contact or force.[2]

For example the CR2-Haptic end-effector robot shown in the following video.

[13]

Classification by Modality and Invasiveness

Supplementary haptic feedback approaches came to be classified as invasive (for example, intracortical or direct nerve stimulation) or non-invasive.[14][15] Non-invasive approaches are further divided into:[14]

  • Modality-matched: for example, pressure used to render grasping force.
  • Modality-mismatched: for example, vibration used to render force.

Non-invasive vibrotactile and electro-tactile feedback dominate the literature, reflecting a clinical emphasis on safety, comfort and accessibility over the greater fidelity but higher risk of invasive approaches.[15]

Miniaturisation and Wearable Haptics

Development has moved from bulky, fixed robotic systems towards lightweight, wearable glove- and bracelet-based interfaces. These devices are better suited to home use and unsupervised practice, extending therapy beyond the clinic.[11] The following video demonstrates a vibrotactile bracelet that can be strapped around the lower limb for gait rehabilitation:

[16]

Whole-hand and Multi-finger Rendering, and Direct-drive Actuation

More recent devices attempt to recreate complex, whole-hand sensations of grasping and object manipulation rather than delivering feedback at a single point of contact. With early clinical usability testing positive among both stroke patients and treating therapists.[17] The following video demonstrates High-Resolution, Untethered Haptic Gloves using Electroosmotic Pump Arrays.

[18]

The most recent wearable systems use direct-drive motors capable of rendering both slow, continuous guidance forces and fast vibrotactile stimuli from the same actuator, reducing the friction and reflected inertia associated with earlier geared designs.[19]

Integration with Sensor-tracked, Gamified VR

Current research increasingly combines haptic feedback with three-dimensional spatial tracking and gamified tasks, allowing detailed movement and force data to be captured during a session and task difficulty to be adjusted accordingly.[8] [20]

[21]

Theoretical Framework for Haptics

The rationale for haptic feedback in stroke rehabilitation rests on the relationship between the sensory and motor systems, and on the principles of neuroplasticity underpinning motor recovery.[9]

Movement and sensation are not separate processes. Sensory information from the periphery, including touch and proprioception, is continuously integrated with motor commands to guide accurate, coordinated movement.[22] Several points follow from this:

1. Movement planning relies on more than vision alone

The nervous system typically combines visual, tactile and proprioceptive information to plan and refine motor output. Relying on vision in isolation, as many standard VR systems do, provides an incomplete training signal.[23]

2. Haptic-proprioceptive information and visual feedback must be synchronised in time and space to be effectively integrated

Haptic devices are thought to work partly by facilitating the integration of visual information with neuromuscular feedback during manipulation tasks.[10]

3. Distributing information across sensory channels can reduce cognitive interference

This is consistent with multiple resource theory, which predicts that spreading information across tactile and visual channels, rather than relying on vision alone, reduces the cognitive demand of interpreting feedback. This a consideration of particular relevance in stroke, where visual and attentional deficits are common.[19]

4. Haptic feedback can be graded and personalised

Systems that sense a patient’s residual voluntary movement and adjust resistance or assistance accordingly aim to keep the therapeutic challenge matched to the patient’s current ability. This is considered important for sustaining motor learning over the course of recovery.[8]

5. Haptic guidance work with existing motor coordination

In a study combining a wearable haptic armband with immersive VR, participants receiving haptic guidance showed altered muscle co-contraction and shifts in muscle synergy patterns consistent with adaptive motor responses, while their coordination strategies remained stable, suggesting sensorimotor engagement rather than simply increased attention.[19] In a pilot study of chronic stroke patients performing ankle tracking, training via bidirectional haptic connection to a physical therapist, rather than a fixed reference trajectory, produced significantly higher post-training dorsiflexor muscle activation than trajectory guidance.[24]

6. Consideration to patient-centred dimension to the theoretical rationale

There is also a patient-centred dimension to the theoretical rationale, separate from the neurophysiological one. In a participatory design study combining brain-computer interfaces (BCI), motor imagery and VR, stroke survivors reported that tactile feedback, particularly vibration, added to visual engagement during VR-based tasks. Recommending that sensory feedback be tailored to the specific task and scenario being trained.[23]

Relevance to Physiotherapy in Stroke Rehabilitation

Current UK and European clinical guidelines consistently recommend increasing the intensity of upper limb therapy after stroke, while acknowledging that resource and staffing pressures make this difficult to achieve through therapist-led practice alone.[25] Haptic-enabled technology is one option being explored to help meet this demand, though the strength of evidence differs considerably between upper limb and gait or balance applications.

Upper Limb Function

The table below summarises the current evidence, treatment considerations and clinical implications of haptic technology for upper limb rehabilitation after stroke.

Evidence area Key findings and clinical implications
Meta-analytic evidence A systematic review and meta-analysis of seven randomised controlled trials (n = 230) found that rehabilitation haptic gloves, most commonly the RAPAEL Smart Glove, combined with semi-immersive VR produced significant moderate short-term improvements in upper limb function compared with conventional therapy (SMD = 0.38, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.56, p < 0.001). Long-term gains at one to six months were maintained only when conventional rehabilitation was delivered alongside the glove and VR (SMD = 0.71, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.02, p < 0.001).[10] Grip strength did not improve significantly beyond conventional therapy, suggesting that benefits relate more to functional coordination than raw strength.

A broader review reported effect sizes of 0.2 to 0.7 across rehabilitation studies, with the largest gains in post-stroke motor function (0.35 to 0.87), and no moderate or severe adverse events.[2]

Recommended treatment parameters The evidence suggests a minimum of 15 sessions, delivered three to five times per week for 30 minutes to one hour per session, across acute to chronic stroke.[10]
Clinical usability A portable, minimally actuated haptic hand and forearm trainer achieved a System Usability Scale score of 77.5 and a median setup time under one minute in 13 healthy participants, including three physiotherapists.[7] Because stroke patients were not included, claims about patient usability remain preliminary.

A related whole-hand haptic rendering device for grasp and object manipulation was found usable and well received by stroke patients and treating therapists in early clinical testing.[17]

Wearable armband feasibility In a study of 12 healthy participants and two people with stroke, a wearable armband providing continuous and vibrotactile guidance during grasping and pronation and supination tasks in immersive VR significantly improved movement precision and reduced motor variability compared with no feedback. Both stroke participants found it comfortable, reported low to moderate workload, and wanted it included in rehabilitation.[19]
Task-specific dosing Preliminary work combining haptic feedback with 3D spatial tracking during drawing-based rehabilitation found considerable variation in range of motion and force output across tasks. This supports task-specific adjustment of difficulty and demand rather than a single fixed protocol.[8]
Patient preference Stroke survivors in a participatory design study valued tactile feedback, particularly vibration, as an addition to visual engagement in VR-BCI systems. They recommended matching sensory feedback to the specific rehabilitation scenario rather than applying it uniformly.[23]

Gait and Balance

The table below summarises the current evidence, treatment approaches and clinical implications of haptic technology for gait and balance rehabilitation after stroke.

Evidence area Key findings and clinical implications
Overall evidence Pooled evidence remains inconclusive despite encouraging individual trials.

A review of 13 studies (n = 245) found no significant effect on centre-of-pressure velocity and rated the evidence as very low certainty, although narrative findings indicated improvements in dynamic balance and gait symmetry.[9]

A broader neurological review reported large effects for some postural sway outcomes, but substantial heterogeneity prevents firm clinical recommendations.[3]

Feedback location The site of feedback delivery may influence gait outcomes, but no optimal location has been established.

Arm-swing feedback delivered by a vibrotactile bracelet improved gait speed, whereas neck- and insole-based feedback did not. Studies have used sites ranging from the head and trunk to the ankle and foot, without clear superiority of any one location.[3][9]

Weight-shift training Weight-shift training combined with lower-limb haptic feedback is the most common balance-rehabilitation approach. This aligns with broader physiotherapy evidence identifying lateral weight transfer as central to post-stroke balance and gait recovery.[9]
Human-interaction training In a pilot study of nine people with chronic stroke, bidirectional haptic connection to a physical therapist during ankle tracking did not improve tracking accuracy beyond conventional trajectory guidance, but it produced greater post-training dorsiflexor activation. This may indicate more active motor learning rather than passive correction.[24]
Cross-condition evidence In Parkinson’s disease, isochronous wrist-worn vibrotactile cueing improved gait velocity, cadence and stride duration to a degree broadly comparable with auditory cueing, although responses varied between individuals. Because Parkinsonian and post-stroke gait impairments have different pathophysiology, this finding supports consideration of cueing modality and individual variability but should not be treated as stroke-specific evidence.[26]

Adherence and Engagement

Haptic nudging represents a distinct, behaviour-focused application, separate from motor-training devices. Rather than rendering forces during an active task, a wrist-worn vibrotactile “nudge” can be used simply to prompt affected-limb movement during daily activity.[27]

In a randomised crossover study of 20 inpatients with stroke, a brief vibrotactile nudge roughly doubled the odds of affected upper limb movement immediately afterwards (OR 2.37, 95% CI 1.68 to 3.34). With effects strongest during already-active periods of the day (afternoon therapy OR 4.63) rather than during rest. Consecutive nudges did not have a cumulative effect, but delaying a nudge reduced its eventual effectiveness.[28] This positions nudging as a complementary adherence tool rather than a substitute for the task-specific training devices described above.

Other Considerations

Haptic feedback may have an under-explored role in pain associated with sensory impairment

Thalamic pain syndrome, a potential consequence of thalamic injury, is characterised by hyperalgesia or allodynia and can reduce a patient’s willingness to participate fully in prescribed rehabilitation exercises.[22]

Low-frequency (6 Hz) vibrotactile stimulation has been shown to increase left prefrontal theta power in healthy volunteers, a signature associated with pain relief in a small vibrotactile brain-computer interface trial in chronic pain patients.[29] This research remains preliminary and largely theoretical in a stroke-specific context.

Guidelines continue to emphasise dose and intensity over any single technology

Regardless of modality, UK and European guidance places consistent weight on achieving sufficient intensity of upper limb practice. Haptic-enabled VR should be considered one method of increasing dosage and adherence, rather than a replacement for intensive, repetitive, task-specific practice.[25]

Taken together, this evidence suggests haptics can make rehabilitation environments more physiologically complete and engaging. It is useful as a tool to increase therapy dose and adherence within home or self-directed programmes, complementing rather than replacing supervised, therapist-led rehabilitation.

Example Haptic Devices Used in Stroke Rehabilitation

The following table provides an overview of representative haptic devices used in stroke rehabilitation, outlining their therapeutic targets, key features and clinical applications, with videos when available demonstrating use.

Device Target Description
RAPAEL Smart Glove from NEOFECT Upper limb Sensor glove tracking finger and wrist movement with real-time visual feedback within gamified exercises; the most studied device in upper limb meta-analytic evidence.[10]

[30]

Portable haptic hand and forearm trainer Upper limb Minimally actuated, portable device with a compliant 3D-printed shell design, weighing around 1 kg; achieved good usability scores in healthy participants and physiotherapists, though not yet trialled in stroke patients.[7]

The video demonstrates an alternate portable haptic hand device using an Active, Worn, Multi-String actuator

[31]

Whole-hand haptic rendering device Upper limb Robotic system providing high-fidelity, whole-hand haptic feedback during grasp and object manipulation tasks; found usable and well received by stroke patients and therapists in early clinical testing.[17]

This example video demonstrates the MANUS Pro Haptic Metaglove

[32]

VR gaming system with 3D spatial recognition Upper limb Combines haptic feedback with joint and force tracking during drawing-based upper limb tasks; captures detailed movement and force data during a session.[8]

[33]

Wearable haptic armband (clenching and vibrotactile) Upper limb Direct-drive actuated armband delivering continuous and vibrotactile guidance for grasping and pronation and supination within immersive VR.[19]

[34]

VR-BCI system with vibrotactile feedback Upper limb Head-mounted VR paired with motor imagery, brain-computer interface input and vibrotactile feedback.[23]

The example shown in this video is the IpsiHand system

[35]

Cyberglove/Cybergrasp system Upper limb Sensor glove providing haptic feedback during reach-and-grasp tasks in a virtual environment.

[36]

Vibration "Nudge" wearable Upper limb (adherence) Wrist-worn device delivering a brief vibrotactile “nudge” prompting affected-limb movement, rather than rendering forces during a task; roughly doubled the odds of movement immediately afterwards in an inpatient crossover trial.[28]
M1-AnkleMotus Lower limb / gait Commercial ankle robot used in a bidirectional, spring-damper haptic; increased post-training dorsiflexor activation compared with standard trajectory guidance.[24]

[37]

Insole-based vibrotactile system Lower limb / gait Force-sensitive insoles detect swing and stance phase and deliver vibrotactile stimuli to the paretic leg during swing.[9]

The following video demonstrates vibrotactile stimuli for Diabetic foot and Ulcer prevention strategies, the same principle used as for paretic foot.

[38]

Haptic cane device Lower limb / gait Combines kinaesthetic feedback through the cane handle with vibrotactile cues on the leg during swing phase, alongside insoles providing ground-contact information.[9]
Bilateral vibrotactile biofeedback (ASIS/PSIS) Balance Vibrotactile units attached bilaterally to the anterior and posterior superior iliac spine convey direction and displacement of centre of pressure during standing balance tasks.[9]
Vibrotactile arm-swing bracelet Gait Bracelet delivering vibration cues related to arm swing movement during walking, associated with improved gait speed.[9]
Weight-shift-triggered electrical stimulation Balance Low-frequency electrical stimulation delivered to the lower limb, triggered by an insole pressure sensor when weight shift is detected.[9]
Wrist-worn isochronous vibrotactile cueing Gait (Parkinson’s disease, cross-condition) Rhythmic wrist vibration set 10% above comfortable cadence, used as an alternative to auditory cueing; improved gait velocity, cadence and stride duration.[26]

Summary

Haptic technology offers a promising adjunct to stroke rehabilitation by adding tactile and kinaesthetic feedback to virtual, robotic and wearable systems. Supporting repetitive, engaging and task-specific practice.[3][4]

Evidence is strongest for upper limb rehabilitation, where haptic gloves and related devices can produce modest improvements in functional movement, particularly when combined with conventional therapy.[2][6] Findings for gait and balance remain encouraging but inconclusive.[9]

Portable and wearable systems may help increase therapy intensity and adherence, although interventions should be tailored to the individual, task and stage of recovery.[19] Further high-quality clinical trials with standardised protocols and longer follow-up are needed before firm recommendations can be made.

Haptic technology should currently complement rather than replace therapist-led rehabilitation.

References

  1. ↑ Mousavi Hondori H, Khademi M, Dodakian L, McKenzie A, Lopes CV, Cramer SC. Choice of human–computer interaction mode in stroke rehabilitation. Neurorehabilitation and neural repair. 2016 Mar;30(3):258-65.
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Pacheco-Barrios K, Ortega-Márquez J, Fregni F. Haptic Technology: Exploring Its Underexplored Clinical Applications—A Systematic Review. Biomedicines. 2024;12(12):2802.
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 De Angelis S, Princi AA, Dal Farra F, Morone G, Caltagirone C, Tramontano M. Vibrotactile-Based Rehabilitation on Balance and Gait in Patients with Neurological Diseases: A Systematic Review and Metanalysis. Brain Sciences. 2021;11(4):518.
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 Dewi HB, Juhana A. The utilization of virtual reality, gamification, and haptic feedback in physical rehabilitation: A systematic review. Game Based Learning. 2026;2(2):78-84.
  5. ↑ Kim WS, Cho S, Ku J, Kim Y, Lee K, Hwang HJ, Paik NJ. Clinical application of virtual reality for upper limb motor rehabilitation in stroke: review of technologies and clinical evidence. Journal of clinical medicine. 2020 Oct;9(10):3369.
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Banduni O, Saini M, Singh N, et al. Post-Stroke Rehabilitation of Distal Upper Limb with New Perspective Technologies: Virtual Reality and Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation—A Mini Review. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2023;12(8):2944.
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 Rätz R, Ratschat AL, Cividanes-Garcia N, Ribbers GM, Marchal-Crespo L. Designing for usability: development and evaluation of a portable minimally-actuated haptic hand and forearm trainer for unsupervised stroke rehabilitation. Front Neurorobot. 2024;18.
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 Pillai BM, Siripala N, Sai-Aroon K, et al. Enhancing Post-Stroke Upper Limb Rehabilitation Through Haptic Feedback in Virtual Reality-Based Gaming. In: 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO). 2024:135-140.
  9. ↑ 9.00 9.01 9.02 9.03 9.04 9.05 9.06 9.07 9.08 9.09 9.10 Gomez-Risquet M, Cáceres-Matos R, Magni E, Luque-Moreno C. Effects of Haptic Feedback Interventions in Post-Stroke Gait and Balance Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Personalized Medicine. 2024;14(9):974.
  10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 Fernández-Vázquez D, Cano-de-la-Cuerda R, Navarro-López V. Haptic Glove Systems in Combination with Semi-Immersive Virtual Reality for Upper Extremity Motor Rehabilitation after Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022;19(16):10378.
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 Irigoyen E, Larrea M, Graña M. A Narrative Review of Haptic Technologies and Their Value for Training, Rehabilitation, and the Education of Persons with Special Needs. Sensors. 2024;24(21):6946.
  12. ↑ Iosa M. Virtual reality in stroke rehabilitation: virtual results or real values?. Arquivos de Neuro-Psiquiatria. 2019 Oct 24;77:679-80.
  13. ↑ Sandwich Multimedia. CR2-Haptic (Compact and Portable Rehabilitation Robot). Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4GAunH4fIg [Last accessed 29/08/2026]
  14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 Blanco-Diaz CF, Vendrame E, Cipriani C, Dosen S, Cappello L. Recent Advances in Supplementary Haptic Feedback for Human–Machine Interfaces in Upper Limb Assistance and Rehabilitation. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering. 2026;34:2295-2314.
  15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 Xiong Q, Yao H, Wang J, et al. Virtual tactile feedback technology based on microcurrent stimulation: current status, challenges and future prospects. Front Neurosci. 2025;19.
  16. ↑ Simon X Holland. The Haptic Bracelets and Gait Rehabilitation after Stroke. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4ZxN6H6XGk [last accessed 29/08/2026]
  17. ↑ 17.0 17.1 17.2 Rätz R, Conti F, Thaler I, Müri RM, Marchal-Crespo L. Enhancing stroke rehabilitation with whole-hand haptic rendering: development and clinical usability evaluation of a novel upper-limb rehabilitation device. J NeuroEngineering Rehabil. 2024;21(1):172.
  18. ↑ Future Interfaces Group. Fluid Reality: High-Resolution, Untethered Haptic Gloves Using Electroosmotic Pump Arrays. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJXLBqG9E_s [last accessed 29/08/2026]
  19. ↑ 19.0 19.1 19.2 19.3 19.4 19.5 Bonab AK, Camardella C, Serra F, Frisoli A, Posteraro F, Leonardis D. Leveraging wearable haptics for guidance in virtual rehabilitation: effects on motor control from an immersive VR setting. Sci Rep. 2026;16(1):5513.
  20. ↑ Lee J, Kim D, Sul H, Ko SH. Thermo‐Haptic Materials and Devices for Wearable Virtual and Augmented Reality. Advanced Functional Materials. 2021 Sep;31(39):2007376.
  21. ↑ Shrey Pareek. Haptics-based Rehabilitation of ADL Skills. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0C4ppRU158 [last accessed 30/08/2026]
  22. ↑ 22.0 22.1 Gudin J, Sakr M, Fason J, Hurwitz P. Piezo Ion Channels and Their Association With Haptic Technology Use: A Narrative Review. Cureus. Published online January 14, 2025.
  23. ↑ 23.0 23.1 23.2 23.3 Oliveira I, Russo M, Almeida AI, Vourvopoulos A, Pereira CM. Recommendations for Combining Brain-Computer Interface, Motor Imagery, and Virtual Reality in Upper Limb Stroke Rehabilitation: Qualitative Participatory Design Study. JMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies. 2025;12(1):e71789.
  24. ↑ 24.0 24.1 24.2 Short MR, Bandini L, Ludvig D, Vianello L, Sanguineti V, Pons JL. Haptic interaction with a human partner for ankle training in chronic stroke: a pilot study. J NeuroEngineering Rehabil. 2025;23(1):32.
  25. ↑ 25.0 25.1 O’Flaherty D, Ali K. Recommendations for Upper Limb Motor Recovery: An Overview of the UK and European Rehabilitation after Stroke Guidelines (2023). Healthcare. 2024;12(14):1433.
  26. ↑ 26.0 26.1 Lheureux A, Lejeune T, Doncev I, Jeanne A, Stoquart G. Comparison of the effects of rhythmic vibrotactile stimulations and rhythmic auditory stimulations on Parkinson’s disease patients’ gait variability: a pilot study. Acta Neurol Belg. 2024;124(1):161-168.
  27. ↑ Signal NE, McLaren R, Rashid U, Vandal A, King M, Almesfer F, Henderson J, Taylor D. Haptic nudges increase affected upper limb movement during inpatient stroke rehabilitation: multiple-period randomized crossover study. JMIR mHealth and uHealth. 2020 Jul 29;8(7):e17036.
  28. ↑ 28.0 28.1 Signal N, Olsen S, Rashid U, et al. Haptic Nudging Using a Wearable Device to Promote Upper Limb Activity during Stroke Rehabilitation: Exploring Diurnal Variation, Repetition, and Duration of Effect. Behavioral Sciences. 2023;13(12):995.
  29. ↑ Rustamov N, Demarest P, Han Z, Mohamud S, Haroutounian S, Leuthardt EC. Cortical spectral dynamics of vibrotactile frequency processing. Sci Rep. 2025;15(1):29847.
  30. ↑ Neofect. Neofect Smart Glove (with EN subtitles). Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8fjOYAml1Q [Last accessed 29/08/2026]
  31. ↑ Future Interfaces Group. Reel Feel: Rich Haptic XR Experiences Using an Active, Worn, Multi-String Device. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uGOYUv-kN4 [last accessed 29/08/2026]
  32. ↑ MANUS™. MANUS Metagloves Pro Haptic - Precision You Can Feel. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KiAKI5oOPk [last accessed 29/08/2026]
  33. ↑ bHaptics. Introducing bHaptics Tactglove. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYgFH0aeErM [Last accessed 29/08/2026]
  34. ↑ ACM SIGCHI. Potential of Wrist-worn Vibrotactile Feedback to Enhance the Perception of Virtual Objects. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSwV5gTnaDA [last accessed 29/08/2026]
  35. ↑ Neurolutions, a Kandu Inc. Company. Unlocking Potential with the IpsiHand | How the IpsiHand Works. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4pFSX4p7yI [Last accessed 29/08/2026]
  36. ↑ CyberGlove Systems. CyberGrasp. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrhSno47B4o [last accessed 29/08/2026]
  37. ↑ Cnergy Incorporation. AnkleMotus M1 A. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6YlxcAZzdY [Last accessed 29/08/2026]
  38. ↑ Haptic Interfaces KU Leuven. Smart Insole for Diabetic Foot Ulcer Prevention | KU Leuven. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sq1EeCSuue4 [last accessed 29/08/2026]
Retrieved from "https://www.physio-pedia.com/w/index.php?title=Haptics_in_Stroke_Rehabilitation&oldid=382910"