Review

www.afm-journal.de

Elastomeric Haptic Devices for Virtual and Augmented Reality

Hedan Bai, Shuo Li, and Robert F. Shepherd*

Gaussian curvatures).[1,2] In order to wrap

Since the modern concepts for virtual and augmented reality are first
introduced in the 1960’s, the field has strived to develop technologies
for immersive user experience in a fully or partially virtual environment.
Despite the great progress in visual and auditory technologies, haptics has
seen much slower technological advances. The challenge is because skin
has densely packed mechanoreceptors distributed over a very large area
with complex topography; devising an apparatus as targeted as an audio
speaker or television for the localized sensory input of an ear canal or iris is
more difficult. Furthermore, the soft and sensitive nature of the skin makes
it difficult to apply solid state electronic solutions that can address large
areas without causing discomfort. The maturing field of soft robotics offers
potential solutions toward this challenge. In this article, the definition and
history of virtual (VR) and augmented reality (AR) is first reviewed. Then an
overview of haptic output and input technologies is presented, opportunities
for soft robotics are identified, and mechanisms of intrinsically soft actuators
and sensors are introduced. Finally, soft haptic output and input devices are
reviewed with categorization by device forms, and examples of soft haptic
devices in VR/AR environments are presented.
1. Introduction
Virtual and augmented reality (VR and AR) have experienced a
revival in the past decade since the modern concepts were first
introduced in the 1960s. With the goal of creating an interac-
tive media where the user experiences presence in a fully or
partially virtual environment, the field has initially focused on,
and made great advances in, providing realistic visual and audi-
tory feedback. Haptics, on the other hand, is a less developed
technology; however, in the real world, the sensation of touch
is essential for human perception, both functionally and emo-
tionally. This gap between touch in the real and virtual world is
primarily due to the challenge that skin is the largest organ on
human body (areal coverage of ≈2 m2 of an adult’s body, with
some locations having up to 500 mechanoreceptors per cm3),
with very complex topography (positive, negative, and zero
H. Bai, Prof. R. F. Shepherd
Sibley School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
Cornell University
124 Hoy Road, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA
E-mail: rfs247@cornell.edu
Dr. S. Li, Prof. R. F. Shepherd
Department of Materials Science and Engineering
Cornell University
4 Central Avenue, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA
The ORCID identification number(s) for the author(s) of this article
can be found under https://doi.org/10.1002/adfm.202009364.
DOI: 10.1002/adfm.202009364
ourselves in envisioned haptic device and
to convert the environmental mechanical
stresses it encounters into neural signals,
it needs to conform to these topographies,
remain comfortable to the wearer’s deli-
cate skin, and still provide input to the
multitude of mechanoreceptors (Figure 1).
The present, ubiquitous solution to
haptics relies on solid state vibrotac-
tile actuators that present a single touch
sensation over a small area; scaling this
solution over a larger area would prove
uncomfortable, expensive, and intrac-
table due to the inability to wrap them in
a mode that allows freedom of movement
of the user. Another example is that of
voice coils which has recently been used
for “haptic illusions” that trick the mind
into thinking a low resolution haptic input
is a continuous stream of touch along the
skin.[3] Outside of this “haptic illusion”
regime, however, the skin is still addressed
by large and discrete rigid islands. These
examples clarify the twofold problem experienced by our pre-
sent technology: conventional devices are built with rigid mate-
rials and create stress concentrations where they are located
and, simultaneously, it is difficult to wrap them onto our skin’s
expansive and complex surface (Figure 2).[4]
Soft robotics is a maturing subfield of robotics where actua-
tors and sensors are created via unconventional materials and
structures for mechanisms that undergo large amplitude defor-
mation modes upon stress loadings induced from interaction
with the objects of interest. In many cases, these objects of
interest are organisms[5,6] and, for our special case of haptics,
humans. To program this mechanical compliance, extrinsically
soft robots use components with thin geometries (e.g., wires,[7]
films,[8] etc.).[9] This approach could employ a wide range of
materials, including those with high Young’s moduli (e.g.,
steel E ≈ 205 GPa,[10] shape memory alloy E ≈ 40 GPa),[7] but
the resulting system has constrained geometry due to the thin
structural components. Intrinsically soft robots, on the other
hand, are constructed from organic elastomers—carbon based
polymers above their glass transition temperature (Tg)—that
have storage moduli similar to human tissues ranging from
1 kPa < E < 1 MPa.[11] The matching of intrinsic mechanical
properties with human tissue allows for organic robots to be
built with various constructions and thicknesses, and for dif-
ferent functions while maintaining safe human-robot interac-
tion in a natural manner (Figure 2). In this review, we focus our
discussions on this class of robotic systems.
Actuators and sensors composed of elastomers offer the
potential for conformal haptic devices that provide inputs

Adv. Funct. Mater. 2021, 31, 2009364 2009364 (1 of 24) © 2021 Wiley-VCH GmbH
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.afm-journal.de

Figure 1. Mechanoreceptor distributions in the expansive and complex surface area of human skin and soft haptic devices with conformal skin contact.
Left: Mechanoreceptor distributions. Reproduced with permission under the terms of the Creative Commons License.[2] Copyright 2017, the authors.
Published by Frontiers. Right: Soft haptic output and input devices. Output devices from top to bottom: Tactile display on a fingertip. Reproduced with
permission.[149] Copyright 2008, IEEE. Kinesthetic feedback glove. Reproduced with permission.[114] Copyright 2016, IEEE. Vibrotactile feedback wear-
able. Reproduced with permission.[86] Copyright 2019, Springer Nature. Input devices from top to bottom: Pressure sensor on a fingertip. Reproduced
with permission.[166] Copyright 2020, American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). Motion and force sensing glove. Reproduced
with permission.[174] Copyright 2020, AAAS. Sensing sleeve for gesture detection. Reproduced with permission.[165] Copyright 2020. Springer Nature.

and outputs addressing the large area and varying mecha-
noreceptor densities of the skin, as well as, the large range
of motion of the joints. The low-cost fabrication techniques
(e.g., molding of fluidic elastomer actuators (FEAs),[12] or
direct 3D printing[13,14]) promise the next generation cost
effective haptic devices for VR and AR. In this review, we
focus on recent advances in soft robotics that have been, or
have the potential to be used for haptic applications in VR
and AR. We first provide an overview of the definition and
progress of virtual and augmented reality to present tech-
nical goals specific to VR and AR applications. We then
briefly review the field of haptics, with a focus on output and
input technologies, to identify opportunities for soft robotic
contributions. Next, we introduce advances in intrinsically
soft actuators and sensors in the context of haptic feedback
and sensing. Then we review soft haptic output and input
devices categorized by the device form of wearable, graspable
and touchable interfaces[15] and show examples of soft haptic
devices demonstrated for VR and AR applications. At last, we
conclude with challenges in the field and discuss potential
future research directions.
2. Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality
2.1. Definition of Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality
Although virtual reality is widely known by its hardware tech-
nologies of head mounted displays, headsets, controllers, weara-
bles, and optical tracking systems, it is substantive to formulate
the definition of virtual reality from the perspective of human
experience. Jonathan Steuer defined virtual reality as “… a real
or simulated environment in which a perceiver experiences tel-
epresence,” where telepresence refers to the experience of pres-
ence, generated by perception factors of the perceiver’s sensory
inputs and mental processes, in a mediated environment.[16]
Based on the experience-centric definition, Steuer identified the
two determinants of virtual reality technologies to generate tel-
epresence: Vividness and interactivity (Figure 3a).
Vividness refers to the “ability of a technology to produce
sensorily rich mediated environment” and is characterized by
i) sensory breadth: The number of perception channels stim-
ulated among the five perception systems-orientation, audi-
tory, haptic, taste-smell, and visual systems; and ii) sensory

Adv. Funct. Mater. 2021, 31, 2009364 2009364 (2 of 24) © 2021 Wiley-VCH GmbH
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.afm-journal.de

Figure 2. Material composition of emerging soft haptic devices in comparison with existing rigid haptic devices. Soft devices from left to right: Vibro-
tactile actuator (silicone elastomer). Reproduced with permission.[134] Copyright 2020, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. Soft controller (polyurethane elastomer).
Reproduced with permission.[191] Copyright 2018, IEEE. Soft haptic interface (hydrogel and silicone elastomer). Reproduced with permission.[182] Copy-
right 2019, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. Rigid devices from left to right: Piezoelectric bimorphs (piezoelectric ceramics). Reproduced with permission.[4]
Copyright Fuji Ceramics. Valve index controller (plastics and metals). Reproduced with permission.[48] Copyright Valve Corporation. Shape morphing
surface (plastics and metals). Reproduced with permission.[28] Copyright 2019, ACM.

depth: The quality of each perception channel presentation.
While there have been great improvements in the quality of
visual and auditory feedback technologies in recent years, far
less effort has been spent on the remaining perception chan-
nels. Steuer speculated that the breadth and depth of sensory
perceptions are multiplicatively related to the experience of
presence. Therefore, simultaneous engagement of multiple
perception channels could be extremely effective in generating
the sense of presence even if the quality of individual sensory
feedback is low.[16]
Interactivity describes the extent the user can modify
the form and content of the mediated environment and is
Figure 3. Definition of virtual and augmented reality. a) Technological
variables of virtual reality based on the experience-centric definition.
Reproduced with permission.[16] Copyright 2006, Oxford University Press.
b) Milgram’s diagram of virtuality continuum. Reproduced with permis-
sion.[17] Copyright 1994, IEICE.
characterized by speed, range, and mapping. Modern VR con-
trollers have achieved real-time translation of the user’s input
to actions in the virtual environment. The range, defined by
the number of possible actions at any given time, is limited
by the functions built in the controller. Mapping refers to the
way users’ actions impact functions in the mediated environ-
ment. While mapping can be arbitrary to the function being
performed, in cases where the function has a direct real-world
counterpart, it is ideal to adopt a natural action mapping, since
our perceptual system has been optimized to interact with
the real-world.[16] Wearable technologies have demonstrated
human-computer interactions in an instinctive way.
While virtual reality immerses the user in an entirely arti-
ficial world, augmented reality supplements the real world
with additional information generated virtually. Milgram and
Kishino introduced a representation of virtuality continuum
(Figure 3b) that defined environments based on proportions
of real and virtual information involvement as real environ-
ment (RE), augmented reality (AR), augmented virtuality (AV),
and virtual environment (VE).[17] They termed environments
with both real and virtual components as mixed reality (MR)
and, today, it is more commonly referred to as augmented
reality (AR). Azuma defined AR with three characteristics:
“1) combines real and virtual; 2) is interactive in real-time;
3) is registered in three dimensions.”[18] These pose additional
requirements to the input and output devices of AR systems.
The input devices need to sense both the user’s actions and
objects in the real environment in real time and register them
as 3D information in the system; the output devices would ide-
ally create reactions of the real objects subject to virtual influ-
ences in addition to sensory stimulus for the user to feel the
virtual proportion of AR.

Adv. Funct. Mater. 2021, 31, 2009364 2009364 (3 of 24) © 2021 Wiley-VCH GmbH
www.advancedsciencenews.com
2.2. History of Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality
The second half of the twentieth century sees the emergence and
rapid development of modern VR and AR technologies enabled
by the technological advances in electronics. In 1962, Morton
Heilig built the Sensoroma, an “Experience Theater” considered
as one of the earliest VR systems that engages senses of sight,
sound, smell, and touch. In 1968, Ivan Sutherland invented the
first VR/AR head-mounted display (HMD), creating the sense
of immersion through interactive 3D moving perspectives via
a mechanical tracking setup and computer-generated graphics.
The head-tracking setup was dubbed “The Sword of Damocles”
as the large and heavy structure connecting the HMD needed
to be suspended from the ceiling while using linkages to track
head movements. The Sensoroma and The Sword of Damo-
cles are considered first examples of modern VR technologies
in that they provide various sensory feedbacks from the vir-
tual environment to the user creating the sense of immersion.
In 1969, Myron Kruger devised a series of computer-generated
environments that could respond to the users’ actions, which
he termed as “artificial reality.” His work, the Videoplace built
in 1975, is considered the first illustration of an interactive aug-
mented reality, where users can interact with virtual objects, such
as, moving or drawing on them, in a room equipped with video
cameras and pressure plates as sensors.[19,20]
In the 1980’s and 1990’s, the emerging developments in VR
hardware technologies could be categorized as input devices,
that allow users to interact with the virtual environment
through an interface, and output devices that create sensory
stimulus for the sense of immersion. Jaron Lanier, founder of
VPL Research, coined the term “virtual reality” in 1987 and con-
tributed to the concept’s popularization. The company devel-
oped the first commercially available wearable gesture tracking
glove, the VPL Dataglove, and a full-body tracking garment,
the Datasuit, that use fiber optic bundles to connect sensors
on the garment and the computer to track user’s motion as the
input. Developments in output devices focused on visual and
audio feedback in the form of HMDs. During this time, VR had
found its early applications in military and medical training,
education, and entertainment. Even though the goal was to pro-
vide immersive experience through the 3D interactive vision
and audio construction, technologies at the time, such as, the
speed of PC based graphics accelerators, could not satisfy the
requirements to stimulate the sense of presence. The expensive
cost to build such systems halted development of VR technolo-
gies in the mid-1990s.[19,20]
In the past decade, accelerated advances in integrated cir-
cuits and computational power described by Moore’s law led to
the revival of VR and AR technologies, with a focus on visual
and audio feedback. VR and AR headsets, along with dynamic
binaural audio, presently provide sufficient performance (i.e.,
visual resolution, field of view, distant focus, etc.) to create
improved sense of audiovisual immersion.
3. Haptics
Haptics is the first sensation humans acquire in our prenatal
development, allowing us to perceive our sense of self.[21] For
Adv. Funct. Mater. 2021, 31, 2009364 2009364 (4 of 24)
www.afm-journal.de
developing children and adults, haptics further plays an essen-
tial role in our perception of the physical environment, as well
as, the social function of interpersonal bonding.[21] As visual
and auditory technology advancements expand our access
beyond the immediate physical environment toward a virtual or
a remote one, the critical haptic interaction that humans have
historically relied upon is being lost in the translation. Haptic
interaction involves delivering human actions (i.e., motion and
force) to the virtual or remote environment (haptic input) and
reconstructing haptic feedback sensations from that environ-
ment (haptic output). Since the ideal haptic inputs and outputs
would happen in a natural and realistic manner, challenges
arise in the quest of technologies that could deliver realistic
haptic interactions in these environments.
3.1. Haptics Background
In the past 30 years, the field of haptics has seen steady devel-
opment where useful haptic technologies have demonstrated
benefits for specialized applications such as medical training,
minimally invasive surgery, and teleoperation of robots.[22–24]
The field employs well-established actuation mechanisms: Elec-
tric motors, pneumatics, and piezoelectric actuators, and, more
recently, ultrasound, electrical stimulation, voice coils, and
thermal modulations to create force feedback or tactile feed-
back sensations.[15] Despite a rich body of literature describing
a variety of haptic technologies, the wide real-world adoption of
haptics, especially for consumer electronics, is still limited to
vibrotactile cues for notification functions. At issue for the wide
adoption of more advanced haptics is the performance versus
cost tradeoff. Traditional haptic technologies constructed with
rigid linkages and motors are expensive, and interaction with
such devices feels unnatural.
At the time of a global pandemic (e.g., COVID-19 outbreak),
a surging need for haptics emerges, not only for the special-
ized applications, but even more so for daily routines and activi-
ties. The luxury to perform work remotely becomes a necessity
and the need to cope with increasing stress and anxiety from
both the virus and the social isolation becomes more essen-
tial. All these tasks, whether for doctors to physically examine
their patients remotely, for baseball players to feel the ball in
the hand during a virtual pitching practice, or for self-quaran-
tined individuals to virtually enjoy a comforting hug from their
family, require haptic technologies to deliver more natural, real-
istic, and richer haptic sensations but at a lower cost compat-
ible with the generic applications. This challenge brings oppor-
tunities to explore haptic technologies from the fundamental
materials chemistry, to device level actuation and sensing, and
to higher level feedback controls toward the goal of improving
device functionalities, as well as, reducing the cost in proto-
typing and manufacturing.
3.2. Haptic Output
Haptic perception can be categorized as kinesthetic or cuta-
neous perception. The former allows us to feel our limbs’ posi-
tion, movement, and force to gain knowledge of an object’s
© 2021 Wiley-VCH GmbH
www.advancedsciencenews.com
Figure 4. Haptic output devices. a) The Phantom Premium for direct force feedback. Reproduced with permission.[25] Copyright 3D systems. b) Skin
deformation device as force substitution for kinesthetic perception. Reproduced with permission.[26] Copyright 2017, IEEE. c) Shape morphing with
pin arrays. Reproduced with permission.[28] Copyright 2019, ACM. d) Lateral force feedback device with in-plane ultrasonic oscillation and out-of-plane
electroadhesion. Reproduced with permission.[30] Copyright 2019, IEEE.
shape, size, and stiffness; The latter helps us gain knowledge
of an object’s texture, humidity, and temperature. Haptic feed-
back devices create some of these sensations through either
varying some of the properties directly, or creating synthetic
haptic effects (e.g., haptic illusion) that lead to the percep-
tion of certain haptic properties. Traditional kinesthetic haptic
devices for direct force feedback, benchmarked by the phantom
premium (Figure 4a),[25] typically rely on motors to provide the
high force and high bandwidth performance with multiple
degrees of freedom (DOFs), and therefore are usually associ-
ated with higher cost and larger form factor. To address this
issue, researchers investigated schemes of using skin deforma-
tion (i.e., lateral skin stretch, skin indentation) to induce indi-
rect kinesthetic force feedback sensations with a smaller device
form factor and have demonstrated perception of stiffness or
force variations (Figure 4b).[26] Direct shape variations have
been demonstrated with pin array haptic surfaces, but they usu-
ally require a large structure to actuate the pins (Figure 4c)[27,28]
and indirect perception of shape variation has been created
with controllable lateral force on a flat surface induced by ultra-
sonic oscillation and electrostatic modulation (Figure 4d).[29,30]
Tactile feedback devices are generally delivered through haptic
surfaces and wearables. Friction variation has been achieved
through electrostatic force modulation,[31,32] and vibrotactile
signals employed on wearables and haptic surfaces have shown
great promise in generating indirect tactile sensations through
spatiotemporal control of the vibrations.[33] Electrical stimula-
tion could create various tactile sensations with a more light-
weight and compact device form, yet this mechanism is more
invasive than other mechanical schemes and requires careful
control of the electrical stimuli to ensure safe operation.[34] For
a comprehensive review of haptic technologies, we refer the
readers to ref. [15].
While indirect haptic stimulations with existing technolo-
gies have led to the perception of various haptic sensations, the
level of realism and the number of addressed haptic proper-
ties are still far from satisfactory. We believe that direct haptic
stimulation (i.e., direct application of force for kinesthetic sen-
sation and direct variation of object haptic properties) could
become an avenue toward more realistic haptic feedback. This
approach, however, is limited by: i) The lack of haptic actuators
that could conformably integrate onto our skin and joints while
delivering the large range of force and bandwidth of frequency;
ii) the incompatibility of the mechanical properties of materials
Adv. Funct. Mater. 2021, 31, 2009364 2009364 (5 of 24)
www.afm-journal.de
used in existing haptic technologies. To bridge the gap in (i),
intrinsically soft actuators could provide large and high-band-
width force feedbacks while being conformally wrapped on a
large area of the skin, as well as, over the joints, and thus allow
kinesthetic and tactile feedback devices with small form factors.
The obstacle in (ii) is more challenging as the variation of these
properties requires the introduction of a portfolio of tools in
material science to the field of haptics. Here, we briefly discuss
variable stiffness and morphing surfaces as parts of soft robotic
technologies. For a more comprehensive review of material
chemistry for tactile feedbacks, ref. [35] offers an inspiring out-
look for modulating tactile perception with molecular control
of materials.
3.3. Haptic Input
Haptic input, capturing users’ movements and forces as they hap-
tically interact with the environment, is another important aspect
that largely determines the quality of realistic interaction between
a user and a virtual or remote environment. An ideal haptic inter-
action would allow the user to intuitively interact with virtual
objects in the same way as manipulating real physical objects
when the virtual simulation has a direct real-world counterpart.
Toward this end, tracking of the user’s movements and forces
in a manner that is undisruptive to the user’s intuitive actions
and generalizable to different tasks represents the fundamental
requirement for the ideal haptic input devices. The evolution of
commercialized haptic input technologies can be captured by
game controllers as one of the earliest and most widely adopted
input devices to perform various actions in a virtual environment.
Early game controllers employed switches and buttons where
each switch and button is a 1D binary control to trigger an action
in the game; Directional pads are designed to have four cross-
shape buttons allowing four-way digital direction control; Analog
joysticks provide continuous analog directional input with poten-
tiometers; Trackpads achieve 2D finger movement tracking with
capacitive coupling and further allow 2D gesture inputs for more
intuitive control.[36] Modern game controllers (Figure 5a) and VR
controllers (Figure 5b) generally employ a combination of these
haptic inputs with various controller designs to achieve more
intuitive and functional haptic control.[37,38]
Parallel to the development of haptic control with physical
tools, there has been a long-standing interest in gesture control
© 2021 Wiley-VCH GmbH
www.advancedsciencenews.com
Figure 5. Haptic input devices. Controller input devices: a) Gamepad (PlayStation5). Reproduced with permission.[37] Copyright Sony Interactive
Entertainment Inc. b) VR controller (Quest 2 Controller). Reproduced with permission.[38] Copyright Oculus. Gesture input devices: c) DataGlove.
Reproduced with permission.[40] Copyright 1986, ACM. d) Power Glove. Reproduced with permission.[42] Copyright Evan-Amos. e) Attachable VR tracker
(VIVE tracker). Reproduced with permission.[45] Copyright HTC Corporation.
for direct haptic input. Early commercial exploration can be
traced back to the DataGlove (Figure 5c) first released by VPL
Research in 1987. The glove allows hand position tracking in 3D
space (three positional directions and three orientations) enabled
by scratched optical fiber sensors to measure finger flex (with the
resolution of 256 positions per finger), and ultrasonic or mag-
netic sensors to detect hand position and orientation (yaw, pitch,
roll).[39] Piezoelectric cantilevers are also integrated in the glove
to indicate virtual contact with vibrations.[40] Direct manipulation
of virtual objects in 3D space has been demonstrated with the
DataGlove and its applications in teleoperation of robots, sign lan-
guage interpretation, and virtual musical performance have also
been explored.[41] Despite these functionalities, DataGlove did not
receive too much commercial popularity due to the high cost.
Nintendo’s Power Glove (Figure 5d) was developed fol-
lowing the DataGlove to reduce the price by a factor of 100,
through reducing the features of ultrasonic tracking (orienta-
tion tracking reduced to roll) and replacing finger tracking with
low-cost carbon-based resistive sensors (resolution reduced to
4 positions per finger).[41] Released in 1989 as a controller for the
Nintendo Entertainment System, the Power Glove successfully
gained market attention initially, but quickly failed due to the
difficult glove control arising from the lack of games compat-
ible with the glove gesture input, as well as, insufficient hard-
ware resolution, accuracy, and bandwidth.[42]
In recent years, motion tracking technologies have seen
rapid development where real-time measurements of the posi-
tion and orientation the body have been demonstrated with
optical, ultrasonic, radiofrequency, electromagnetic, and iner-
tial measurements.[19] Optical tracking with infrared sensors
or video cameras connected to computer vision algorithms
(with variabilities in marker or marker-less tracking and place-
ment of the cameras on the moving object (inside-out) or sta-
tionary (outside-in)) is most widely adopted in today’s motion-
sensing game controllers and VR systems. Since this method
requires direct line of sight between the camera and the user
being tracked, visual occlusion interrupts proper tracking and
increasing the number of cameras increases cost.[43]
An inertial measurement unit (IMU) is another popular
motion tracking sensor, consisting of an accelerometer, a gyro-
scope, and a magnetometer in a small form factor MEMS device
that is free of location limitations, and is easily integrated into
controllers, smartphones, and as wearables. IMUs have low
latency but provide relative rather than absolute measurements
Adv. Funct. Mater. 2021, 31, 2009364 2009364 (6 of 24)
www.afm-journal.de
and are therefore prone to drifts from accumulated error.[43] Fur-
ther, these IMU’s have a sampling rate of ≈1 kHz and exhibit
large measurement errors for motions faster than ≈100 Hz,
rendering them inadequate for tracking many human motions,
especially in sports.[44] Incorporating inertial and optical sensing,
Nintendo’s Wii Remote and, later, Joy-Con controllers popu-
larized motion-based game controls. Also combining IMUs
with optical sensing, most of today’s VR and AR systems are
equipped with motion tracking controllers and some systems
are able to track full-body motion with trackers attached to joints
of the body (Figure 5e).[45] Recently, Oculus demonstrated 3D
hand tracking (position, orientation and finger configuration)
with only the inside-out camera on the headset, and no wearable
elements.[38] High speed motion (e.g., joint angle movements of
1000’s o s−1) tracking in environments without the aid of external
vision remains an open challenge.[46]
In spite of this technical gap, motion and gesture tracking
have been effectively captured by optical tracking and IMU sen-
sors in VR systems. As another important haptic input, force
sensing on the other hand, is less explored. Although force sen-
sors have been integrated into game-props (e.g., Ring-Con[47]) or
VR controllers (e.g., Valve Index[48]) to detect squeeze, general-
ized force sensing has not yet been achieved that captures the
force interaction with a tool/environment not specifically inte-
grated with sensors for VR/AR. Toward this end, soft sensors
offer a great platform for capturing the generalized interaction
force as they can be wrapped conformably onto the users’ skin
in a large area and measure force in a distributed manner as the
users haptically interact with passive tools.[49]Furthermore, when
wrapped around joints, soft sensors could provide relative posi-
tion tracking and complement the existing tracking technologies
to achieve higher resolution. At last, the versatility of soft sensors
to track both motion and force, combined with soft actuators that
could provide kinesthetic and tactile feedbacks with the same
soft material construction, showing great promise for a compact,
integrated, and immersive haptic experience.
4. Intrinsic Soft Actuators for Haptic Feedback
4.1. Haptic Perception
Humans gain haptic perception through two afferent subsys-
tems, the cutaneous and the kinesthetic systems. Cutaneous
© 2021 Wiley-VCH GmbH
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.afm-journal.de

Figure 6. Haptic perception. a) Mechanoreceptors in the skin categorized by adaptation rate of rapidly adapting (RA) and slowly adapting (SA) and
receptive field. Reproduced with permission.[56] Copyright 2016, Elsevier. b) Two-point discrimination thresholds on different parts of the body from
four studies. Reproduced under terms of the Creative Commons CC BY License.[57] Copyright 2014, the authors. Published by American Neurological
Association.

perception is achieved through mechanoreceptors distributed
in the skin that detect an object’s surface texture, temperature,
and humidity;[50] Kinesthesia comes from the mechanoreceptors
in joints, tendons, and muscles for perception of limb position
and movement and detection of force and weight.[51] To provide
realistic haptic perception of a virtual environment, the device
would ideally stimulate the user to feel all variations of the afore-
mentioned object properties. While it is extremely challenging
to create a ubiquitous device that can be actuated to exhibit any
combination of these properties, it is possible to stimulate the
sensations that lead to some of the same perception outcomes
through spatiotemporal control of distributed force, shape, and
temperature variations. For example, texture perception is medi-
ated through vibrational cues for fine textures (spatial periods
of less than ≈200 µm) and spatial cues for coarse textures.[50,52]
Skin wetness is perceived through the combination of thermal
and mechano-receptors.[53] Perception of compliance comes from
cues of displacement, as well as surface shape deformation.[54]
Human haptic perception is a complex process that involves sen-
sation, perception, and cognition.[50] While there is still much
to be learned about the neurophysiological and psychophysical
mechanisms of human haptic perception, advances in our
understanding of the somatosensory system have provided the
basis for haptic feedback device designs.
Haptic feedback devices can be categorized into tactile and
kinesthetic devices. Tactile feedback relies on skin deformations
and requires distributed actuators with a wide range of actua-
tion frequencies and amplitudes to stimulate perception of the
object’s material and geometric properties. Kinesthetic feed-
back is typically applied to the joints and requires the actuator
to generate large force and induce shape change. The spatial
and temporal sensitivities of the skin provide a framework for
the tactile device design requirements. There are four popu-
lations of mechanoreceptors (SA I, RA I, SA II, RA II) in the
skin with various sensitivities for different primary functions
(Figure 6a). SA I and SA II are sensitive to low frequencies
(SA I<5 Hz) and are responsible for detecting sustained pres-
sure and spatial deformation (e.g., detection of object pattern,
form, coarse texture and movement); RA I and RA II are sensi-
tive to higher frequencies (RA I: 5–40 Hz, RA II: 40–400 Hz)
and are used to detect temporal change of the skin (e.g., fine
texture).[50,55,56] For static tactile stimuli, psychophysical study
of two-point threshold test shows the variation of spatial acuity
across different body parts (Figure 6b), where fingertip has the
highest spatial sensitivity (2–4 mm) and the back and limbs
have the lowest spatial sensitivity (≈20 mm).[57] The perception
sensitivity for fingertip skin deformation is 10 µm and 0.8 mN.
The maximum sensitivity for dynamic tactile stimuli at the fin-
gertip and palm is 200–300 Hz with perceivable threshold of
normal stimulation at 0.1–0.2 µm.[58] Psychophysical studies
of the kinesthetic system show that perceivable movement
threshold at the joints falls in the range of 1°–8° and is more

Adv. Funct. Mater. 2021, 31, 2009364 2009364 (7 of 24) © 2021 Wiley-VCH GmbH
www.advancedsciencenews.com
sensitive for faster movement. The perceivable change in force
is proportional to the current level of force with an average dif-
ferential threshold 7–10% over a force range of 0.5–200 N.[51]
Whole body kinesthetic dynamic threshold is 20–30 Hz.[58]
Haptic feedback devices should be able to address the spatial
and temporal sensitivities of the skin and the large force and
shape change requirements of the joints. Here, we review the
actuation mechanisms of elastomeric actuators based on the
performance metrics of actuating force, frequency, and spatial
resolution.
4.2. Fluidic Elastomer Actuator
FEAs are elastomeric composites with embedded channels
for actuation generated by fluidic (pneumatic or hydraulic)
pressure. Upon pressurization, the elastomeric membrane is
stretched, storing energy as the entropy of the polymer chains
is reduced; the membrane passively returns to the unstretched
state as the polymer chains reconfigure to the entropically
favored state when the elastic energy is released. FEAs employ
elastomers with different elastic modulus or strain limiting
structures (e.g., inextensible fabric) to induce anisotropic defor-
mations (rather than inflating a balloon).[1] Fabrication methods
of replica molding and 3D printing produces FEAs with more
complex structures for actuators that can reversibly extend,
bend, or twist, mimicking functions of muscular hydrostat
such as the elephant trunk.[9,59] By exploiting elastomers with
relatively high elastic modulus (e.g., ELASTOSIL M4601 a/b,
Wacker Chemical Corp.) and a monolithic fabrication method
called rotational casting, Zhao et al. achieved a high force soft
bending actuator that generates 27.4 N at 234 kPa (measured
via block force method) for use in exoskeletons (Figure 7a).[60]
The ability to generate large shape change and high force
with the compliant soft material properties makes FEA an
ideal candidate for kinesthetic feedbacks. For wearable appli-
cations, weight also needs to be taken in to consideration for
the choice of fluid: While liquids are more beneficial than air
for generating large forces, they increase the system’s weight
and decrease the actuation bandwidth of FEAs due to the mass
transport of viscous liquids through narrow fluidic pathways.[9]
Figure 7. Actuation mechanisms with soft materials. a) High force fluidic elastomer actuator. Reproduced with permission.[60] Copyright 2015, Elsevier.
b) Rolled dielectric elastomer actuator with broad bandwidth. Reproduced with permission.[152] Copyright 2020, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. c) Electromag-
netic actuator with soft coil composed of liquid metal alloy encapsulated in silicone filament. Reproduced with permission.[94] Copyright 2018, John
Wiley and Sons.
Adv. Funct. Mater. 2021, 31, 2009364 2009364 (8 of 24)
www.afm-journal.de
Tactile feedback devices require actuators with high actua-
tion frequency (up to ≈400 Hz) and high spatial resolution
(≈1 mm) based on the acuity of the skin.[50] Since FEAs rely
on mass transport of fluids for actuation, high actuation fre-
quency is a challenge compared to electrically powered sys-
tems. The pressure generation mechanism plays an important
role in determining the actuation frequency of a FEA system.
Since the pressurized inviscid air generates actuation faster
than viscous liquids when forced through narrow pathways
typical in soft robotic actuators, we focus our discussion on
the pneumatic energy sources. For a more comprehensive and
insightful review on the existing pneumatic energy sources for
soft robotics, we refer the readers to ref. [61]. To summarize,
most pneumatic soft robots rely on the pressure shift from
battery-powered microcompressors or cylinders of compressed
fluids, where the former provide high capacity but limited pres-
sure and flow rate, and the latter provides limited capacity but
high pressure and flow rate. Through modifying the actuator
design, Mosadegh et al. have shown a rapidly actuated FEA that
bends from linear to a quasi-circular shape in 50 ms (20 Hz)
when pressurized to 345 kPa.[62]
High spatial resolution is challenging for compressed air
powered FEAs, since each actuator needs to have an individ-
ually addressable pressure input regulated by a valve and a
compressed air source, leading to an overall system with large
form factor. Combustion generates high pressure rapidly
with less mass and has been shown to power soft robot with
fast actuation.[63,64] The speed of pressure generation makes
combustion a promising approach toward high actuation fre-
quency, but the requirement for precise stoichiometry control
warrants extensive system-level study for repeatable actua-
tion with high frequency and high spatial density. Peroxide
decomposition provides an alternative method to rapidly gen-
erate high pressure with few additional parts and therefore
less overall system mass. Wehner et al. have demonstrated
one such soft robot (i.e., Octobot) powered by peroxide
decomposition, which is controlled by microfluidics with
catalysts embedded.[65] For tactile applications, individually
addressable actuator at high spatial density still require more
system level studies on controllability and operation time of
this actuation mechanism.
© 2021 Wiley-VCH GmbH
www.advancedsciencenews.com
While tubing is fine for grounded graspable or touchable
haptic devices, being completely untethered may be more
desired for wearable devices. The ability for a mobile or manip-
ulative soft robot to be untethered usually depends on the
tradeoff between payload capacity and weight of the system
components. The payload capacity loosely scales with the mass
of the power source, and untethered mobile robots have been
demonstrated with batteries and microcompressors.[66] For
wearables, however, the user has to bear all the weight from the
robotic device. Thus, untethering has a stricter requirement for
the actuation system’s weight, especially, when a large number
of actuators are included. Pressure generation in a more
volume and weight efficient manner is critical for untethered
wearable FEAs. Embodied energy, where the energy source is
directly integrated in the constructing materials of the robot,
is an emerging research topic that could provide a solution.
Octobot shows an example of embodied energy enabling self-
powered autonomous robot. Inspired by the multifunctional
circulatory system in animals, more recently, an untethered soft
robotic fish demonstrates embodied energy through a synthetic
circulatory system modelling the redox flow battery, combining
force actuation, transmission, and energy storage all in the
same circulating hydraulic fluids. The increased energy density
allows long operation of the robotic fish (up to 36 h).[67]
4.3. Dielectric Elastomer Actuator
Dielectric Elastomer Actuators (DEAs) comprise of a thin elas-
tomeric membrane sandwiched between two compliant elec-
trodes in the shape of a parallel plate capacitor. As voltage is
applied, the electrostatic force generated between the two
electrodes squeezes the dielectric elastomer, causing compres-
sion and stretching of the film.[68] The compression thick-
ness strain from the electrostatic force actuation is shown in
Equation (1):[69]
εV 2
sz = − (1)
Yz 2
where ε is the absolute permittivity, Y is the Young’s modulus
of the dielectric elastomer, V is the applied voltage, and z is
the film thickness. In order to actuate a 50 µm thick DEA with
typical elastomeric materials (Young’s moduli from hundreds
of kPa to 1 MPa) to 10–30% compression strain or higher, the
driving voltage of a few kilovolts are required.[70] Recent pro-
gresses in the field have managed to reduce the actuation
voltage to a few hundred volts.[71–75] Despite the high voltage
issue yet to be solved, electrical actuation allows DEAs to yield
much faster response than FEAs with a small form factor in
millimeter scale, which is promising for tactile feedback. Fur-
thermore, circumferential constraints translate the in-plane
biaxial strain of DEA to out-of-plane actuation.
Actuation force of the thin film DEA is low (<50 mN) for
useful tactile feedback. Increasing the number of DEA layers
through stacking or folding has demonstrated large contractile
forces (Figure 7b).[73,76,77] Another force amplification approach
exploits the combination of hydraulic and electrostatic forces.
The hydraulically amplified self-healing electrostatic (HASEL)
Adv. Funct. Mater. 2021, 31, 2009364 2009364 (9 of 24)
www.afm-journal.de
actuators employed liquid as the dielectric layer instead of
elastomers; as voltage is applied to the electrodes, the elec-
trostatic pressure displaces the locally encapsulated liquid to
the surrounding volume, thus enabling high speed electrohy-
draulic actuation while being robust during potential dielectric
breakdown.[78] Coupled with electrostatic zipping mechanism,
Peano-HASEL actuators demonstrated fast linear contraction
(up to 10% contraction with 900% s−1 strain rate at 50 Hz) with
high force (200 times the actuator’s weight).[79] Improvement
in manufacturing methods, such as, 3D printing, has dem-
onstrated rapid prototyping of a HASEL antagonistic actuator
inspired by artificial hydrostats.[80]
4.4. Stimulus Responsive Materials
Stimulus responsive materials for actuation is a well-explored
field, where materials that respond to various external stimuli
(heat, light, magnetic field, etc.) are fabricated with pre-pro-
grammed patterns and experience reversible shape changes
upon exposure and removal of the stimulus. Building intelli-
gence in the material itself (the material is the actuator) allows
wireless actuation with minimal components, which is advanta-
geous for wearable haptic devices. Many of the stimuli-respon-
sive mechanisms, however, are diffusion limited, resulting in
limitation of the actuation speed and maximum force that can
be generated. An important class of thermal responsive mate-
rial is liquid-crystalline elastomers (LCE), where the liquid
crystal (LC) mesogens can be covalently incorporated in an
elastomeric network in an ordered manner via mechanical
alignment. Heating, induced by either direct thermal radia-
tion, Joule heating, or photothermal effect, above a phase-
transition temperature reduces the order of the LC mesogens
and causes macroscopic contraction in the LCE.[81] Other align-
ment methods via surface patterning, external electric or mag-
netic fields, or shear-induced flow can lead to more complex
deformations. Tactile displays constructed with LCEs have dem-
onstrated actuation speed of 6 s,[82] 40 mN force, and 0.8 mm
displacement.[83] For another major class of actuators, thermal
driven materials-shape memory alloys and polymers, we refer
the readers to the review article by Sun et al.[84] Light-driven soft
actuators typically incorporate photochromic molecules, such
as azobenzene, that undergo molecular configuration changes
upon absorption of specific wavelengths of light. In a photome-
chanical elastomer, UV irradiation triggers the trans-cis isomer-
ization of azobenzene molecules, upon collective action, leading
to the macroscopic contractile actuation in the crosslinked net-
work. The light-absorption based mechanism leads to bending
motion (over 10 s) of a free-standing film, since light intensity
is attenuated as it penetrates through the thickness of the film
and thus forms an intensity gradient with gradually decreasing
contraction.[85]
Magnetic responsive materials own the advantages of fast
actuation speed (up to 300 Hz[86,87]). Soft magnetic actuators
are fabricated by embedding magnetic particles or fillers in
fluids or elastomers. As fillers align with the magnetic field
(that has great penetration in many media), various macro-
scopic deformations and motions are achieved with different
filler patterns in a time-varying magnetic field. In recent years,
© 2021 Wiley-VCH GmbH
www.advancedsciencenews.com
small-scale (mm to cm) magnetically driven robots have
achieved a myriad of rapid and untethered locomotion modes
(swim, climb, jump, roll, etc.) in various environments (wet
and dry).[88–92] In haptic applications, conventional electromag-
netic actuators, such as, linear resonate actuators, are widely
adopted to generate high-frequency vibrations for tactile per-
ception.[15] A densely packed electromagnetic actuator array
(4 × 4 taxels on a 8 mm pitch) is achieved with each taxel com-
posed of a stationary planar microcoil and a moving perma-
nent magnet, where a magnetic shielding structure is used to
reduce interaction between neighboring taxels.[93] In recent
years, there is growing interest in developing soft electromag-
netic actuators to both allow safe interaction with human and
at the same time harvest the desirable performance of this
actuation mechanism. A popular approach is to replace the
rigid metal coil in a linear resonate actuator with one that has
liquid metal encapsulated in an elastomeric matrix. By control-
ling the current in the soft coil, vibration of the permanent
magnet or the elastomeric coil can be achieved by Lorentz
force (Figure 7c).[94–96] Recently, Mao et al. developed the soft
electromagnetic actuators that utilize a large plate magnet to
introduce a spatially extended and large magnetic field, and
thus separating the soft coil actuators from the magnet.[96] At
last, tactile displays have also demonstrated stiffness modula-
tion based on magnetorheological fluids with 5 mm spatial
resolution.[97] Although external stimulus allows wireless actu-
ation, designing a system that could deliver the stimulus for
individual control of each tactile actuator is still challenging.
Furthermore, in cases where the actuation stimulus, such as
heat, is also part of the haptic modality of human skin, there
might be decoupling issues for stimulating the desired haptic
perception.
5. Intrinsic Soft Sensors for Haptic Sensing
5.1. Haptic Sensing
Sensing in haptic devices has two objectives: i) Human activity
detection as inputs for interaction with computers; ii) sensing
the extent of actuation from haptic feedback actuators for pre-
cise control. The field of human-machine interaction has made
great advances in computer vision based detection of the user’s
body gesture, gaze, and affective interaction.[98] In the past
decade, there is accelerated development in stretchable elec-
tronics for use as bio-integrated or wearable sensors, which
have impressively expanded the detectable measurands (both
biomechanics and biometrics) of the human body and enabled
measurements that are not spatially restricted by cameras.[99,100]
In this section, we limit our discussion to the sensing of
mechanical deformations only.
For wearables used in human activity detection, a minimum
requirement and yet a challenging engineering problem is that
the mechanical properties of the device should be similar to
those of the skin (Young’s modulus E ≈ 0.4–0.9 MPa and strain
to failure ε ≈ 60–75%).[101] Sensors need to withstand the com-
plex deformations of the skin (e.g., bend, stretch, twist, etc.)
while maintaining reliable performance. Two conceptually dif-
ferent approaches: Structurally compliant devices (i.e., e-skin),
Adv. Funct. Mater. 2021, 31, 2009364 2009364 (10 of 24)
www.afm-journal.de
and those built with intrinsically soft materials (i.e., epidermal
electronics) have both demonstrated innovative wearable sen-
sors for a broad range of measurands.[102]
For soft robotic applications, requirements for the mechan-
ical properties of the sensors become more extreme, where
Young’s modulus E < 1 MPa and strain to failure ε > 200% are
generally required for the detection of soft robotic actuations
with minimal impedance.[9] There have been exciting develop-
ments in e-skins and epidermal electronics that could detect
various aspects of human activities; we refer the readers to
refs. [100,103,104] for more details. In this section, we summa-
rize sensing mechanisms that have been widely adopted in soft
robotics applications, specifically, mechanical strain sensors
built with intrinsically soft materials, to address both objectives
for haptic sensing in VR and AR. For a comprehensive and
detailed review on this topic, we refer the reader to ref. [99] by
Amjadi et al.
5.2. Resistive and Capacitive Sensing
Resistive sensors (Figure 8a) respond to geometric variations
or changes in resistivity of a conductive medium. Capacitive
sensors (Figure 8b) detect and measure the changes in elec-
trodes area and dielectric thickness. One of the greatest chal-
lenges with both of these sensors is the lack of elastomeric
conductors with high conductivity and low elastic modulus.
Typical strategies to endow soft materials with conductivity
at high strains (>100%) can be generally categorized into:
Synthesizing compliant, solid-state conductors, and encap-
sulating conductive liquids to an elastomeric shell. Typical
compliant, solid-state conductors include but are not limited
to intrinsically conducting polymers (e.g., poly(3,4-ethylened
ioxythiophene:poly(styrene sulfonate) [PEDOT:PSS], polypyr-
role [PPy], and polyaniline [PANI]), elastomers dispersed
with nanofillers (e.g., silver nanowire [AgNW], carbon nano-
tube [CNT], and graphene), and ionically conductive hydro-
gels (e.g., salt-containing water-swollen polyacrylamide).
Conducting polymers and polymer nanocomposites exhibit
relatively high electrical conductivity, but in general face a
trade-off between electrical and mechanical properties: for
examples, solution-processable PEDOT:PSS has excellent
electrical conductivity (≈100 000 S m−1) but suffers fracture at
low strains (<30%);[105] higher filler concentration above the
percolation threshold in elastomer nanocomposites can yield
higher conductivity, but may induce microscale aggregates
and thus deteriorate the overall mechanical behaviors.[106]
Hydrogels with the addition of ionic salts represent another
important class of soft solid-state conductors. With their ionic
conductivity (≈10 S m−1) enabled by the movement of mobile
ions such as Na+, Li+, OAc−, and Cl− in the network matrices
and activated via applied electric field, these hydrogels also
demonstrate superior stretchability, toughness, and optical
transparency.[107] The reliability of ionic hydrogels, however,
is susceptible to dehydration or freezing under harsh physio-
logical and engineering conditions, potentially leading to hys-
teresis or temperature drift in the fabricated sensors.[108] As
another scheme of imparting compliance to conductors, ionic
liquids (e.g., sodium chloride dissolved in water, potassium
© 2021 Wiley-VCH GmbH
www.advancedsciencenews.com
Figure 8. Sensing mechanisms with intrinsically soft materials. a) Liquid metal resistive sensor integrated with a pneumatic vibrotactile actuator for
closed-loop control. Reproduced with permission.[134] Copyright 2020, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. b) Hyperelastic light-emitting capacitor as a capacitive
sensor. Reproduced with permission.[178] Copyright 2016, AAAS. c) Stretchable optical waveguide detects deformation with intensity variation. Repro-
duced with permission. Copyright 2016, AAAS.
iodide dissolved in glycerol) and liquid metal alloys (e.g.,
eutectic gallium indium [EGaIn], gallium-indium-tin [Galin-
stan]) can be infused into elastomer matrices to accommo-
date very large mechanical strains (theoretically only limited
by the encasing elastomer), while still maintaining stable,
bulk conductivity.[109,110] Despite the reconfigurability of a
conductive path enabled by the superior flowability of fluids,
both methods involve costly fabrication of encapsulating
microchannels with subsequent imbibing, risk of leakage,
and rigorous design requirement for robust interface with
conventional metal interconnects.[111,112]
5.3. Optoelectronic Sensing
Optoelectronic sensors detect changes in primary properties
of light (e.g., intensity, wavelength spectrum, phase, polariza-
tion) by means of electrical signals.[81] When a mechanical
deformation (e.g., strain, curvature, or pressure) is inflicted to
a light-transmitting medium, this medium or sensing element
(usually in the form of an optical fiber) can be modified along
its length to let the anticipated measurand modulate one of the
properties of light, thus formulating an excellent platform for
multifunctional sensing with high spatial resolution. Compared
to resistive and capacitive sensing that exploit electrical proper-
ties of materials for signal transduction, optoelectronic sensing
provides an alternative, nonelectrical method of operation that
is immune to electromagnetic interference, chemically inert,
and forms easier interface with data collection systems.[113]
Although commercial plastic fiber optics already demonstrates
promise for integrated sensing in soft robotics,[114] there is still a
need of stretchable waveguide sensors toward broader human-
machine interface applications including prosthetics, haptics,
and virtual reality. The earliest introduction of elastomeric
waveguides for mechanical deformation sensing can trace
back to 1980s.[115] Since 1990s, new manufacturing methods,
such as, soft lithography, permit easier fabrication of the core-
cladding structure of waveguides, where optical properties
Adv. Funct. Mater. 2021, 31, 2009364 2009364 (11 of 24)
www.afm-journal.de
(i.e., index of refraction, absorbance) of elastomers can be tai-
lored to achieve desired guiding properties (e.g., total internal
reflection, selective wavelength absorption, and number of
modes).[116–120] Based on the same principle, in 2016, Zhao and
co-workers developed a highly compliant and stretchable optical
waveguide (elastic modulus < 400 kPa at 100% strain; strain to
failure > 700%) for feedback sensation in a soft prosthetic hand
(Figure 8c).[121] Using a high refractive index polyurethane core
and a low refractive index silicone cladding, the waveguide is
intentionally designed to be lossy to improve sensitivity during
elongation, while still allowing detectable amount of light inten-
sity over the length scale of a human hand. Such measurement
based on light intensity is well suited for measuring a single
characteristic such as, strain, curvature, or pressure, but fails
to detect and spatially differentiate combined, volumetric defor-
mations. In order to address this issue, Van Meerbeek et al.
used machine learning techniques (k-nearest neighbors [kNN]
classifier with multi-output regression model) to train diffuse
reflected light, successfully differentiating twist and bend,
and predicting their magnitudes.[122] Xu et al. created distrib-
uted optical waveguide arrays throughout the volume of a 3D
printed soft lattice and achieved localized proprioception and
exteroception with submillimeter accuracy via frustrated total
internal reflection.[49]
6. Control
Feedback control, as a basis for automation in robotic sys-
tems, involves designing a controller that changes the inputs
of a dynamical system, for various performance objectives
such as disturbance rejection, parameter sensitivity control,
command tracking, etc., based on the difference between
the measured process variables and the desired output refer-
ences. Designing closed-loop feedback control is particularly
challenging for soft devices, as the infinite passive DOFs and
nonlinear mechanical properties of soft materials make it dif-
ficult to develop an analytical dynamic model for controller
© 2021 Wiley-VCH GmbH
www.advancedsciencenews.com
design; and the integration of soft sensors and actuators is
still in early stage. We refer the readers to refs. [9,123] for
reviews on the state of the art soft robotic control strategies.
To summarize, the most commonly used strategy is the open-
loop feedforward control, where sensory feedbacks are not
incorporated, with static model, where the steady-state vari-
ables are controlled based on simplified models (constant cur-
vature approximation) or empirical data.[124–129] Model-based
and model-free dynamic control with state sensory feedback is
still in its infancy.[123,130–133] For haptic devices, feedback con-
trol is necessary to stimulate accurate kinesthetic and tactile
sensations to the user. In a recent work by Sonar et al., active
closed-loop control of a completely soft vibrotactile haptic plat-
form with high frequencies (up to 100 Hz) has been demon-
strated to reject external loading disturbances. Comprising of
a soft pneumatic actuator integrated with stretchable liquid
metal sensor, the haptic device adopted a proportional integral
derivative (PID) controller derived from an analytical model,
demonstrating capabilities of disturbance rejection where
actuation is maintained consistent with different external
loading conditions (Figure 7a).[134] Very recently, Aguas-
vivas et al. employed parsimonious recursive neural networks
and Newton-Raphson algorithms for online optimization of
models that provided accurate and updated predictions for a
stretchable fiberoptic network providing feedback into a DC
motor—tendon based soft actuator system in a feedback loop
operating in excess of 100 Hz.[135]
7. Soft Haptic Devices
In the previous sections, we reviewed working principles of
elastomeric actuators and sensors that could be applied to
haptic applications and discussed their pros and cons in the
haptics context. In this section, we review soft robotic systems
that have been demonstrated as haptic input or output devices,
but have not yet been integrated to VR/AR systems, and we cat-
egorize the devices by their modalities as wearable, graspable,
and touchable.[15]
Figure 9. Exoskeleton gloves. a) CyberGrasp, a force-reflecting exoskeleton fitted over a CyberGlove for sensing. Reproduced with permission.[136]
Copyright CyberGlove Systems. b) Pneumatically drive exoskeleton glove integrate with fiber optic sensors demonstrating curvature feedback control.
Reproduced with permission.[114] Copyright 2016, IEEE. c) Electrostatic clutch for passive locking mechanism to indicate virtual contact. Reproduced
with permission.[146] Copyright 2019, John Wiley and Sons.
Adv. Funct. Mater. 2021, 31, 2009364 2009364 (12 of 24)
www.afm-journal.de
7.1. Wearable
7.1.1. Exoskeleton
Exoskeletons are body-grounded devices, where the actuators
are mounted onto the body and exert forces to joints relative
to body-anchoring points, providing kinesthetic feedback to
control the movement of certain part of the body such that the
users can feel the force of a virtual object. Compared to conven-
tional rigid exoskeletons, soft exoskeletons made of elastomers
or textiles are lightweight and do not interfere with natural
human movements. Here, we limit our discussion to hand
exoskeletons and haptic feedback applications. Cable-driven
actuation is a widely adopted actuation mechanism for exoskel-
etons, where cables are used for the flexible transmission of a
remotely located actuation unit of motors, gears and linkages.
A benchmark commercialized exoskeleton glove is the Cyber-
Grasp, where each finger has rigid link routed cables providing
resistive force to enable feeling of a virtual object’s shape and
size (Figure 9a).[136] We refer the readers to ref. [137–140] for
more cable-driven exoskeleton designs and here we review soft
actuators that can be directly placed over the joints to apply
forces. Taking advantage of the large deformations and forces
enabled by the soft actuators, soft exoskeletons have demon-
strated more natural human-device interaction with lighter,
less expensive, and less complex systems compared to their
rigid counterparts.[9,141,142] In a soft orthotic glove demonstrated
by Zhao et al., the FEA is able to generate large force (25 N
at fingertip) with conformal finger contact and safe human-
robot interaction (Figure 6a).[60] Integrating optical sensors for
feedback control, Zhao et al. further demonstrate accurate cur-
vature control of the soft orthotic glove with a state machine
controller and a PID controller (Figure 9b).[114,143] An alternative
to soft actuators to control joint movements in exoskeletons is
soft clutches, where two elements can actively lock or unlock
to block or allow movement of a joint.[144,145] Hinchet et al.
report electrostatic clutches with high force density (frictional
shear stresses of 21 N cm−1 at 300 V) demonstrated in a kin-
esthetic glove, where the electrostatic clutch is programmed
© 2021 Wiley-VCH GmbH
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.afm-journal.de

to block finger motion as the finger contacts a virtual solid
object (Figure 9c).[146] The passive locking mechanism offers the
advantage of low energy consumption, light weight, compact,
and low profile device form at the cost of continuous force con-
trol to allow more complex force feedbacks.
7.1.2. Tactile Display
In 2000, Moy et al. demonstrated a compliant pneumatic tactile
display molded from silicone rubber that ensures conformal
contact between the finger and the device.[147] The display is
composed of 5 × 5 pressurized chambers with 2.5 mm spacing,
each regulated by a solenoid valve with pulse width modula-
tion control. Each pneumatic actuator is capable of applying
<200 mN force over <0.6 mm displacement and with 5 Hz
bandwidth. In more recent years, tactile displays are often built
with DEAs and their variations for the large frequency band-
width required for vibrotactile feedbacks. Soft tactile displays
that can be conformally wrapped around the fingertip have
achieved vibrotactile feedback with addressable millimeter
scale DEA arrays that actuate at <100 Hz with <50 µm ampli-
tude (Figure 10a).[148–151] As DEAs are generally actuated by
voltage over 1 kV, high voltage control circuits are necessary to
address DEA arrays and the bulky high voltage switches pose
a challenge for haptic applications. Marette et al. developed a
compact control circuit, the flexible high-voltage thin-film tran-
sistors, that independently switches each DEA in a 4 × 4 display
tactile display using a single 1.4 kV supply (Figure 10b).[150]
Another challenge of using DEA for tactile feedback is the
actuation force, since force generated by a thin film DEA is
small (<50 mN). Two approaches for force amplification in tac-
tile devices are multilayer stacking and hydraulic amplification.
A ≈ 1 cm3 rolled DEA by Zhao et al. has demonstrated about
1 N of block force and 1 mm of displacement with up to
200 Hz frequency.[73] 4 of these actuators are integrated into
a haptic device on the forearm, and psychophysical testing
showed human haptic perception of touch position and direc-
tion with a broad bandwidth (10 Hz–200 Hz, Figure 10c).[152]
Electrohydraulic actuators with zipping mechanism have been
miniaturized to mm-scale, enabling lightweight and compact
tactile displays with improved function.[153,154] With the dielec-
tric liquid stored in a pouch perpendicularly beneath the display
surface, Han et al. demonstrated a tactile display with 2.5 mm
spatial resolution that actuates to 1.45 mm and 13 mN at 5 Hz
and 200 µm at 200 Hz (Figure 10d).[153] Leroy et al. created the
hydraulically amplified taxel (HAXEL) capable of multimodal
out-of-plane normal displacements and in-plane shear displace-
ments. With the liquid stored beneath the non-stretchable elec-
trodes and on the peripheral of the elastomeric cavity, HAXEL
modulates displacement modes through segmentation of the
electrodes, creating 500 µm normal displacement and 760 µm
lateral displacement and a specific power of 100 Wkg−1 with the
response time below 5 ms (Figure 10e).[154] Recently, the same
group achieved integrated high-density electrostatic zipping
actuator arrays with multimaterial inkjet printing.[155]
Individually addressing each actuator in a large tactile dis-
play with a small form factor is a challenging engineering
problem that requires innovations both on the fundamental
actuation mechanism and the system level integration. Com-
bining different actuation mechanisms based on their merits
could lead to a hybrid system that satisfies the many require-
ments of a tactile display (frequency, force and displacement,
spatial density, and small form factor). Large scale microflu-
idic circuits with fluidic multiplexors made of arrays of binary
valves could provide a way for compact FEA arrays but the

Figure 10. Tactile displays. a) DEA tactile display. Reproduced with permission.[149] Copyright 2008, IEEE. b) Compact DEA control circuit with high-
voltage thin-film transistors. Reproduced with permission.[150] Copyright 2017, John Wiley and Sons. c) Broad bandwidth tactile feedback device for the
arm based on rolled DEA. Reproduced with permission.[152] Copyright 2020, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. d) Tactile display with dielectric fluidic transducers.
Reproduced with permission.[153] Copyright 2020, IEEE. e) Multimodal tactile display with hydraulically amplified taxel (HAXEL) for both normal and
shear displacements. Reproduced with permission.[154] Copyright 2020, John Wiley and Sons.

Adv. Funct. Mater. 2021, 31, 2009364 2009364 (13 of 24) © 2021 Wiley-VCH GmbH
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.afm-journal.de

Figure 11. Compact and individually addressable large actuator array. a) Large array of thermal responsive hydrogels actuated by light projection.
Reproduced with permission.[157] Copyright 2009, John Wiley and Sons. b) Large active tactile array combining actuations of shape memory polymer
and single pneumatic supply. Reproduced with permission.[158] Copyright 2017, John Wiley and Sons. c) Wirelessly powered and controlled VR interface
with near-field communication. Reproduced with permission.[86] Copyright 2019, Springer Nature.

actuation speed is still limited by mass transport of fluids for a
long distance.[156] In a large array (65 × 65 actuators within an
area of 37.7 × 37.7 mm2) of thermal responsive hydrogel actua-
tors, an external projector is used to actuate individual pixels
through photothermal effect that controls the swelling of each
hydrogel actuator (Figure 11a).[157] This method provides a way
to wirelessly control a large array of actuators with high spatial
density and small form factor, but is limited in actuation speed
(400 ms with active cooling) due to diffusion driven swelling
of the hydrogels. Besse et al. demonstrated a large active array
(32 × 24 actuators with 4 mm pitch) optimized for tactile feed-
backs with independently controllable actuators that are capable
of large force and displacements (over 1 N and 400 µm with a
3 mm diameter actuator; Figure 11b).[158] The system employs
Joule heating of shape memory polymer pixels to modulate
local stiffness and combines pneumatic actuation for large
displacements, allowing a more compact system integration
requiring only one air inlet and wires for thermal control. An
actuation cycle, however, takes 5 s from the processes of Joule
heating, pressure transfer, and passive cooling.
Yu et al. demonstrated a wirelessly controlled and wirelessly
powered epidermal VR interface, capable of 100–300 Hz vibra-
tions with individually controllable millimeter-scale vibratory
actuators (Figure 11c).[86] A permanent magnet, encapsulated
in a cavity and on top of a magnetic radio frequency (RF) loop
antenna, serves as an individual actuator that vibrates with
the time-dependent Lorenz force induced by the time-varying
current in the coil. A control circuit with system-on-a-chip
(SoC) integrated circuits (ICs) allows wireless communica-
tion through near-field communication (NFC) Data Exchange
Format messages that programs the output frequency of each
of the 32 actuators (4 SoCs with 8 GP I/Os each) in a four-byte
single communication. The system elegantly integrates NFC
enabled wireless power delivery and control, demonstrating a
completely wireless wearable haptic interface for the first time.
Currently, the actuators have a spatial density of ≈1 cm, close to
human skin spatial acuity of the limbs and the trunk and could
be further improved for the hand; the NFC working range
has been improved to 80 cm, sufficient for indoor VR applica-
tions and might need further improvements for longer range
applications.
7.1.3. Wearable Sensors
Despite the prevalent adoption of optical tracking and IMU
technologies to provide the user’s movement in commer-
cial haptic input devices, stretchable wearable sensors, in the
form of skin-mountable or textile-based devices,[103,159–163]
offer unique advantages of robust (e.g., unaffected by optical

Adv. Funct. Mater. 2021, 31, 2009364 2009364 (14 of 24) © 2021 Wiley-VCH GmbH
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.afm-journal.de

occlusion or lighting variation) and highly sensitive movement
tracking, as well as, tactile sensing of contact force, tempera-
ture, and humidity. A comprehensive review of tactile sensors
can be found at ref. [159]. Here, we enlist recent examples of
stretchable sensors demonstrated as haptic input devices. Com-
bining visual data and somatosensory data (finger bending)
from stretchable sensors, Wang et al. reported a data fusion
architecture that achieved a 100% hand gesture recognition
accuracy even when visual data are not ideal (noisy, under or
over exposed), and showed 3.3% error robotic navigation with
hand gesture control in the dark.[164] Based on strain-mediated
contact in anisotropically resistive structures, Araromi et al. cre-
ated a strain sensor with high sensitivity (gauge factor ≈ 85000)
at low strains (<5%), allowing the sensor to detect small muscle
movements. A sleeve integrated with four sensors detect
muscle contraction at four locations of the arm, and by training
a neural network model with the sleeve output and ground
truth from motion capture facility, hand gestures, and motions
could be tracked (Figure 12a).[165] Contact force detection has
been achieved by myriad of tactile pressure sensors as sum-
marized in ref. [104]. Recently, Lee et al. reported a nanomesh
pressure sensor that monitors finger contact pressure without
detectable human sensation, quantified by grip forces with and
without the sensor attached. (Figure 12b)[166] Direction-sensitive
pressure and shear detection has also been achieved by 3D
structures or hierarchical microstructure arrays that produce
different output patterns in response to force applied in dif-
ferent directions.[159,167–170]
Differentiation and decoupling of multimodal tactile meas-
urands with high spatial resolution pose great challenges in
tactile sensors since most transduction mechanisms rely on
a single output (e.g., capacitance, resistance, or optical inten-
sity) in response to various stimuli. Recent research progresses
have addressed this challenge by different approaches and
demonstrated advanced functionalities in haptic input devices.
Kim et al. achieved differentiated and decoupled sensing of
stretch, bend and compression by employing heterogenous
sensing mechanisms of optical, resistive, and capacitive sensing

Figure 12. Wearable sensors. a) Ultrasensitive sensors detect muscle movements on the arm as inputs for gesture control. Reproduced with permis-
sion.[165] Copyright 2020, Springer Nature. b) Nanomesh pressure sensor allows contact pressure measurement without detectable human sensation.
Reproduced with permission.[166] Copyright 2020, AAAS. c) Multimodal wearable sensor enabled by heterogenous sensing mechanisms. Reproduced
with permission.[171] Copyright 2020, AAAS. d) Decoupled strain and temperature sensing via ion relaxation dynamics. Reproduced with permission.[172]
Copyright 2020, AAAS. e) Large electronic textile for distributed sensing with one fiber sensor via electrical time-domain reflectometry. Reproduced
with permission.[173] Copyright 2020, Springer Nature. f) Stretchable distributed fiber optic sensor capable of distributed multimodal sensing. A wire-
less glove demonstrates simultaneous measurements of force and multi-location bending with one sensor. Reproduced with permission.[174] Copyright
2020, AAAS.

Adv. Funct. Mater. 2021, 31, 2009364 2009364 (15 of 24) © 2021 Wiley-VCH GmbH
www.advancedsciencenews.com
with data interpretation through machine learning. The sensor
is composed of an ionic liquid core encapsulated in silicone with
conductive fabric attached on the outside. The ionic core and sili-
cone cladding as an optical waveguide sensor respond to stretch,
bend, and compression; the ionic liquid as a resistive sensor
respond to stretch and compression; the conductive fabric
is most sensitive to stretch. With an ANN machine learning
model, multimodal deformations are classified and decoupled.
In a demonstration of a wrist wearable, different combinations
of wrist stretch, bend, and compression are used as inputs to
control a robotic gripper in a manipulation task. (Figure 12c)[171]
You et al. achieved simultaneous strain and temperature meas-
urement in a single ion conductor with no signal interference
through studying ionic relaxation dynamics: Charge relaxation
time is insensitive to strain and measures absolute temperature;
normalized capacitance measures strain and is insensitive to
temperature variation. A tactile sensor array is fabricated with
the ion conductor sandwiched between patterned electrodes and
demonstrates independent temperature and pressure mapping
at the same time. Interpolation of the temperature and pres-
sure data could also enable shear sensing (Figure 12d).[172] An
alternative approach of distributed sensing other than sensor
pixels and arrays is the fiber-based sensor system, where the
system only requires single input and output contact points and
thus reduces risk of contact point failure. Leber et al. reported
a fiber-based stretchable sensor that performs distributed
sensing of pressing and stretching via electrical time-domain
reflectometry, a time-of-flight technique that send high fre-
quency pulses through an impedance-controlled transmission
line and discontinuities reflect pulses with distinctive feature of
the disturbance. The fiber is thermally drawn with liquid metal
conductors embedded in an elastomeric dielectric as transmis-
sion lines and has a 0.2 N force resolution, 6 cm spatial resolu-
tion, and 0.25% strain resolution. Integrating a single 10 m long
sensor on a 50 cm × 50 cm large electronic textile, detection of
both pressure and stretch has been achieved with one input and
output connection (Figure 12e).[173] Optics provides a good plat-
form to perform distributed and multimodal sensing, since a
broad-wavelength spectrum input offers a wide range of wave-
lengths that could be modulated without signal interference in
a single transmission line. Bai et al. reported a stretchable dis-
tributed fiber optic elastomeric sensor capable of measuring the
mode, location and magnitude of press, stretch and bend along
a single fiber without the assistance of machine learning. The
multifunctionality is achieved through coupling a white LED
to a dual-core fiber partially doped with absorbing dye patterns
that enables wavelength-specific absorption and frustrated total
internal reflection. Distinctive intensity and chromaticity com-
binations at the two cores’ outputs differentiate the mode of
the deformation and chromatic patterns (discrete or gradient)
color-code the spatial information. The sensor has resolutions of
0.14 N compression, 1% strain, 0.5° bend, and spatial resolu-
tion of 1 mm with the gradient chromatic pattern. By thresh-
olding and solving a vector sum model in the color space for the
outputs, decoupled multilocation and multimodal deformation
sensing have been achieved. In a demonstration of a wireless
glove wearable, one sensor with three dyes can accurately recon-
struct the angles of the three finger joints and at the same time
detect presses at different locations (Figure 12f).[174]
Adv. Funct. Mater. 2021, 31, 2009364 2009364 (16 of 24)
www.afm-journal.de
7.2. Graspable
Another way to create the haptic experience is to construct a
real-world representation of the virtual object, often in the form
of a graspable prop or a touchable surface, which could exhibit
all the haptic features (i.e., shape, stiffness, texture, etc.) with
programmable control. While this is a challenging engineering
problem that requires solutions across a wide range of scales,
the field of soft robotics has demonstrated programmable con-
trol of variable stiffness and shape morphing in both graspable
and touchable device form.
7.2.1. Variable Stiffness
Variable stiffness has been achieved with pressure-based stiff-
ness control of particle jamming, temperature-based stiff-
ness control of low melting point materials (e.g., metal alloy,
wax, thermoplastic polymers, etc.), and magnetic or electric
field-based stiffness control of magnetorheological or elec-
trorheological materials. We refer the readers to ref. [175] for
a comprehensive review of these mechanisms. Here we show
an example of a variable stiffness and shape morphing object
that could be potentially used as a graspable haptic device. Van
Meerbeek et al. introduced a metal-elastomer-foam composite
where the stiffness is controlled reversibly by temperature: The
composite is stiff below the melting temperature of the metal
alloy (62 °C); above the melting temperature, the composite
exhibit compliant rubbery properties of the elastomeric foam.
The composite can be stretched to over 200% strain when
heated and the deformed shape can be locked by decreasing
temperature below 62 °C. Shape memory morphing has also
been demonstrated where a rectangular cuboid is locked into
a cylinder shape, and recovers the cuboid shape upon elevated
temperature (Figure 13a).[176] With further system integration,
the foam composite could be potentially used as a haptic grasp-
able prop with programmable stiffness and shape.
7.2.2. Volumetric Sensing
An important step toward an interactive graspable prop is volu-
metric sensing, which could provide rich haptic input as the user
deforms the prop. Volumetric sensing of arbitrary deformation
to a soft body is challenging since it would require decouplable
multimodal sensors distributed in a 3D volume. Van Meer-
beek et al. approach this challenge with an optical foam senor
system where outputs are interpreted by a machine learning
algorithm. 2D array of optical fibers are embedded at the bottom
of a block of foam that both illuminate the foam and receive the
reflected light. Foam pores distributed throughout the volume
with high density scatter the incoming light and as the pores
deform with the macroscopic foam deformation, different scat-
tering patterns are interpreted with machine learning. A kNN
algorithm predicts the type of deformation with 100% accuracy
(bend up, bend down, twist left, twist right) and the magnitude
of the deformation with 0.06° error (Figure 13b).[122] Xu et al.
report an arbitrary 3D grid of stretchable lightguides (optical
lace) distributed in a soft scaffold to provide spatially continuous
© 2021 Wiley-VCH GmbH
www.advancedsciencenews.com
Figure 13. Graspable devices. a) Variable stiffness and shape morphing metal-elastomer-foam composite. Reproduced with permission.[176] Copyright 2016,
John Wiley and Sons. b) Internally illuminated elastomer foam differentiates bending and twisting with machine learning. Reproduced with permission.[122]
Copyright 2018, AAAS. c) 3D arrays of optical lace for spatially continuous deformation sensing. Reproduced with permission.[49] Copyright 2019, AAAS.
deformation sensing throughout the volume. The 3D sensor
network operates based on frustrated total internal reflection
and light coupling between neighboring lightguides upon con-
tact. One lightguide with light input is threaded through the
volume and several output lightguides are distributed to dif-
ferent locations and each is connected to a photodetector. As
the soft scaffold is deformed, output lightguides contact with
the input lightguide at various locations with output intensities
and patterns indicating the 3D shape change of the soft scaffold.
Volumetric sensing is demonstrated through reconstructing the
non-uniform deformation of a soft cylinder with stiffness gra-
dient under uniaxial strain (Figure 13c).[49]
7.3. Touchable
7.3.1. Morphing Surface
Inspired by cephalopod’s muscular morphology for textural cam-
ouflage, Pikul et al. developed a 2D stretchable surface that could
be programmed to transform into a target 3D shape. The mech-
anism of circumferentially constrained and radially stretched
elastomer programs inextensible textile mesh in an elastomeric
membrane that allows one-to-one mapping of the radial stretch
of the elastomer into a target 3D displacement when pneumati-
cally actuated. Stretchable surfaces have been demonstrated to
morph into shapes of plants and rocks that camouflage into the
background environment (Figure 14a).[1] Stanley et al. created a
haptic surface capable of shape morphing and variable stiffness
control, where an array of coffee ground cells are laid on top of
pressure regulated air chambers. Pneumatic control changes the
surface shape and vacuum control tunes the stiffness of coffee
ground layer through particle jamming (Figure 14b).[177]
7.3.2. Interactive Surface
Larson et al. created a hyperelastic light-emitting capacitor
(HLEC) that achieved light emission at large strains (≈500%)
Adv. Funct. Mater. 2021, 31, 2009364 2009364 (17 of 24)
www.afm-journal.de
and haptic sensing at the same time. HLEC is constructed
with a ZnS phosphor doped dielectric elastomer sandwiched
between transparent hydrogel electrodes and changes the illu-
minance and capacitance under deformation (Figure 8b).[178]
Based on HLEC, Li et al. created a stretchable display that also
functioned as a touch interface with heterogenous patterning of
phosphors and interdigitated patterning of the electrodes, and
demonstrated the ability of multi-touch sensing (Figure 14c).[179]
Kim et al. reported a stretchable ionic touch panel that could
track a single touch point even when the panel is highly
deformed (1000% areal strain). The panel employs a surface-
capacitive system comprising a rectangular hydrogel film con-
nected to four electrodes at the corners: Finger contact leads to
current flow from electrodes to the touch point and the induced
current increases as the touch point comes closer to the cor-
responding electrode. The soft ionic touch panel is attached to
the arm and demonstrated for human-computer interaction of
writing words and playing games with haptic inputs from the
touch panel (Figure 14d).[180] Larson et al. explored using shape
changes of a soft touch surface as gesture inputs for human-
computer interaction. The soft haptic interface is composed of
an array of stretchable carbon nanotube capacitors as a dome-
shape inflated rubbery membrane through which the user
could deform to transmit information. Convolutional neural
networks are used to classify and localize touch on the interface
and supervised learning is used to relate gesture inputs to com-
puter commands. The haptic interface is demonstrated in the
video game Tetris in realtime, where the Tretromino could be
moved, rotated, and dropped with more intuitive gesture inputs
of poking, twisting, and pinching the soft dome (Figure 14e).[181]
Combining HLEC with FEA in a soft haptic interface,
Peele et al. built an untethered stretchable display for tactile
interaction where multimodal feedbacks of both visual and
haptic stimulus were demonstrated in an interactive memory
game similar to Simon (Figure 15a).[182] In the work by Rob-
inson et al., a haptic interface synthetic to sensory-motor analog
is composed of an integrated system with pneumatic actuators
and stretchable capacitive sensors capable of feedback control
with exteroceptive and proprioception sensing (Figure 15b).[183]
© 2021 Wiley-VCH GmbH
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.afm-journal.de

Figure 14. Touchable devices. a) Morphing surfaces actuated from 2D to a targeted 3D shape and camouflage into the background. Reproduced with
permission.[1] Copyright 2017, AAAS. b) Haptic surface for shape morphing and variable stiffness with pneumatic actuation and particle jamming.
Reproduced with permission.[177] Copyright 2018, AAAS. c) Stretchable multicolor display with multi-touch sensing. Reproduced with permission.[179]
Copyright 2016, John Wiley and Sons. d) Stretchable ionic touch panel for human-computer interaction. Reproduced with permission.[180] Copyright
2016, AAAS. e) A deformable haptic interface for human touch recognition allowing natural haptic input. Reproduced with permission.[181] Copyright
2019, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.

7.4. Soft Haptic Devices in Virtual Reality and Augmented
Reality
Decades after the Power Glove, commercial haptic wearables
now have great improvements in the functionality, although
the cost is still high for consumer electronics. A VR haptic
glove, HaptX, integrates functions of motion tracking,
force feedback, and tactile feedback in one embodiment
(Figure 16a).[184] The glove employs electromagnetic sensors
for finger motion tracking, passive locking mechanism for
resistive force feedback, and elastomer-encapsulated pneu-
matic microfluidic arrays for tactile feedback. The glove
demonstrates haptic feedback with improved realism in VR
(e.g., simulate sensations of raindrops) but requires a bulky
pneumatic control unit to program over one hundred tac-
tile actuators on a glove. TacSuit (bHaptics) has 40 eccentric
rotating mass motors on a vest to provide vibrotactile feed-
backs (Figure 16b).[185] A full-body wearable, TeslaSuit, pro-
vides haptic feedback with electrostimulation and IMU-based
motion tracking (Figure 16c).[186]
Many of the soft haptic devices reviewed in Section 6
could be integrated into VR/AR environments to provide
haptic inputs or outputs that improve the experience of
immersion. In this section, we show examples of soft haptic
devices from research labs that have been demonstrated in
a VR/AR environment. Note that there are fewer examples
since these demonstrations require access to and integration
with commercial VR/AR software. Maturity of a haptic tech-
nology is not necessarily reflected by its integration in a VR/
AR system. Jadhav et al. created a soft exoskeleton haptic
glove to simulate the force of a button press through applying
forces on the finger joints with the McKibben muscle actua-
tors (Figure 17a).[187] A pilot user study tested the glove in a
virtual reality environment that incorporated visual, audio and
the haptics feedbacks for a virtual piano-playing program and
demonstrated a more immersive user experience. Song et al.
created a soft VR glove with an electrostatically driven pneu-
matic actuator for tactile feedbacks that indicate contact with a
virtual object (Figure 17b).[188] In another VR glove, Kim et al.
integrated flexible thermoelectric devices to provide thermal
feedbacks and a user test involving both visual and thermal
stimuli in a virtual environment showed improved realism
with thermal feedbacks (Figure 17b).[189] Barreiros et al. pre-
sented a haptic controller sleeve (the Omnipulse) wrapped
around a VR controller that provides dynamic kinesthetic
feedback (12 patterns) with twelve FEA actuators exhibiting
large force (5–45 N) and displacement (3–10 mm) (Figure 17c).
User study showed improved experience playing VR games
with the Omnipulse sleeve compared to a conventional con-
troller.[190] Mac Murray et al. demonstrated stiffness and shape
control in a compliant VR controller handle through pneu-
matic actuation. The handle is compliant with a small diam-
eter when not pressurized and becomes stiff with a larger
diameter when pressurized. The compliant controller has

Adv. Funct. Mater. 2021, 31, 2009364 2009364 (18 of 24) © 2021 Wiley-VCH GmbH
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.afm-journal.de

Figure 15. Interactive surfaces. a) Untethered stretchable display for tactile interaction with haptic and visual feedbacks. Reproduced with permis-
sion.[182] Copyright 2019, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. b) 3D printed haptic interface with capacitive sensors and pneumatic actuations for interactive haptic
feedback. Reproduced with permission.[183] Copyright 2015, Elsevier.

a 3D printed elastomeric lattice on the inside to provide struc-
tural support and restoring force. The controller is integrated
in a VR game to simulate the different stiffness of the virtual
objects and further programmed as an input to the game
(Figure 17d).[191]
8. Conclusion
Soft Organic Robotics constructing intelligent soft machines
with intrinsically soft actuators and sensors has the poten-
tial to enable the next generation haptic devices for more
realistic VR/AR experience. Soft actuators improve haptic
feedback functionalities by enabling low profile wearables
with conformal contact to the skin and over the joints while
delivering large amplitude and persistent deformation for
kinesthetic feedbacks, as well as, large frequency bandwidth
vibrotactile feedbacks. Objects or surfaces that could morph
their shape and stiffness with a small form factor introduce
potential for direct modulation of haptic properties in haptic
feedback devices. Soft sensors improve haptic input of gesture
and movement tracking with higher sensitivity and robust-
ness and greatly enrich haptic input types to multimodal tac-
tile sensing for more natural and advanced haptic interaction.
Apart from functionality, cost poses another major challenge
for the wide adoption of existing advanced haptic technolo-
gies. In this aspect, soft haptic devices could be cost-effective
due to the low-cost construction materials (e.g., silicone and
other synthetic elastomers) and fabrication methods (e.g., rep-
lica molding). Although there has not been scaled production
of soft haptic devices; balloons demonstrate this potential as
trillions of units are produced annually.
Power and untethering are major challenges for soft actua-
tors. FEAs powered with pumps and valves have large form fac-
tors and DEAs require high voltage electronics. As reviewed in
Section 3, these are open research topics actively explored by
the field. Actuation voltage of DEAs has been reduced to a few
hundred volts and compact high voltage control circuits have
been demonstrated. Alternative pressure generation mecha-
nisms via combustion, peroxide decomposition, and electrolytic
hydraulics have enabled compact untethered powering of FEAs
and thus show promise for pumpless and valveless FEAs for

Figure 16. Commercial haptic wearables for VR and AR. a) Haptic glove (HaptX) with tactile feedback, kinesthetic feedback and gesture sensing. Repro-
duced with permission.[184] Copyright HaptX, Inc. b) Vest with vibrotactile feedback (TacSuit). Reproduced with permission.[185] Copyright bHaptics.
c) Full body wearable with electrostimulation haptic feedback and motion tracking (TeslaSuit). Reproduced with permission.[186] Copyright TESLASUIT.

Adv. Funct. Mater. 2021, 31, 2009364 2009364 (19 of 24) © 2021 Wiley-VCH GmbH
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.afm-journal.de

Figure 17. Soft devices demonstrated in VR/AR. a) Soft exoskeleton glove simulating force of a button press playing virtual piano. Reproduced with
permission.[187] Copyright 2017, UC San Diego Jacobs School of Engineering. b) VR glove with gesture sensing and pneumatic force feedback or tem-
perature feedback. Reproduced with permission.[188,189] Copyright 2019, 2020, the authors. c) VR controller sleeve with pneumatic actuators producing
dynamic kinesthetic feedback. Reproduced with permission.[190] Copyright 2019, IEEE. d) Soft VR controller with variable stiffness and shape for haptic
feedback. Reproduced with permission.[191] Copyright 2018, IEEE.

portable VR/AR systems. Soft sensors with higher spatial reso-
lution, bandwidth, multifunctionality, and selectivity could lead
to more powerful haptic inputs.
At last, haptic perception is a subjective and complex pro-
cess and the relationship between measurable parameters and
haptic perception is still not yet fully understood. By providing
direct variation and programmable control of haptic proper-
ties, soft robotics built with functional organic elastomers could
facilitate psychophysical experiments to understand human tac-
tile perception. Advances in our understanding of how haptic
perception translates into addressable engineering parameters
could enable future haptic devices to produce more realistic
haptic stimulus.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge funding from Office of Naval Research
(grant no. N00014-20-1-2438), National Science Foundation (grant no.
EFMA-1830924), and Air Force Office of Scientific Research (grant no.
FA9550-20-1-0254).
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Keywords
augmented reality, haptics, soft robotics, virtual reality
Received: November 2, 2020
Revised: April 20, 2021
Published online: June 2, 2021
[1] J. H. Pikul, S. Li, H. Bai, R. T. Hanlon, I. Cohen, R. F. Shepherd,
Science 2017, 358, 210.
[2] W. T. Navaraj, C. G. Núñez, D. Shakthivel, V. Vinciguerra,
F. Labeau, D. H. Gregory, R. Dahiya, Front. Neurosci. 2017, 11, 501.
[3] H. Culbertson, C. M. Nunez, A. Israr, F. Lau, F. Abnousi,
A. M. Okamura, presented at 2018 IEEE Haptics Symposium
(HAPTICS), IEEE, New York 2018, pp. 32–39.
[4] “Bimorph type vibrators”, http://www.fujicera.co.jp/en/product/
bimorph/ 2021.
[5] K. C. Galloway, K. P. Becker, B. Phillips, J. Kirby, S. Licht,
D. Tchernov, R. J. Wood, D. F. Gruber, Soft Robot. 2016, 3, 23.
[6] N. R. Sinatra, C. B. Teeple, D. M. Vogt, K. K. Parker, D. F. Gruber,
R. J. Wood, Sci. Robot. 2019, 4, eaax5425.
[7] W. Wang, J.-Y. Lee, H. Rodrigue, Bioinspir. Biomim. 2011, 6, 026007.
[8] K. Sappati, S. Bhadra, Sensors 2018, 18, 3605.
[9] P. Polygerinos, N. Correll, S. A. Morin, B. Mosadegh, C. D. Onal,
K. Petersen, M. Cianchetti, M. T. Tolley, R. F. Shepherd, Adv. Eng.
Mater. 2017, 19, 1700016.
[10] S. Hirose, Y. Umetani, Mech. Mach. Theory 1978, 13, 351.
[11] R. N. Palchesko, L. Zhang, Y. Sun, A. W. Feinberg, PLoS One 2012,
7, e51499.
[12] R. F. Shepherd, F. Ilievski, W. Choi, S. A. Morin, A. A. Stokes,
A. D. Mazzeo, X. Chen, M. Wang, G. M. Whitesides, Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2011, 108, 20400.
[13] B. N. Peele, T. J. Wallin, H. Zhao, R. F. Shepherd, Bioinspir. Biomim.
2015, 10, 055003.
[14] T. J. Wallin, J. Pikul, R. F. Shepherd, Nat. Rev. Mater. 2018, 3, 84.
[15] H. Culbertson, S. B. Schorr, A. M. Okamura, Annu. Rev. Control,
Rob., Auton. Syst. 2018, 1, 385.
[16] J. Steuer, J. Commun. 1992, 42, 73.
[17] P. Milgram, F. Kishino, IEICE Trans. Inf. Syst. 1994, E77-D, 1321.
[18] R. T. Azuma, Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 1997, 6, 355.
[19] M. Mihelj, D. Novak, S. Begus, Virtual Reality Technology and Appli-
cations, Vol. 68, Springer, Netherlands 2014, pp. 1–16.
[20] P. King, IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Mag. 2004, 23, 205.
[21] A. J. Bremner, C. Spence, Adv. Child Dev. Behav. 2017, 52, 227.

Adv. Funct. Mater. 2021, 31, 2009364 2009364 (20 of 24) © 2021 Wiley-VCH GmbH
www.advancedsciencenews.com
[22] S. Kapoor, P. Arora, V. Kapoor, M. Jayachandran, M. Tiwari, J. Clin.
Diagn. Res. 2014, 8, 294.
[23] A. Bolopion, S. Regnier, IEEE Trans. Autom. Sci. Eng. 2013, 10, 496.
[24] E. P. W. - v. d. Putten, R. H. M. Goossens, J. J. Jakimowicz,
J. Dankelman, Minimally Invasive Ther. Allied Technol. 2008, 17, 3.
[25] “Phantom Premium”, https://www.3dsystems.com/haptics-devices/
3d-systems-phantom-premium/ 2016.
[26] S. B. Schorr, A. M. Okamura, IEEE Trans. Haptics 2017, 10, 418.
[27] H. Iwata, H. Yano, F. Nakaizumi, R. Kawamura, in Proc. 28th
Annual Conf. on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques –
SIGGRAPH ‘01, ACM, New York 2001, pp. 469–476.
[28] K. Nakagaki, D. Fitzgerald, Z. J. Ma, L. Vink, D. Levine, H. Ishii,
in Proc. 13th Int. Conf. on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied
Interaction, ACM, New York 2019, pp. 615–623.
[29] D. J. Meyer, M. Wiertlewski, M. A. Peshkin, J. E. Colgate, presented
at 2014 IEEE Haptics Symposium (HAPTICS), IEEE, Houston, TX
2014, pp. 63–67.
[30] H. Xu, M. A. Peshkin, J. E. Colgate, IEEE Trans. Haptics 2019, 12, 497.
[31] D. J. Meyer, M. A. Peshkin, J. E. Colgate, presented at 2013 World
Haptics Conference (WHC), IEEE, Daejeon, Korea 2013, pp. 43–48.
[32] A. Yamamoto, S. Nagasawa, H. Yamamoto, T. Higuchi, IEEE Trans.
Visualization Comput. Graphics 2006, 12, 168.
[33] Y. H. Jung, J. Kim, J. A. Rogers, Adv. Funct. Mater. 2020, 2008805.
[34] J. Tirado, V. Panov, V. Yem, D. Tsetserukou, H. Kajimoto,
in Haptics: Science, Technology, Applications, Vol. 12272, (Eds:
I. Nisky, J. Hartcher-O’Brien, M. Wiertlewski, J. Smeets), Springer,
Cham 2020, pp. 442–450.
[35] D. J. Lipomi, C. Dhong, C. W. Carpenter, N. B. Root,
V. S. Ramachandran, Adv. Funct. Mater. 2020, 30, 1906850.
[36] G. Gerpheide, US5305017, 1994.
[37] “DuelSence Wireless Controller”, https://www.playstation.com/
en-us/accessories/dualsense-wireless-controller/ 2021.
[38] “Oculus Rift S”, https://www.oculus.com/rift-s/ 2021.
[39] T. G. Zimmerman, US4542291, 1982.
[40] T. G. Zimmerman, J. Lanier, C. Blanchard, S. Bryson, Y. Harvill,
ACM SIGCHI Bull. 1986, 17, 189.
[41] D. J. Sturman, D. Zeltzer, IEEE Comput. Graphics Appl. 1994, 14, 30.
[42] “Power Glove”, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Glove/ 2021.
[43] W. R. Sherman, A. B. Craig, Understanding Virtual Reality, Elsevier,
Amsterdam 2018, pp. 190–256.
[44] T. Provot, X. Chiementin, E. Oudin, F. Bolaers, S. Murer, Sensors
2017, 17, 1958.
[45] “Vive Tracker,” https://www.vive.com/us/accessory/vive-tracker/
2021.
[46] E. van der Kruk, M. M. Reijne, Eur. J. Sport Sci. 2018, 18, 806.
[47] “Ring Fit Adventure for Nintendo Switch”, https://ringfitadventure.
nintendo.com/ 2021.
[48] “Valve Index Controllers”, https://www.valvesoftware.com/en/
index/controllers/ 2021.
[49] P. A. Xu, A. K. Mishra, H. Bai, C. A. Aubin, L. Zullo, R. F. Shepherd,
Sci. Robot. 2019, 4, eaaw6304.
[50] S. J. Lederman, R. L. Klatzky, Atten., Percept., Psychophys. 2009, 71, 1439.
[51] L. A. Jones, Human and Machine Haptics, MIT Press, Cambridge,
MA 2000.
[52] M. Hollins, S. R. Risner, Percept. Psychophys. 2000, 62, 695.
[53] D. Filingeri, G. Havenith, Temperature 2015, 2, 86.
[54] W. M. B. Tiest, A. Kappers, IEEE Trans. Haptics 2009, 2, 189.
[55] R. S. Johansson, J. R. Flanagan, Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2009, 10, 345.
[56] S. Ding, B. Bhushan, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2016, 481, 131.
[57] F. Mancini, A. Bauleo, J. Cole, F. Lui, C. A. Porro, P. Haggard,
G. D. Iannetti, Ann. Neurol. 2014, 75, 917.
[58] C. Hatzfeld, in Engineering Haptic Devices (Eds: C. Hatzfeld,
T. A. Kern), Springer, London 2014, Ch. 2.
[59] M. Schaffner, J. A. Faber, L. Pianegonda, P. A. Rühs, F. Coulter,
A. R. Studart, Nat. Commun. 2018, 9, 878.
Adv. Funct. Mater. 2021, 31, 2009364 2009364 (21 of 24)
www.afm-journal.de
[60] H. Zhao, Y. Li, A. Elsamadisi, R. Shepherd, Extreme Mech. Lett.
2015, 3, 89.
[61] M. Wehner, M. T. Tolley, Y. Mengüç, Y.-L. Park, A. Mozeika, Y. Ding,
C. Onal, R. F. Shepherd, G. M. Whitesides, R. J. Wood, Soft Robot.
2014, 1, 263.
[62] B. Mosadegh, P. Polygerinos, C. Keplinger, S. Wennstedt,
R. F. Shepherd, U. Gupta, J. Shim, K. Bertoldi, C. J. Walsh,
G. M. Whitesides, Adv. Funct. Mater. 2014, 24, 2163.
[63] R. F. Shepherd, A. A. Stokes, J. Freake, J. Barber, P. W. Snyder,
A. D. Mazzeo, L. Cademartiri, S. A. Morin, G. M. Whitesides, Angew.
Chem., Int. Ed. 2013, 52, 2892.
[64] N. W. Bartlett, M. T. Tolley, J. T. B. Overvelde, J. C. Weaver,
B. Mosadegh, K. Bertoldi, G. M. Whitesides, R. J. Wood, Science
2015, 349, 161.
[65] M. Wehner, R. L. Truby, D. J. Fitzgerald, B. Mosadegh,
G. M. Whitesides, J. A. Lewis, R. J. Wood, Nature 2016, 536, 451.
[66] M. T. Tolley, R. F. Shepherd, B. Mosadegh, K. C. Galloway,
M. Wehner, M. Karpelson, R. J. Wood, G. M. Whitesides, Soft
Robot. 2014, 1, 213.
[67] C. A. Aubin, S. Choudhury, R. Jerch, L. A. Archer, J. H. Pikul,
R. F. Shepherd, Nature 2019, 571, 51.
[68] R. Pelrine, R. Kornbluh, Q. Pei, J. Joseph, Science 2000, 287, 836.
[69] R. E. Pelrine, R. D. Kornbluh, J. P. Joseph, Sens. Actuators, A 1998,
64, 77.
[70] S. Rosset, H. R. Shea, Appl. Phys. A 2013, 110, 281.
[71] A. Poulin, S. Rosset, H. R. Shea, Appl. Phys. Lett. 2015, 107, 244104.
[72] M. Duduta, R. J. Wood, D. R. Clarke, Adv. Mater. 2016, 28, 8058.
[73] H. Zhao, A. M. Hussain, M. Duduta, D. M. Vogt, R. J. Wood,
D. R. Clarke, Adv. Funct. Mater. 2018, 28, 1804328.
[74] Y. Sheima, P. Caspari, D. M. Opris, Macromol. Rapid Commun.
2019, 40, 1900205.
[75] X. Ji, X. Liu, V. Cacucciolo, M. Imboden, Y. Civet, A. El Haitami,
S. Cantin, Y. Perriard, H. Shea, Sci. Robot. 2019, 4, eaaz6451.
[76] A. O’Halloran, F. O’Malley, P. McHugh, J. Appl. Phys. 2008, 104, 071101.
[77] G. Kovacs, L. Düring, S. Michel, G. Terrasi, Sens. Actuators, A 2009,
155, 299.
[78] E. Acome, S. K. Mitchell, T. G. Morrissey, M. B. Emmett,
C. Benjamin, M. King, M. Radakovitz, C. Keplinger, Science 2018,
359, 61.
[79] N. Kellaris, V. G. Venkata, G. M. Smith, S. K. Mitchell, C. Keplinger,
Sci. Robot. 2018, 3, eaar3276.
[80] M. R. O’Neill, E. Acome, S. Bakarich, S. K. Mitchell, J. Timko,
C. Keplinger, R. F. Shepherd, Adv. Funct. Mater. 2020, 30, 2005244.
[81] S. Li, H. Bai, R. F. Shepherd, H. Zhao, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2019,
58, 11182.
[82] C. J. Camargo, H. Campanella, J. E. Marshall, N. Torras,
K. Zinoviev, E. M. Terentjev, J. Esteve, J. Micromech. Microeng.
2012, 22, 075009.
[83] N. Torras, K. E. Zinoviev, C. J. Camargo, E. M. Campo,
H. Campanella, J. Esteve, J. E. Marshall, E. M. Terentjev,
M. Omastová, I. Krupa, P. Teplický, B. Mamojka, P. Bruns,
B. Roeder, M. Vallribera, R. Malet, S. Zuffanelli, V. Soler, J. Roig,
N. Walker, D. Wenn, F. Vossen, F. M. H. Crompvoets, Sens. Actua-
tors, A 2014, 208, 104.
[84] L. Sun, W. M. Huang, Z. Ding, Y. Zhao, C. C. Wang, H. Purnawali,
C. Tang, Mater. Des. 2012, 33, 577.
[85] S. Li, Y. Tu, H. Bai, Y. Hibi, L. W. Wiesner, W. Pan, K. Wang,
E. P. Giannelis, R. F. Shepherd, Macromol. Rapid Commun. 2019,
40, 1800815.
[86] X. Yu, Z. Xie, Y. Yu, J. Lee, A. Vazquez-Guardado, H. Luan,
J. Ruban, X. Ning, A. Akhtar, D. Li, B. Ji, Y. Liu, R. Sun, J. Cao,
Q. Huo, Y. Zhong, C. Lee, S. Kim, P. Gutruf, C. Zhang, Y. Xue,
Q. Guo, A. Chempakasseril, P. Tian, W. Lu, J. Jeong, Y. Yu,
J. Cornman, C. Tan, B. Kim, K. Lee, X. Feng, Y. Huang, J. A. Rogers,
Nature 2019, 575, 473.
© 2021 Wiley-VCH GmbH
www.advancedsciencenews.com
[87] P. Garstecki, P. Tierno, D. B. Weibel, F. Sagués, G. M. Whitesides,
J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 2009, 21, 204110.
[88] H. Lu, M. Zhang, Y. Yang, Q. Huang, T. Fukuda, Z. Wang, Y. Shen,
Nat. Commun. 2018, 9, 3944.
[89] W. Hu, G. Z. Lum, M. Mastrangeli, M. Sitti, Nature 2018, 554, 81.
[90] Y. Kim, G. A. Parada, S. Liu, X. Zhao, Sci. Robot. 2019, 4, eaax7329.
[91] S. Tasoglu, E. Diller, S. Guven, M. Sitti, U. Demirci, Nat. Commun.
2014, 5, 3124.
[92] Y. Kim, H. Yuk, R. Zhao, S. A. Chester, X. Zhao, Nature 2018, 558,
274.
[93] J. J. Zarate, H. Shea, IEEE Trans. Haptics 2017, 10, 106.
[94] T. N. Do, H. Phan, T.-Q. Nguyen, Y. Visell, Adv. Funct. Mater. 2018,
28, 1800244.
[95] R. Guo, L. Sheng, H. Gong, J. Liu, Sci. China: Technol. Sci. 2018, 61, 516.
[96] G. Mao, M. Drack, M. Karami-Mosammam, D. Wirthl,
T. Stockinger, R. Schwödiauer, M. Kaltenbrunner, Sci. Adv. 2020, 6,
eabc0251.
[97] H. Ishizuka, N. Miki, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 2017, 56, 06GN19.
[98] A. Jaimes, N. Sebe, Comput. Vision Image Understanding 2007, 108,
116.
[99] M. Amjadi, K. U. Kyung, I. Park, M. Sitti, Adv. Funct. Mater. 2016,
26, 1678.
[100] T. R. Ray, J. Choi, A. J. Bandodkar, S. Krishnan, P. Gutruf, L. Tian,
R. Ghaffari, J. A. Rogers, Chem. Rev. 2019, 119, 5461.
[101] M. Pawlaczyk, M. Lelonkiewicz, M. Wieczorowski,
Adv. Dermatology Allergol. 2013, 5, 302.
[102] J. A. Rogers, T. Someya, Y. Huang, Science 2010, 327, 1603.
[103] J. C. Yang, J. Mun, S. Y. Kwon, S. Park, Z. Bao, S. Park, Adv. Mater.
2019, 31, 1904765.
[104] M. Zhu, T. He, C. Lee, Appl. Phys. Rev. 2020, 7, 031305.
[105] D. J. Lipomi, J. A. Lee, M. Vosgueritchian, B. C. K. Tee,
J. A. Bolander, Z. Bao, Chem. Mater. 2012, 24, 373.
[106] X. Liu, J. Liu, S. Lin, X. Zhao, Mater. Today 2020, 36, 102.
[107] Y. Bai, B. Chen, F. Xiang, J. Zhou, H. Wang, Z. Suo, Appl. Phys.
Lett. 2014, 105, 151903.
[108] Z. Lei, Q. Wang, S. Sun, W. Zhu, P. Wu, Adv. Mater. 2017, 29,
1700321.
[109] S. Xu, D. M. Vogt, W.-H. Hsu, J. Osborne, T. Walsh, J. R. Foster,
S. K. Sullivan, V. C. Smith, A. W. Rousing, E. C. Goldfield,
R. J. Wood, Adv. Funct. Mater. 2019, 29, 1807058.
[110] M. D. Dickey, Adv. Mater. 2017, 29, 1606425.
[111] H. Wang, M. Totaro, L. Beccai, Adv. Sci. 2018, 5, 1800541.
[112] E. B. Secor, A. B. Cook, C. E. Tabor, M. C. Hersam, Adv. Electron.
Mater. 2018, 4, 1700483.
[113] S. Li, H. Zhao, R. F. Shepherd, MRS Bull. 2017, 42, 138.
[114] H. Zhao, J. Jalving, R. Huang, R. Knepper, A. Ruina, R. Shepherd,
IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag. 2016, 23, 55.
[115] S. Begej, IEEE J. Robot. Autom. 1988, 4, 472.
[116] O. J. A. Schueller, X. M. Zhao, G. M. Whitesides, S. P. Smith,
M. Prentiss, Adv. Mater. 1999, 11, 37.
[117] J. Missinne, S. Kalathimekkad, B. Van Hoe, E. Bosman,
J. Vanfleteren, G. Van Steenberge, Opt. Express 2014, 22, 4168.
[118] M. Kolle, A. Lethbridge, M. Kreysing, J. J. Baumberg, J. Aizenberg,
P. Vukusic, Adv. Mater. 2013, 25, 2239.
[119] A. Leber, B. Cholst, J. Sandt, N. Vogel, M. Kolle, Adv. Funct. Mater.
2018, 5, 1802629.
[120] J. D. Sandt, M. Moudio, J. K. Clark, J. Hardin, C. Argenti, M. Carty,
J. A. Lewis, M. Kolle, Adv. Healthcare Mater. 2018, 7, 1800293.
[121] H. Zhao, K. O’Brien, S. Li, R. F. Shepherd, Sci. Robot. 2016, 1,
eaai7529.
[122] I. M. Van Meerbeek, C. M. De Sa, R. F. Shepherd, Sci. Robot. 2018,
3, eaau2489.
[123] T. G. Thuruthel, Y. Ansari, E. Falotico, C. Laschi, Sci. Robot. 2018,
5, 149.
[124] A. D. Marchese, D. Rus, Int. J. Robot. Res. 2016, 35, 840.
Adv. Funct. Mater. 2021, 31, 2009364 2009364 (22 of 24)
www.afm-journal.de
[125] C. Duriez, in Proc. 2013 IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation,
IEEE, Karlsruhe, Germany 2013, pp. 3982–3987.
[126] L. Hines, K. Petersen, M. Sitti, Adv. Mater. 2016, 28, 3690.
[127] N. Farrow, N. Correll, presented at 2015 IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. on
Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), Vol. 2015, IEEE, Hamburg,
Germany 2015, pp. 2317–2323.
[128] M. Giorelli, F. Renda, M. Calisti, A. Arienti, G. Ferri, C. Laschi, IEEE
Trans. Robot. 2015, 31, 823.
[129] R. Reinhart, Z. Shareef, J. Steil, Sensors 2017, 17, 311.
[130] T. G. Thuruthel, E. Falotico, M. Manti, A. Pratesi, M. Cianchetti,
C. Laschi, Soft Robot. 2017, 4, 285.
[131] E. H. Skorina, W. Tao, F. Chen, M. Luo, C. D. Onal, presented at
2016 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation
(ICRA), Vol. 2016, IEEE, Stockholm, Sweden 2016, pp. 4997–5002.
[132] E. H. Skorina, M. Luo, C. D. Onal, Front. Robot. AI 2018, 5, 83.
[133] V. Falkenhahn, A. Hildebrandt, O. Sawodny, presented at 2014
American Control Conf., IEEE, Portland, OR 2014, pp. 4008–4013.
[134] H. A. Sonar, A. P. Gerratt, S. P. Lacour, J. Paik, Soft Robot. 2020, 7,
22.
[135] S. A. Manzano, P. Xu, K. Ly, R. Shepherd, N. Correll,
arXiv:2101.01139 2021.
[136] “CyberGlove Systems,” http://www.cyberglovesystems.com/
cybergrasp/ 2017.
[137] V. Sanchez, C. J. Walsh, R. J. Wood, Adv. Funct. Mater. 2021, 31,
2008278.
[138] C. Walsh, Nat. Rev. Mater. 2018, 3, 78.
[139] H. Xiong, X. Diao, Disabil. Rehabil. Assistive Technol. 2020, 15, 885.
[140] J. D. Sanjuan, A. D. Castillo, M. A. Padilla, M. C. Quintero,
E. E. Gutierrez, I. P. Sampayo, J. R. Hernandez, M. H. Rahman,
Robot. Autom. Syst. 2020, 126, 103445.
[141] “A glove powered by soft robotics to interact with virtual reality
environments”, https://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/pressrelease/a_glove_
powered_by_soft_robotics_to_interact_with_virtual_reality_
environme/ 2017, 1.
[142] C.-Y. Chu, R. M. Patterson, J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 2018, 15, 9.
[143] H. Zhao, R. Huang, R. F. Shepherd, in, Proc. 2016 IEEE Int. Conf.
on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), Vol. 2016, IEEE, Stockholm,
Sweden 2016, pp. 4008–4013.
[144] S. H. Collins, M. B. Wiggin, G. S. Sawicki, Nature 2015, 522, 212.
[145] M. Plooij, G. Mathijssen, P. Cherelle, D. Lefeber, B. Vanderborght,
IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag. 2015, 22, 106.
[146] R. Hinchet, H. Shea, Adv. Mater. Technol. 2020, 5, 1900895.
[147] G. Moy, C. Wagner, R. S. Fearing, in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on
Robotics and Automation (ICRA), Vol. 4, IEEE, San Francisco, CA
2000, pp. 3409–3415.
[148] H. S. Lee, H. Phung, D.-H. Lee, U. K. Kim, C. T. Nguyen, H. Moon,
J. C. Koo, J. Nam, H. R. Choi, Sens. Actuators, A 2014, 205, 191.
[149] I. M. Koo, K. Jung, J. C. Koo, J.-D. Nam, Y. K. Lee, H. R. Choi, IEEE
Trans. Robot. 2008, 24, 549.
[150] A. Marette, A. Poulin, N. Besse, S. Rosset, D. Briand, H. Shea,
Adv. Mater. 2017, 29, 1700880.
[151] S. Mun, S. Yun, S. Nam, S. K. Park, S. Park, B. J. Park, J. M. Lim,
K.-U. Kyung, IEEE Trans. Haptics 2018, 11, 15.
[152] H. Zhao, A. M. Hussain, A. Israr, D. M. Vogt, M. Duduta,
D. R. Clarke, R. J. Wood, Soft Robot. 2020, 7, 451.
[153] A. K. Han, S. Ji, D. Wang, M. R. Cutkosky, IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett.
2020, 5, 4021.
[154] E. Leroy, R. Hinchet, H. Shea, Adv. Mater. 2020, 32, 2002564.
[155] S. Schlatter, G. Grasso, S. Rosset, H. Shea, Adv. Intell. Syst. 2020,
2, 2000136.
[156] T. Thorsen, S. J. Maerkl, S. R.. Quake, Science 2002, 298, 580.
[157] A. Richter, G. Paschew, Adv. Mater. 2009, 21, 979.
[158] N. Besse, S. Rosset, J. J. Zarate, H. Shea, Adv. Mater. Technol. 2017,
2, 1700102.
[159] T. Yang, D. Xie, Z. Li, H. Zhu, Mater. Sci. Eng., R 2017, 115, 1.
© 2021 Wiley-VCH GmbH
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.afm-journal.de

[160] J. S. Heo, J. Eom, Y.-H. Kim, S. K. Park, Small 2018, 14, 1703034.
[161] V. Sanchez, C. J. Payne, D. J. Preston, J. T. Alvarez, J. C. Weaver,
A. T. Atalay, M. Boyvat, D. M. Vogt, R. J. Wood, G. M. Whitesides,
C. J. Walsh, Adv. Mater. Technol. 2020, 5, 2000383.
[162] J. Hu, H. Meng, G. Li, S. I. Ibekwe, Smart Mater. Struct. 2012, 21,
053001.
[163] J. Shi, S. Liu, L. Zhang, B. Yang, L. Shu, Y. Yang, M. Ren, Y. Wang,
J. Chen, W. Chen, Y. Chai, X. Tao, Adv. Mater. 2020, 32, 1901958.
[164] M. Wang, Z. Yan, T. Wang, P. Cai, S. Gao, Y. Zeng, C. Wan,
H. Wang, L. Pan, J. Yu, S. Pan, K. He, J. Lu, X. Chen, Nat. Electron.
2020, 3, 563.
[165] O. A. Araromi, M. A. Graule, K. L. Dorsey, S. Castellanos,
J. R. Foster, W.-H. Hsu, A. E. Passy, J. J. Vlassak, J. C. Weaver,
C. J. Walsh, R. J. Wood, Nature 2020, 587, 219.
[166] S. Lee, S. Franklin, F. A. Hassani, T. Yokota, M. O. G. Nayeem,
Y. Wang, R. Leib, G. Cheng, D. W. Franklin, T. Someya, Science
2020, 370, 966.
[167] S. M. Won, H. Wang, B. H. Kim, K. Lee, H. Jang, K. Kwon, M. Han,
K. E. Crawford, H. Li, Y. Lee, X. Yuan, S. B. Kim, Y. S. Oh, W. J. Jang,
J. Y. Lee, S. Han, J. Kim, X. Wang, Z. Xie, Y. Zhang, Y. Huang,
J. A. Rogers, ACS Nano 2019, 13, 10972.
[168] C. M. Boutry, M. Negre, M. Jorda, O. Vardoulis, A. Chortos,
O. Khatib, Z. Bao, Sci. Robot. 2018, 3, eaau6914.
[169] H. Guo, Y. J. Tan, G. Chen, Z. Wang, G. J. Susanto, H. H. See,
Z. Yang, Z. W. Lim, L. Yang, B. C. K. Tee, Nat. Commun. 2020, 11,
5747.
[170] H. Oh, G.-C. Yi, M. Yip, S. A. Dayeh, Sci. Adv. 2020, 6, eabd7795.
[171] T. Kim, S. Lee, T. Hong, G. Shin, T. Kim, Y.-L. Park, Sci. Robot.
2020, 5, eabc6878.
[172] I. You, D. G. Mackanic, N. Matsuhisa, J. Kang, J. Kwon, L. Beker,
J. Mun, W. Suh, T. Y. Kim, J. B. H. Tok, Z. Bao, U. Jeong, Science
2020, 370, 961.
[173] A. Leber, C. Dong, R. Chandran, T. D. Gupta, N. Bartolomei,
F. Sorin, Nat. Electron. 2020, 3, 316.
[174] H. Bai, S. Li, J. Barreiros, Y. Tu, C. R. Pollock, R. F. Shepherd,
Science 2020, 370, 848.
[175] M. Manti, V. Cacucciolo, M. Cianchetti, IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag.
2016, 23, 93.
[176] I. M. Van Meerbeek, B. C. M. Murray, J. W. Kim, S. S. Robinson,
P. X. Zou, M. N. Silberstein, R. F. Shepherd, Adv. Mater. 2016, 28,
2801.
[177] A. A. Stanley, A. M. Okamura, IEEE Trans. Haptics 2015, 8, 20.
[178] C. Larson, B. Peele, S. Li, S. Robinson, M. Totaro, L. Beccai,
B. Mazzolai, R. Shepherd, Science 2016, 351, 1071.
[179] S. Li, B. N. Peele, C. M. Larson, H. Zhao, R. F. Shepherd, Adv.
Mater. 2016, 28, 9770.
[180] C.-C. Kim, H.-H. Lee, K. H. Oh, J.-Y. Sun, Science 2016, 353,
682.
[181] C. Larson, J. Spjut, R. Knepper, R. Shepherd, Soft Robot. 2019, 6,
611.
[182] B. Peele, S. Li, C. Larson, J. Cortell, E. Habtour, R. Shepherd, Soft
Robot. 2019, 6, 142.
[183] S. S. Robinson, K. W. O’Brien, H. Zhao, B. N. Peele,
C. M. Larson, B. C. M. Murray, I. M. Van Meerbeek, S. N. Dunham,
R. F. Shepherd, Extreme Mech. Lett. 2015, 5, 47.
[184] “Make virtual reality feel real with true-contact haptics”, https://
haptx.com/virtual-reality/ 2021.
[185] “Most Advanced Full Body Haptic Suit – bHaptics TactSuit”,
https://www.bhaptics.com/tactsuit/tactsuit-x40/ 2021.
[186] “Teslasuit”, https://teslasuit.io/ 2021.
[187] S. Jadhav, V. Kannanda, B. Kang, M. T. Tolley, J. P. Schulze,
Electron. Imaging 2017, 2017, 19.
[188] K. Song, S. H. Kim, S. Jin, S. Kim, S. Lee, J.-S. Kim, J.-M. Park,
Y. Cha, Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 8988.
[189] S.-W. Kim, S. H. Kim, C. S. Kim, K. Yi, J.-S. Kim, B. J. Cho, Y. Cha,
Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 11403.
[190] J. Barreiros, H. Claure, B. Peele, O. Shapira, J. Spjut, D. Luebke,
M. Jung, R. Shepherd, IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. 2019, 4,
277.
[191] B. C. M. Murray, B. N. Peele, P. Xu, J. Spjut, O. Shapira, D. Luebke,
R. F. Shepherd, in Proc. 2018 IEEE Int. Conf. on Soft Robotics
(RoboSoft), IEEE, Livorno, Italy 2018, pp. 264–269.

Hedan Bai is a Ph.D. candidate in the Sibley School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
at Cornell University. She received her B.S. degree from Cornell University in 2016 in Mechanical
and Aerospace Engineering and Operations Research and Information Engineering. Her research
focuses on the design and fabrication of stretchable fiber-optic sensors.

Adv. Funct. Mater. 2021, 31, 2009364 2009364 (23 of 24) © 2021 Wiley-VCH GmbH
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.afm-journal.de

Shuo Li received B.S. degree (2014) from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
M.S. degree (2016), and Ph.D. degree (2020) from Cornell University, all in Materials Science
and Engineering. He is currently a postdoctoral fellow in the Querrey Simpson Institute for
Bioelectronics at Northwestern University.

Robert F. Shepherd is an associate professor in the Sibley School of Mechanical and Aerospace
Engineering at Cornell University. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign in 2010 and conducted postdoctoral research at Harvard University from 2010 to
2012. He is the director of the Organic Robotics Lab (ORL), where the primary research areas are
bioinspired robotics, biomedical robots, haptic interfaces, soft sensors and displays, embodied
energy, and advanced manufacturing.

Adv. Funct. Mater. 2021, 31, 2009364 2009364 (24 of 24) © 2021 Wiley-VCH GmbH