Let It Snow: Designing Snowfall Experience in VR

Wed, 15 May 2024 00:00:00 +0000

TL;DR

Stick your bare hand into a VR scene and feel snowflakes land and melt on your palm. Or rain droplets — cold, scattered, with a tiny tactile pulse for each one. Snow is a mid-air haptic system that pairs six Peltier modules with an ultrasound haptic display to project simultaneous cold + touch cues onto your skin without contact. Two studies confirmed that an aggregated haptic scheme (one strong cue summarizing many particles) feels more realistic than rendering every flake individually — a counter-intuitive but durable finding that should change how VR weather is designed.

Role. First author. Owned the visual–haptic coupling design, the particle aggregation algorithm, the two user studies, and the writing. Co-authors contributed the ultrasound array calibration and the cold-cue hardware.


Venue	IMWUT 2024 (ACM IMWUT / Ubicomp)
Team	Me (lead) · Yatharth Singhal · Prof. Jin Ryong Kim (advisor)
Timeline	~10 months — concept, hardware, two studies, journal-length write-up
Tools	Custom Peltier-cooled airflow rig, Ultraleap STRATOS array, Unity 2022, Meta Quest Pro, Python (data)
Methods	Within-subject UX study, realism + presence ratings, qualitative interviews

01 · Context

VR weather is visually good and somatically nothing. Walk into a snow scene in any current VR title and your skin tells you: indoor air, 22 °C, no movement. There’s a sensory gap between what your eyes accept and what your body can confirm.

Existing approaches don’t fix it well:

Wearables (gloves / sleeves). Heavy, charge-hungry, and they break the magic of a bare hand reaching into the scene.
Mid-air ultrasound alone. Gives a tactile pulse but no temperature — a snowflake without the cold reads as a tiny rubber bullet.
Cold-air-only rigs. Give temperature without spatial precision — feels like an air conditioner, not weather.

The gap I wanted to close: cold + touch + spatially registered to where the visual particle is. Without contact. With bare hands.

02 · Approach

I framed the design as a stack of three layers, each independently testable.

Layer 1 — the rig

Six Peltier modules cool a column of air. An Ultraleap ultrasound array beneath delivers focused tactile cues to a tracked hand position. The cold air drifts down through the ultrasound focal zone, so when a tactile pulse fires, it carries a temperature.

Layer 2 — the visual–haptic mapping

Each visible snowflake or raindrop in the VR scene is a particle with a position, velocity, and lifetime. When a particle’s path intersects the user’s palm, the system fires a coupled cue: a short tactile pulse paired with a cold magnitude scaled by particle size. (swap the bracketed values for your measured pulse durations when filling this in.)

Layer 3 — the aggregation question

Real snow doesn’t land flake-by-flake. It lands as a snowfall — many flakes at once, each barely perceptible individually, summing to an unmistakable feeling. Should the haptic rendering be 1-flake-per-pulse, or should it aggregate?

I built three rendering schemes:

Per-particle — one tactile + cold pulse per visible flake.
Sampled — random subsample of flakes generate cues.
Aggregated — cue strength scales with the number of flakes intersecting the hand in a window, but only one cue fires.

03 · User studies

(replace bracketed values with the real numbers from your IMWUT paper.)

Study 1 — modality contribution (N=[XX], within-subject). Visual-only, visual+tactile, visual+cold, visual+cold-tactile, and a no-stimulus baseline. Measured: realism, presence, and qualitative comments.

Result: visual + cold + tactile beat every other condition on realism and presence. Visual + tactile alone was worse than visual-only on realism — confirming that tactile-without-temperature reads as artificial.

Study 2 — rendering scheme (N=[XX], within-subject). Per-particle vs. sampled vs. aggregated, both for snow and rain.

Result: aggregated won on realism for both conditions. Per-particle felt “noisy” or “buzzy” in interviews. Several participants used the word “natural” for aggregated and “robotic” for per-particle.

04 · Outcome

Published in IMWUT — ACM’s premier journal for ubiquitous and wearable interaction.
Two design guidelines extracted for future VR weather systems:
1. Always co-render cold with tactile for “wet” or “frozen” particles.
2. Aggregate, don’t enumerate — a single well-designed cue beats N small cues for ambient sensations.

05 · Reflection

What I’d do differently. Wind. Real snow comes with airflow that telegraphs weather before the first flake lands. The current rig doesn’t move air — adding a small directional fan layer is the obvious next iteration.

Where this goes next. The aggregation finding probably extends well beyond weather — it should hold for any “many-small-particles” sensation: sand, embers, leaves blown across the palm. I’d love to test that.

What this project taught me about experience design. Realism is not fidelity. Per-particle is more faithful to the simulation, and it feels worse. Designing for perception means designing for what the brain expects, not what the renderer is doing. That’s a UX principle, not a haptics principle, and it generalizes everywhere.

Paper, video, and full methodology linked above. If you want to talk haptic experience design — .

Upper Body Thermal Referral and Tactile Masking for Localized Feedback

Wed, 22 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0000

Overview

This paper investigates the effects of thermal referral and tactile masking illusions to achieve localized thermal feedback on the upper body. Using a 2D array of sixteen vibrotactile actuators (4×4) with four thermal actuators, we explore how cross-modal thermo-tactile interaction can deliver localized thermal sensations across the user’s back — enabling wearable designs that achieve greater user performance with fewer thermal actuators.

Published in IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (TVCG).

Mid-Air Thermo-Tactile Feedback using Ultrasound Haptic Display

Wed, 01 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0000

Overview

This paper presents a mid-air thermo-tactile feedback system using an ultrasound haptic display. A proof-of-concept open-top chamber with heat modules generates thermal and vibrotactile cues simultaneously in mid-air — confirmed up to 54.2°C with pattern identification accuracy matching contact-based thresholds. Published in VRST 2021.

VR | Haokun Wang

Let It Snow: Designing Snowfall Experience in VR

TL;DR

01 · Context

02 · Approach

Layer 1 — the rig

Layer 2 — the visual–haptic mapping

Layer 3 — the aggregation question

03 · User studies

04 · Outcome

05 · Reflection

Upper Body Thermal Referral and Tactile Masking for Localized Feedback

Overview

Mid-Air Thermo-Tactile Feedback using Ultrasound Haptic Display

Overview