skip to main content
10.1145/3374920.3374969acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesteiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
abstract

Future InBodied: A Framework for Inbodied Interaction Design

Published:09 February 2020Publication History

ABSTRACT

Inbodied interaction is an emerging area in HCI that aligns how the body performs internally with our designs to support and optimise human performance. Inbodied Interaction therefore relies on knowledge of our physiology/neurology/kinesiology etc, to blend with HCI methodology. Recent, Inbodied Interaction workshops and summer schools, have been designed to share models of these processes to accelerate access to these areas of specialisation for HCI researchers. As such this one-day-hands-on-studio presents an extension of this work - an Inbodied interaction framework - to (1) make inbodied sciences accessible and (2) usable for HCI practitioners when it comes to crafting experiences, whether for health, performance or play. Our framework also offers a design alternative to cyborging futures that seek to augment human performance, Inbodied Interaction seeks to help discover and optimise human potential. As such, in this studio, we will explore where inbodied interaction fits in the narrative of our future bodies.

References

  1. Andres, et al. 2020. Introducing Peripheral Awareness as a Neurological State for Human-Computer Integration. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in computing systems.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Andres, et al. 2018. "I Had Super-Powers When eBike Riding" Towards Understanding the Design of Integrated Exertion. Proceedings of the 2018 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play. 10.1145/3242671.3242688Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Andres, et al. 2019. The Body as Starting Point: Applying inside Body Knowledge for Inbodied Design. In Proceedings of Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 10.1145/3290607.3299023Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Cassilhas, et al. 2012. Spatial Memory Is Improved by Aerobic and Resistance Exercise through Divergent Molecular Mechanisms. Neuroscience 202, 309--317. neuroscience.2011.11.029Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. The British Council. 2017. The English Effect. https://bit.ly/2PzRY0FGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Haraway. 1990. A Manifesto for Cyborgs: Science, Technology, and Socialist Feminism in the 1980s. Feminism/postmodernism, 190--233. 10.1080/08164649.1987.9961538Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Licklider. 1960. Man-Computer Symbiosis. IRE transactions on human factors in electronics. 1109/THFE2.1960.4503259Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. van den Hoven, et al. 2017. The Body as Starting Point: Exploring inside and around Body Boundaries for Body Centric Computing Design. In Proceedings of SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 10.1145/3170427.3170638Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Mueller, et al. 2020. Towards Designing Bodily Integrated Play. In Proceedings of TEI Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Patibanda, et al. 2020. Motor Memory in HCI. In Proceedings of Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Schraefel, et al. 2020. Inbodied Interaction 102: Understanding the Selection and Application of Non-Invasive Neuro-Physio Measurements for Inbodied Interaction Design. In Proceedings of Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Schraefel. 2019. In5: A Model for Inbodied Interaction. In Proceedings of Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 3312977, 1--6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3290607.3312977Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Tabor, et al. 2020. 3rd Body as a Starting Point Workshop: Exploring Inbodied Interaction Themes. In Proceedings of Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Wagner. 2014. Using a Kinesthetic Learning Strategy to Engage Nursing Student Thinking, Enhance Retention, and Improve Critical Thinking. Journal of Nursing Education 53, 6, 348--351. 10.3928/01484834--20140512-02Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Yang, et al. 2014. Sleep Promotes Branch-Specific Formation of Dendritic Spines after Learning. Science 344, 6188, 1173--1178. 10.1126/science.1249098Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Future InBodied: A Framework for Inbodied Interaction Design

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      TEI '20: Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction
      February 2020
      978 pages
      ISBN:9781450361071
      DOI:10.1145/3374920
      • General Chairs:
      • Elise van den Hoven,
      • Lian Loke,
      • Program Chairs:
      • Orit Shaer,
      • Jelle van Dijk,
      • Andrew Kun

      Copyright © 2020 Owner/Author

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 9 February 2020

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • abstract

      Acceptance Rates

      TEI '20 Paper Acceptance Rate37of132submissions,28%Overall Acceptance Rate353of1,231submissions,29%

      Upcoming Conference

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader