ACM Digital Library home
ACM home
Advanced Search
10.1145/3544548.3581480acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open Access

Counterventions: a reparative reflection on interventionist HCI

CHI '23: Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing SystemsApril 2023Article No.: 653Pages 1–11https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3581480
Published:19 April 2023Publication History
  • 0citation
  • 190
  • Downloads
Metrics
Total Citations0
Total Downloads190
Last 12 Months190
Last 6 weeks190
  • PDF

CHI '23: Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Counterventions: a reparative reflection on interventionist HCI
Pages 1–11
PreviousChapterNextChapter

ABSTRACT

Research in HCI applied to clinical interventions relies on normative assumptions about which bodies and minds are healthy, valuable, and desirable. To disrupt this normalizing drive in HCI, we define a “counterventional approach” to intervention technology design informed by critical scholarship and community perspectives. This approach is meant to unsettle normative assumptions of intervention as urgent, necessary, and curative. We begin with a historical overview of intervention in HCI and its critics. Then, through reparative readings of past HCI projects in autism intervention, we illustrate the emergent principles of a counterventional approach and how it may manifest research outcomes that are fundamentally divergent from dominant approaches. We then explicate characteristics of “counterventions” – projects that aim to contest dominant sociotechnical paradigms through privileging community and participants in research inquiry, interaction design, and analysis of outcomes. These divergent research imaginaries have transformative implications for how interventionist HCI might be conducted in future.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

3544548.3581480-talk-video.mp4

Pre-recorded Video Presentation

mp4

97.5 MB

Play streamDownload

References

  1. Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie. 2009. The Danger of a Single Story. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/chimamanda_ngozi_adichie_the_danger_of_a_single_storyGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Kassiane Asasumasu. 2012. AUTISTIFYING MY HABITAT!! Radical Neurodivergence Speaking. Retrieved April 15, 2019 from http://timetolisten.blogspot.com/2012/08/autistifying-my-habitat.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Liam Bannon, Jeffrey Bardzell, and Susanne Bødker. 2018. Reimagining participatory design. Interactions 26, 1: 26–32. https://doi.org/10.1145/3292015Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Jeffrey Bardzell and Shaowen Bardzell. 2013. What is “critical” about critical design? In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’13), 3297–3306. https://doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2466451Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Shaowen Bardzell. 2010. Feminist HCI: Taking Stock and Outlining an Agenda for Design.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Shaowen Bardzell. 2014. Utopias of participation: design, criticality, and emancipation. In Proceedings of the 13th Participatory Design Conference on Short Papers, Industry Cases, Workshop Descriptions, Doctoral Consortium papers, and Keynote abstracts - PDC ’14 - volume 2, 189–190. https://doi.org/10.1145/2662155.2662213Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Shaowen Bardzell and Jeffrey Bardzell. 2011. Towards a feminist HCI methodology: Social science, feminism, and HCI. In Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings, 675–684. https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979041Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Cynthia L Bennett and Daniela K Rosner. 2019. The Promise of Empathy: Design, Disability, and Knowing the “Other.” In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI ’19, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300528Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Monique Botha and David M. Frost. 2020. Extending the Minority Stress Model to Understand Mental Health Problems Experienced by the Autistic Population. Society and Mental Health 10, 1: 20–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156869318804297Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. LouAnne E. Boyd, Saumya Gupta, Sagar B. Vikmani, Carlos M. Gutierrez, Junxiang Yang, Erik Linstead, and Gillian R. Hayes. 2018. vrSocial: Toward Immersive Therapeutic VR Systems for Children with Autism. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’18), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173778Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. LouAnne E. Boyd, Xinlong Jiang, and Gillian R. Hayes. 2017. ProCom: Designing and Evaluating a Mobile and Wearable System to Support Proximity Awareness for People with Autism. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI ’17, 2865–2877. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3026014Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. LouAnne E. Boyd, Alejandro Rangel, Helen Tomimbang, Andrea Conejo-Toledo, Kanika Patel, Monica Tentori, and Gillian R. Hayes. 2016. SayWAT: Augmenting Face-to-Face Conversations for Adults with Autism. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI ’16, 4872–4883. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858215Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Sarah Cassidy, Louise Bradley, Rebecca Shaw, and Simon Baron-Cohen. 2018. Risk markers for suicidality in autistic adults. Molecular Autism 9, 1: 42. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13229-018-0226-4Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Sarah Cassidy, Paul Bradley, Janine Robinson, Carrie Allison, Meghan McHugh, and Simon Baron-Cohen. 2014. Suicidal ideation and suicide plans or attempts in adults with asperger's syndrome attending a specialist diagnostic clinic: A clinical cohort study. The Lancet Psychiatry 1, 2: 142–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(14)70248-2Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Michela Cozza, Linda Tonolli, and Vincenzo D'Andrea. 2016. Subversive participatory design: Reflections on a case study. In Proceedings of the 14th Participatory Design Conference: Short Papers, Interactive Exhibitions, Workshops - Volume 2, 53–56. https://doi.org/10.1145/2948076.2948085Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Peter Dalsgaard and Kim Halskov. 2010. Innovation in participatory design. In Proceedings of the 11th Biennial Participatory Design Conference on - PDC ’10, 281. https://doi.org/10.1145/1900441.1900508Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. DART. 2019. Diversity in Social Intelligence: Summer 2019 update. University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Christian Dindler and Ole Sejer Iversen. 2014. Relational Expertise in Participatory Design. Proceedings of the 13th Participatory Design Conference on Research Papers - PDC ’14. https://doi.org/10.1145/2661435Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Batya Friedman. 1996. Value-Sensitive Design. Interactions of the ACM 3, 6: 17–23.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Colin M. Gray and Shruthi Sai Chivukula. 2019. Ethical Mediation in UX Practice. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300408Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Christina N. Harrington, Sheena Erete, and Anne Marie Piper. 2019. Deconstructing community-based collaborative design: Towards more equitable participatory design engagements. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3, CSCW. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359318Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Gillian R. Hayes. 2011. The relationship of action research to human-computer interaction. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 18, 3: 15:1-15:20. https://doi.org/10.1145/1993060.1993065Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Brent Hecht, Lauren Wilcox, Jeffrey P. Bigham, Johannes Schöning, Ehsan Hoque, Jason Ernst, Yonatan Bisk, Lana Yarosh, Bushra Amjam, and Cathy Wu. 2018. It's Time to Do Something: Mitigating the Negative Impacts of Computing Through a Change to the Peer Review Process. ACM Future of Computing. Retrieved January 6, 2019 from https://acm-fca.org/2018/03/29/negativeimpacts/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Liz Jackson, Alex Haagaard, and Rua M. Williams. 2022. Disability Dongle. CASTAC Platypus Blog. Retrieved January 26, 2023 from https://blog.castac.org/2022/04/disability-dongle/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Alison Kafer. 2013. Feminist, Queer, Crip. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN. Retrieved March 15, 2018 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt16gz79xGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. F. D. Kennedy, J. C. Wright, M. J. Anderson, and Phillip Cooley. 1969. Simulation in mental health planning. Proceedings of the fourth annual conference on Applications of simulation. https://doi.org/10.5555/800240.807184Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. O. George Kennedy. 1973. The use of computer simulation in health care facility design. In Proceedings - Winter Simulation Conference, 172–198. https://doi.org/10.1145/800293.811575Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Eunjung Kim. 2017. Curative Violence: Rehabilitating Disability, Gender, and Sexuality in Modern Korea. Duke University Press, Durham and London.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Ann Light. 2011. HCI as heterodoxy: Technologies of identity and the queering of interaction with computers✩. Interacting with Computers 23, 5: 430–438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2011.02.002Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Kelly Mack and Emma McDonnell. 2021. What do we mean by accessibility research? a literature survey of accessibility papers in chi and assets from 1994 to 2019. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445412Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Jennifer Mankoff, Gillian R. Hayes, and Devva Kasnitz. 2010. Disability studies as a source of critical inquiry for the field of assistive technology. In Proceedings of the 12th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility - ASSETS ’10, 3. https://doi.org/10.1145/1878803.1878807Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. J. Milsum, D. Uyeno, I. Vertinsky, and H. Will. 1971. Vancouver regional health planning model. In Proceedings - Winter Simulation Conference, 462–473. https://doi.org/10.1145/800294.811473Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Cal Montgomery. 2019. Little Red Wagons. Cal's Blog. Retrieved February 11, 2022 from https://montgomerycal.wordpress.com/2019/12/29/little-red-wagons/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Michael J. Muller and Sarah Kuhn. 1993. Participatory design. Communications of the ACM 36, 6: 24–28. https://doi.org/10.1145/153571.255960Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Brenda Smith Myles and Richard L. Simpson. 2001. Understanding the Hidden Curriculum: An Essential Social Skill for Children and Youth with Asperger Syndrome. Intervention in School and Clinic 36, 5: 279–286. https://doi.org/10.1177/105345120103600504Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Ihudiya Finda Ogbonnaya-Ogburu, Angela D.R. Smith, Alexandra To, and Kentaro Toyama. 2020. Critical Race Theory for HCI. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’20), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376392Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Esther O. Ohito and Shenila Khoja-Moolji. 2018. Reparative readings: re-claiming black feminised bodies as sites of somatic pleasures and possibilities. Gender and Education 30, 3: 277–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2016.1225014Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Michael Oliver. 1990. The politics of disablement: A sociological approach. Palgrave Macmillan. Retrieved February 15, 2022 from https://lib.ugent.be/catalog/rug01:000362511Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Sushil K. Oswal. 2014. Participatory design: barriers and possibilities. Communication Design Quarterly 2, 3: 14–19. https://doi.org/10.1145/2644448.2644452Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Lucy Pei and Bonnie Nardi. 2019. We Did It Right, But It Was Still Wrong: Toward Assets-Based Design. In Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’19), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290607.3310434Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Elizabeth Pellicano, Adam Dinsmore, and Tony Charman. 2014. What should autism research focus upon? Community views and priorities from the United Kingdom. Autism 18, 7: 756–770. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361314529627Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. Suvi Pihkala and Helena Karasti. 2016. Reflexive Engagement-Enacting Reflexivity in Design and for “Participation in Plural.” In Proceedings of the 14th Participatory Design Conference: Full papers - Volume 1. Retrieved June 13, 2021 from http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2940299.2940302Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Donna Riley. 2017. Rigor/Us: Building Boundaries and Disciplining Diversity with Standards of Merit. Engineering Studies 9, 3: 249–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/19378629.2017.1408631Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. Camille Robcis. 2020. Frantz Fanon, institutional psychotherapy, and the decolonization of psychiatry. Journal of the History of Ideas 81, 2: 303–325. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhi.2020.0009Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  45. Jennifer A. Rode. 2011. Reflexivity in digital anthropology. In Proceedings of the 2011 annual conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI ’11, 123–132. https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1978961Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Jennifer A. Rode. 2011. A theoretical agenda for feminist HCI. Interacting with Computers 23, 5: 393–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2011.04.005Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Claudia M. Roebers. 2017. Executive function and metacognition: Towards a unifying framework of cognitive self-regulation. Developmental Review 45: 31–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.DR.2017.04.001Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. Noah J Sasson, Daniel J Faso, Jack Nugent, Sarah Lovell, Daniel P Kennedy, and Ruth B Grossman. 2017. Neurotypical Peers are Less Willing to Interact with Those with Autism based on Thin Slice Judgments. Scientific Reports 7, 1: 40700. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep40700Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. Noah J Sasson and Kerrianne E Morrison. 2019. First impressions of adults with autism improve with diagnostic disclosure and increased autism knowledge of peers. Autism 23, 1: 50–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361317729526Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  50. Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick. 1997. Paranoid Reading and Reparative Reading; or, You're So Paranoid, You Probably Think This Introduction is About You EVE KOSOFSKY SEDGWICK. https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822382478-001Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Paul T. Shattuck, Sarah Carter Narendorf, Benjamin Cooper, Paul R. Sterzing, Mary Wagner, and Julie Lounds Taylor. 2012. Postsecondary Education and Employment Among Youth With an Autism Spectrum Disorder. PEDIATRICS 129, 6: 1042–1049. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2011-2864Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  52. Lawrence D. Shriberg, Rhea Paul, Jane L. McSweeny, Ami Klin, Donald J. Cohen, and Fred R. Volkmar. 2001. Speech and Prosody Characteristics of Adolescents and Adults With High-Functioning Autism and Asperger Syndrome. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 44, 5: 1097–1115. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2001/087)Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  53. Katta Spiel, Christopher Frauenberger, Os Keyes, and Geraldine Fitzpatrick. 2019. Agency of Autistic Children in Technology Research—A Critical Literature Review. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 26, 6: 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1145/3344919Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. Katta Spiel and Kathrin Gerling. 2020. The Purpose of Play: How HCI Games Research Fails Neurodivergent Populations. Transactions in Computer Human Interaction preprint. https://doi.org/10.1145/nnnnnnn.nnnnnnnGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Katta Spiel, Laura Malinverni, Judith Good, and Christopher Frauenberger. 2017. Participatory Evaluation with Autistic Children. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI ’17, 5755–5766. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025851Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. stinkyzen. 2019. Elements of Executive Function: Road Trip Without a Map. NeuroClastic. Retrieved February 11, 2022 from https://neuroclastic.com/elements-of-executive-functioning-dysfunction/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. Joseph A. Stramondo. 2019. The Distinction Between Curative and Assistive Technology. Science and Engineering Ethics 25, 4: 1125–1145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-018-0058-9Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  58. Patricia Stuelke. 2021. The Ruse of Repair: US Neoliberal Empire and the Turn from Critique. Duke University Press, Durham, NC.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. Yngve Sundblad. 2011. UTOPIA: Participatory design from Scandinavia to the world. In HiNC3, IFIP AICT 350. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 176–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23315-9_20Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. Tanya Titchkosky. 2007. Reading and Writing Disability Differently: The Textured Life of Embodiment. University of Toronto Press. https://doi.org/10.3138/9781442683839Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. Tanya Titchkosky. 2011. The Question of Access: Disability, Space, Meaning. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, CA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  62. Ben Wasserman, Derek Prate, Bryce Purnell, Alex Muse, Kaitlyn Abdo, Kendra Day, and LouAnne Boyd. 2019. vrSensory: Designing Inclusive Virtual Games with Neurodiverse Children. In Extended Abstracts of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play Companion Extended Abstracts (CHI PLAY ’19 Extended Abstracts), 755–761. https://doi.org/10.1145/3341215.3356277Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  63. Susan W. White, Angela Scarpa, Caitlin M. Conner, Brenna B. Maddox, and Saray Bonete. 2015. Evaluating Change in Social Skills in High-Functioning Adults With Autism Spectrum Disorder Using a Laboratory-Based Observational Measure. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities 30, 1: 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088357614539836Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  64. Rua M. Williams and LouAnne E. Boyd. 2019. Prefigurative Politics and Passionate Witnessing. In The 21st International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility - ASSETS ’19, 262–266. https://doi.org/10.1145/3308561.3355617Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  65. Rua M. Williams and Juan E. Gilbert. 2019. “Nothing about us without us”: Transforming participatory research and ethics in human systems engineering. In Advancing Diversity Inclusion and Social Justice Through Human Systems Engineering, Rod Roscoe and Erin Chiou (eds.). Taylor & Francis Group.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  66. Rua M. Williams and Juan E. Gilbert. 2019. Cyborg Perspectives on Computing Research Reform. In Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI EA ’19, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290607.3310421Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  67. Rua M. Williams and Juan E. Gilbert. 2020. Perseverations of the academy: A survey of wearable technologies applied to autism intervention. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 143: 102485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2020.102485Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  68. Rua M. Williams, Kathryn E. Ringland, Amelia Gibson, Mahender Mandala, Arne Maibaum, and Tiago Guerreiro. 2021. Articulations toward a Crip HCI. Interactions 28, 28–37.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  69. Rua M. Williams, Simone Smarr, Diandra Prioleau, and Juan E. Gilbert. 2021. Oh No, Not Another Trolley! On the Need for a Co-Liberative Consciousness in CS Pedagogy. IEEE Transactions on Technology and Society: 1–1. https://doi.org/10.1109/TTS.2021.3084913Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  70. Rua Mae Williams. 2019. Metaeugenics and Metaresistance: from manufacturing the ‘includeable body’ to walking away from the broom closet. Canadian Journal of Children's Rights / Revue canadienne des droits des enfants 6, 1: 60–77. https://doi.org/10.22215/cjcr.v6i1.1976Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  71. Jacob O. Wobbrock, Krzysztof Z. Gajos, Shaun K. Kane, and Gregg C. Vanderheiden. 2018. Ability-based design. Communications of the ACM 61, 6: 62–71. https://doi.org/10.1145/3148051Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  72. Jacob O. Wobbrock, Shaun K. Kane, Krzysztof Z. Gajos, Susumu Harada, and Jon Froehlich. 2011. Ability-Based Design: Concept, Principles and Examples. ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing 3, 3: 9:1-9:27. https://doi.org/10.1145/1952383.1952384Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  73. Anon Ymous, Os Keyes, Rua M Williams, Judith Good, Eva Hornecker, and Cynthia L Bennett. 2020. “I am just terrified of my future”-Epistemic Violence in Disability Related Technology Research. In Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1145/3334480.3381828Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Counterventions: a reparative reflection on interventionist HCI

            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

            Full Access

            Get this Publication

            • Article Metrics

              • Downloads (Last 12 months)190
              • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)190

              Other Metrics

              View Author Metrics

            PDF Format

            View or Download as a PDF file.

            PDF

            eReader

            View online with eReader.

            eReader

            HTML Format

            View this article in HTML Format .

            View HTML Format
            View Table of Contents
            About Cookies On This Site

            We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

            Learn more

            Got it!