Skip to content
Publicly Available Published by Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag November 14, 2018

Embedded Computation versus Embodied Interaction: Connected Objects for Connected Thinking

  • Fabian Hemmert

    Fabian Hemmert is a professor for Interface and User Experience Design at the University of Wuppertal, Germany.

    EMAIL logo
    , Elizabeth Bradford

    Elizabeth Bradford is an Industrial Design student at the University of Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.

    , Erik Caetano

    Erik Caetano is an Industrial Design student at the Pontificia Universidade Catolica do Parana in Curitiba, Brazil.

    , Friedrich Kegel

    Friedrich Kegel is an Industrial Design student at the University of Wuppertal, Germany.

    , Eva Licht

    Eva Licht is an Industrial Design student at the University of Wuppertal, Germany.

    and Marco Höwer

    Marco Höwer is an Industrial Design student at the University of Wuppertal, Germany.

From the journal i-com

Abstract

What will future creativity-based work in collaboration with ubiquitous, AI-driven systems be like? In this paper, we argue that following a ‘tangible interaction’ approach can be beneficial in this context. We describe six connected objects that illustrate how the quality of future creative work could be designed. The objects aim to shape embedded computation in ways that support embodied interaction. They include a place for sacrificing one’s phone, an olfactory calendar, a reader/writer for cloud data in everyday objects, a concrete-based data logger, a slot machine for recombining old ideas into new ones, and a dimmer for artificial intelligence. We summarize the results of a critical reflection of the prototypes in an argument for designing interactions that foster collaborative creative processes between embodied humans in a world of embedded computation.

1 A Speculative Scenario

It is the year 20XX – a potential, near future. Sally works at a creative agency. Together with her colleague, Thomas, she is working on a new campaign for a bike-sharing company.

It is Monday morning, Sally arrives at the office. Recently, a new ambient artificial intelligence (AAI) system was installed in the office, designed to help her and her colleagues to creatively collaborate with each other. To log in to the system, Sally drops off her phone at the Phone Sacrifice. The system recognizes her phone, authenticates with the server and synchronizes her field notes and photos to the AAI’s database. Sally had taken and tagged a series of inspirational photos on a weekend trip. These photos are automatically downloaded from her phone and projected to the office’s interactive wall.

Thomas arrives, also dropping off his phone – he just finished reading some articles about worldwide bike sharing trends. He had marked some parts in the articles, which, once he drops off his phone, also appear on the office’s interactive wall.

Sally and Thomas enjoy their ‘distraction-free’ time, discussing the results of their research and associating trends and pictures on the office’s interactive wall. All of a sudden, Thomas smells something. ‘I think we should move on to concept creation, or we might fall behind schedule...’, he says – the office’s Scent Schedule had started to vaporize marker ink, which created a ‘sketching’ atmosphere to guide the activities of the team, in accordance with the project schedule.

Sally remembers some inspirational photos of wooden furniture from another project that might fit right into the current discussion. As she really liked these photos back then, she gave them a special place: a small, wooden toy boat that her father had built with her when she was a child. It had always been her companion, and she kept it on her desk. She places the boat on the Personal Data Objects reader/writer device, which immediately loads the photos from the AAI’s database, and projects them floatingly on the wall.

After lunch, Sally and Thomas decide to try the new Slot Machine that was installed in the office. Sally pulls the lever: ‘Bike lock – for kids – based on voice’ the system randomly combines a topic from their project with a target group and a technology. ‘Interesting – a bike lock for kids that they can’t lose the key to... I have to think about that!’, she says. ‘Well, there you go!’ – Thomas just noticed that the ‘Concrete Data’ clock just had made a mark in its concrete disk. ‘That only happens when the AAI thinks that a really good idea was just uttered!’, Thomas excitedly explains. The system was installed as a motivational tool, marking important moments in the project by setting them in stone.

‘You know what?’, Sally looks over to Thomas, ‘We’re going to turn up the artificial intelligence now.’ She walks up to the Dimmable AI control panel and sets the intelligence level of the system, which had been set to ‘Assistant’ until now, to ‘Coworker’. ‘Hello, Sally and Thomas.’, the AAI joins their conversation. ‘I think you’re on to some interesting concepts here. Why don’t we brainstorm together?’

2 Introduction

In its early years, HCI widely conceptualized users similar to computers, as ‘information processors’ [6]. This is reflected in system designs that focus on information interchange between the human and the computer, using text for input and output. Compared to today’s systems, computers at that time were also considerably larger. Technological advancements, especially towards increasingly smaller computers, brought along the field of embedded computation, which enabled computers to be integrated into everyday objects. Today, this development is also observable in the ‘internet of things’ (IoT). At the same time, another concept of the human user developed in the HCI community: a concept of humans as bodily feeling and acting, as socially interwoven beings. A frequently used term for this new focus of HCI is embodied interaction. Combining embedded technology with embodied users appears to be a promising approach. Great research advancements in this area underline this potential.

Unfortunately, other recent research might indicate that embedded computation can also be at odds with embodied interaction: for example, our attention can be overly drawn to our mobile phones [36]. The psychologically addictive potential of networked devices is being demonstrated in various fields of research [22]. Computers have become parts of people’s everyday interactions, but not always in a positive way: they can interrupt social activities, they can undermine relationships, and they can prevent conversation – rather than enabling it [42].

Despite being seamlessly embedded from a human-computer interaction perspective, such systems could have a profound, and sometimes negative, impact on our human-human interactions. It appears that solely embedding the technology is not enough: the interaction might need to be embedded into social practice, too. Here, great potential could be found in tangibility. This is especially relevant for areas of interaction that do require the collaboration of humans with humans, as well as of humans with computers. This is, for example, the case in computer-supported creative processes. As van Dijk et al. note, such processes should be conceptualized as a practice of embodied cognition [50], in which the role of the computer needs to be carefully designed. Unfortunately, only few design research projects follow this approach. In this paper, we describe the results from a critical design research project that assesses this issue, aiming to design representational embodiments of digital data in ways that suit the experiential embodiment of the human user [18].

The design process was structured as follows. In an initial research phase, existing projects in human-computer collaboration, especially in the context of creativity, were reviewed. In the following potential identification phase, unused potentials were identified and, in the following concept development phase, concretized. They were unified in a consolidation phase. Based upon these final concepts, the resulting prototypes were designed in the final product design phase. The project was conducted at the University of Wuppertal, where the Interface Lab is being established in the Industrial Design department.

3 Related Work

Several research projects investigate our future everyday interactions with interactive systems. In this section, we provide an overview over activities that inspired our work and thus lay its foundation.

3.1 Distraction Management

Unplanned use of smartphones has been subject of various research activities, indicating that it can lead to a loss of experience of time [32] and that interruptions may have severe effects on productivity [38], human relationships [48] and happiness [39], [31]. Decreases in cognitive capacity have been suggested to result from the mere presence of a smartphone [52]. HCI research in this area has investigated how to detect points in time at which users are likely to be less disturbed by a notification [35], [43], as well as how to design for less distractive interactions with mobile devices [9], [8], [1].

3.2 Olfactory Actuation

Olfaction has been considered to be a promising approach to ambiently display information [53], which has led to research on influencing dreams through olfactory actuation [4], making museum experiences richer [28], and to augment audiovisual content in storytelling [26]. HCI research in this area has yielded olfactory displays based on ink-jet printing [46], synchronized olfactory actuation to the user’s inhalation [37] and even simulating smells via electric stimulation of olfactory receptor cells [14].

3.3 Token-Based Data Handling

Associating data with tangible objects is one of the prime principles of the ‘tangible interaction’ research community. It goes back to Bishop’s Marble Answering Machine [3] and Ishii’s and Ullmer’s principles of Tangible Bits [21]. Later endeavours of applying token-based interaction to creative tasks have included interaction principles through tracked objects for making music [25], digital content handling [27], explorative learning [34] and architectural planning [49].

3.4 Data Ephemerality

The permanence and ephemerality of digital information has been the subject of various HCI research projects. Research in this area has reflected the impossibility of erasing data [54] and also brought forward the approach of ‘slow computing’ [5]. Likewise, the ephemerality of digital information has been investigated, through interaction principles based on soap bubbles [47], [10] and even projecting on people’s breath [2] in cold environments. Even though stone-based ‘data recording’ has been cultural practice from the onset of human civilization, it has been used in HCI only rarely (e. g. in [51]).

3.5 Human-Computer Separation of Labor

The principles of separating work between humans and computers is another active field of HCI research [23]. For example, unwanted help by a computer has been shown to be a trigger for user frustration [13]. Acceptance issues are especially visible in human-robot interaction [12], [15], [44], but in the ‘IoT’ age, these issues are likely to become increasingly widespread. In creative work, AI-based systems have also been demonstrated to be potentially valuable collaborators, in activity fields ranging from music composition [19] to graphic design [24].

3.6 Collaboration with Artificial Intelligence

New ways of collaborating with AI-based systems are currently being explored by HCI researchers. This research investigates, for example, how humans and AI-based systems can collaborate more effectively [33]. Other research investigates how the data and work processes taught to an AI may remain the property of the worker who taught it [45], making him or her the AI’s ‘owner’. Acceptance studies of social robots [17] have shown that humans can have a ‘theory of mind’ on autonomous systems [16] and perceive robots to be more human if they bear resemblances of themselves [11]. Nonetheless, user acceptance of autonomous systems like AI-based systems and social robotics remains a main issue for products and services in this field, especially when people feel to be subliminally spied upon and potentially out-smarted by an ambiently present computer.

The topics presented in this section are under current research in the field of HCI. Unfortunately, few research projects span more than two of these fields, even though these fields are likely to converge into people’s future everyday lives altogether. To remedy this issue, we present a design research project in which we developed connected objects that investigate how embodied thinking can be supported by embedded technology.

4 Connected Objects for Connected Thinking

The goal of this critical design research project was to create prototypes of connected objects. These are set in the ‘Interface Lab’, a fictional, future workplace in which designers creatively collaborate with computers. Each object thereby investigates a ‘tangibility-driven’ approach to the previously outlined topics of distraction management, olfactory actuation, token-based data handling, data ephemerality, human-computer separation of labor and collaboration with artificial intelligence. The objects are designed to foster collaborative human creativity, helping people to connect with each other as embodied beings. The overall goal of the project is to spark a discussion about how future collaboration with AI-based systems in creative workplaces could be shaped.

4.1 Embodied Presence: Phone Sacrifice

The Phone Sacrifice (Figure 1) serves as a login ritual for the Interface Lab. It is inspired by the rituals performed, for example, when entering a church (taking off one’s hat) or a kung-fu dojo (taking off one’s shoes): it encourages users to drop off their phone when entering the room. Each phone is recognized, once dropped in: dropping one’s phone uploads inspirational notes and photos collected on the go into the Interface Lab’s ambient idea management system.

Conceptually, the prototype is based on the assumption that embodied beings have only a limited amount of attention, and that removing attention attractors is beneficial for their presence in a situation.

Figure 1 
            The Phone Sacrifice: a sacrificial place for mobile phones.
Figure 1

The Phone Sacrifice: a sacrificial place for mobile phones.

4.2 Embodied Ambience: Scent Schedule

The Scent Schedule is an ambient calendar that can change its smell (Figure 2). Depending on which project phase the Interface Lab is currently scheduled to be in, it diffuses a typical smell from this phase: the smell of books (research phase), sticky notes (brainstorming phase), marker ink (sketching phase), technology (prototyping phase), and woodworking (exhibition phase). Thus people working in the Interface Lab can check whether they are working on schedule by comparing what they are currently doing to what the room smells like.

Figure 2 
            The Scent Schedule: a calendar that changes its smell based on the currently scheduled project phase.
Figure 2

The Scent Schedule: a calendar that changes its smell based on the currently scheduled project phase.

The prototype is based on CPU fans, which can be controlled by a timer, and thus pre-programmed according to a project’s schedule. The smells are created by chopped book pages, glue, ink, ‘new car’ smell trees and sawdust.

Conceptually, it is based on the assumption that embodied beings have an implicit feeling for the situation, which is strongly influenced by the olfactory sense.

4.3 Embodied Ownership: Personal Data Objects

Personal Data Objects is a reader/writer for cloud data in everyday objects (Figure 3). It is based on the observation that in the age of cloud computing, data is sometimes considered to be lacking a concrete place. Placing an object on the device’s platform will create the illusion of ‘pulling’ the currently displayed file on the nearby screen ‘into’ the object. Technically, a reference to the file is stored in a database, where it is associated with the object.

Figure 3 
            Personal Data Objects: a reader/writer for cloud data in everyday objects.
Figure 3

Personal Data Objects: a reader/writer for cloud data in everyday objects.

Technically, the device is based on a kitchen scale, measuring the object’s precise weight – similarly to Konomi et al.’s Passage prototype [27]. When the same object is placed on the device’s platform again, the associated file is read from the database, and shown on the screen as ‘popping out’ of the object.

This device is based on the assumption that embodied beings have a need for feeling ownership, which spans across physical objects and digital data – and that this need should be satisfied also for intangible assets, like cloud data.

4.4 Embodied Materiality: Concrete Data

This device is a data storage unit, based on setting data in stone (Figure 4). In the Interface Lab, it is used to keep a log book of creative moments. It symbolizes that deleting information may not always be possible. Also, it is a device that would listen to all conversations in the lab, thus raising privacy concerns.

Figure 4 
            Concrete Data: a stone-based data logger.
Figure 4

Concrete Data: a stone-based data logger.

Technically, it is based on a concrete disc, in which a stepper motor drives an axis with a servo-driven chisel. A magnet on the concrete disc’s back side increases the pressure exerted by the chisel.

Conceptually, this object is based on the assumption that embodied beings have a need for physical manifestations of abstract data.

4.5 Embodied Activity: Slot Machine

The Slot Machine (Figure 5) is an idea generator. When its lever is pulled, it recombines three ideas from the Interface Lab’s database into a new idea that isn’t in the system yet. For the designer, this means that creative activity can be reduced to pulling a lever. Thus, this object is a critique of outsourcing too much of creative work to an artificial intelligence.

Figure 5 
            Slot Machine: an undesirable future of human-AI collaboration.
Figure 5

Slot Machine: an undesirable future of human-AI collaboration.

Software-wise, the device is based on a hidden Markov chain algorithm. Hardware-wise, it consists of three LCD displays, which are connected to an Arduino. The Arduino is connected to the Interface Lab’s idea repository.

Conceptually, it is based on the assumption that embodied beings have a need for diverse, purposeful activities – more than just pulling a lever to generate ideas.

4.6 Embodied Control: Dimmable AI

The last object (Figure 6) is a dimmer for an AI’s ‘brightness’. Depending on its setting, it regulates the niveau of the Interface Lab’s ambient AI assistant. It can be set to different levels, ranging from ‘off’, ‘tool’, ‘assistant’, ‘coworker’, ‘autopilot’ and ‘tyrannic boss’. Depending on the level, the relationship between the user and the AI changes.

Figure 6 
            Dimmable AI: a computational assistant with adjustable ‘brightness’.
Figure 6

Dimmable AI: a computational assistant with adjustable ‘brightness’.

Technically, it consists of an off-the-shelf dimmer, connected via an Arduino to the Interface Lab’s server. In a ‘scripted story’ demo, it controls the ambient projection, displaying different activity levels of the system – from an empty screen to an uncontrollable, seemingly chaotic, self-organizing network.

Conceptually, it is based on the assumption that embodied beings seek to negotiate their relationships with others, and that they have needs for different relationships in different situations.

5 Discussion

These objects materialize our vision for what interactions with AI-driven, ubiquitous systems should feel like, and what they shouldn’t feel like.

In line with Turkle [48], the Phone Sacrifice prototype manifests the argument that computers must not come in between relationships. Interactions with the digital world can be beneficial for creative processes: they can help users to discover inspiration, they can externalize our memory, and they can help users to quickly sketch out interactive ideas, using digitally-enhanced prototyping tools. However, these interactions can also get in between what is paramount in creativity: human-human interaction. We therefore claim that interaction design for creative processes should let conversation between people take center stage, and encourage leaving technology out as much as possible.

In line with Ishii [20], the Scent Schedule prototype manifests the argument that computers should remain in the periphery of perception, and not take center stage. There is a thin line between how much a computer should be present in a creative space, and how much it should disappear. We believe that it should be up to the user to either focus on the computer, or to ignore it. Therefore, we believe that using atmospheric cues, like olfaction, might be a promising approach to an ‘easy to ignore’ approach to computation that leaves more space for creativity.

Inspired by Bishop [3], the Personal Data Objects prototype manifests the argument that the most natural way to handle digital data is by handling physical objects. The development of ‘cloud computing’ can be interpreted as a counter-movement to tangible interaction: files stored in the cloud have, from a user’s point of view, lost their tangibility and their place. To foster intuitive handling of data in times of growing computational complexity, especially in creative processes, permanent data-in-object (pseudo-)containment should be recultivated through interaction design.

In line with Lanier [29], [30], the Concrete Data prototype manifests the argument that privacy and reversibility need to be at the core of interaction design. Growing concerns about data protection and privacy need to be addressed from an interaction design perspective, in order to enable a trustful relationship between the user and the system, and to prevent ‘chilling effects’ [41] when people express and develop their ideas.

In line with Churchill [7], the Slot Machine prototype manifests the argument that interaction design should aim for engagement, rather than consumption. The psychological importance of intrinsically motivated work, which one perceives as fulfilling and purpose-giving, has been the objective of many sociological and psychological studies. Current developments in automation demand that the separation of work between humans and machines are designed to be purpose-giving for the human user, especially in the case of creative tasks.

In line with Paulos [40], the Dimmable AI prototype manifests the argument that interaction design should leave the control over the system in the user’s hands. AI has the potential to fundamentally change the way we perceive computers. At the same time, it is bound to change our relationship to them. This relationship needs to be carefully designed. This prototype argues that interaction design should put humans in control about the nature of this relationship.

6 Conclusion

We presented the results of a design research project, aimed at sparking a discussion on how humans and AI-based systems may collaborate in future creative processes. We described six connected objects which were designed following a ‘tangible interaction’ approach. Lastly, we summarized our arguments for designing embedded computation in support of embodied interaction.

About the authors

Fabian Hemmert

Fabian Hemmert is a professor for Interface and User Experience Design at the University of Wuppertal, Germany.

Elizabeth Bradford

Elizabeth Bradford is an Industrial Design student at the University of Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.

Erik Caetano

Erik Caetano is an Industrial Design student at the Pontificia Universidade Catolica do Parana in Curitiba, Brazil.

Friedrich Kegel

Friedrich Kegel is an Industrial Design student at the University of Wuppertal, Germany.

Eva Licht

Eva Licht is an Industrial Design student at the University of Wuppertal, Germany.

Marco Höwer

Marco Höwer is an Industrial Design student at the University of Wuppertal, Germany.

References

[1] Piotr D. Adamczyk and Brian P. Bailey. 2004. If not now, when?: the effects of interruption at different moments within task execution. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’04). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 271–278. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/985692.985727.10.1145/985692.985727Search in Google Scholar

[2] Ismo Alakärppä, Elisa Jaakkola, Ashley Colley, and Jonna Häkkilä. 2017. BreathScreen: Design and Evaluation of an Ephemeral UI. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 4424–4429. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025973.10.1145/3025453.3025973Search in Google Scholar

[3] Durrell Bishop. 1993. Marble Answering Machine. (1993).Search in Google Scholar

[4] Marius H. Braun and Adrian D. Cheok. 2014. Towards an Olfactory Computer-dream Interface. In Proceedings of the 11th Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology (ACE ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2663806.2663874.10.1145/2663806.2663874Search in Google Scholar

[5] Winslow Burleson and Camilla Jensen. 2010. Slow Computing Gifts. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (TEI ’10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 376. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1709886.1709985.10.1145/1709886.1709985Search in Google Scholar

[6] Stuart Card, Thomas P. Moran, and Allen Newell. 1983. The psychology of human-computer interaction (first ed.). L. Erlbaum Associates. http://www.worldcat.org/isbn/0898598591.Search in Google Scholar

[7] Elizabeth F. Churchill. 2010. Enticing Engagement. interactions 17, 3 (01 May 2010), 82–87. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1744161.1744180.10.1145/1744161.1744180Search in Google Scholar

[8] Laura Dabbish, Gloria Mark, and Víctor M. González. 2011. Why Do I Keep Interrupting Myself?: Environment, Habit and Self-interruption. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 3127–3130. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979405.10.1145/1978942.1979405Search in Google Scholar

[9] Tilman Dingler and Martin Pielot. 2015. I’ll Be There for You: Quantifying Attentiveness Towards Mobile Messaging. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (MobileHCI ’15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–5. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2785830.2785840.10.1145/2785830.2785840Search in Google Scholar

[10] Tanja Döring, Axel Sylvester, and Albrecht Schmidt. 2013. Ephemeral user interfaces: valuing the aesthetics of interface components that do not last. interactions 20, 4 (July 2013), 32–37. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2486227.2486235.10.1145/2486227.2486235Search in Google Scholar

[11] Friederike A. Eyssel, Dieta Kuchenbrandt, Simon Bobinger, Laura de Ruiter, and Frank Hegel. 2012. ‘If you sound like me, you must be more human’: On the interplay of robot and user features on human-robot acceptance and anthropomorphism. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI2012), Late Breaking Report, H. Yanco (Ed.). ACM, 125–126. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2157689.2157717.10.1145/2157689.2157717Search in Google Scholar

[12] Neta Ezer, Arthur D. Fisk, and Wendy A. Rogers. 2009. Attitudinal and Intentional Acceptance of Domestic Robots by Younger and Older Adults. In Proceedings of the 5th International on Conference on Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction. Part II: Intelligent and Ubiquitous Interaction Environments (UAHCI ’09). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 39–48. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02710-9_5.10.1007/978-3-642-02710-9_5Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[13] Markus Funk, Tilman Dingler, Jennifer Cooper, and Albrecht Schmidt. 2015. Stop Helping Me – I’m Bored!: Why Assembly Assistance Needs to Be Adaptive. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing and Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Symposium on Wearable Computers (UbiComp/ISWC’15 Adjunct). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1269–1273. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2800835.2807942.10.1145/2800835.2807942Search in Google Scholar

[14] Surina Hariri, Nur A. Mustafa, Kasun Karunanayaka, and Adrian D. Cheok. 2016. Electrical Stimulation of Olfactory Receptors for Digitizing Smell. In Proceedings of the 2016 Workshop on Multimodal Virtual and Augmented Reality (MVAR ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3001959.3001964.10.1145/3001959.3001964Search in Google Scholar

[15] Marcel Heerink, Ben Kröse, Vanessa Evers, and Bob Wielinga. 2010. Relating Conversational Expressiveness to Social Presence and Acceptance of an Assistive Social Robot. Virtual Real. 14, 1 (March 2010), 77–84. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10055-009-0142-1.10.1007/s10055-009-0142-1Search in Google Scholar

[16] Frank Hegel, Soeren Krach, Tilo Kircher, Britta Wrede, and Gerhard Sagerer. 2008. Theory of mind (ToM) on robots: a functional neuroimaging study. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE international conference on Human robot interaction (HRI ’08). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 335–342. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1349822.1349866.10.1145/1349822.1349866Search in Google Scholar

[17] Frank Hegel, Claudia Muhl, Britta Wrede, Martina H. Fastabend, and Gerhard Sagerer. 2009. Understanding Social Robots. In Proceedings of the 2009 Second International Conferences on Advances in Computer-Human Interactions (ACHI ’09). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, 169–174. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/achi.2009.51.10.1109/ACHI.2009.51Search in Google Scholar

[18] Fabian Hemmert. 2014. Encountering the Digital: Representational and Experiential Embodiment in Tangible User Interfaces. Ph. D. Dissertation. Berlin University of the Arts.Search in Google Scholar

[19] Allen Huang and Raymond Wu. 2016. Deep Learning for Music. (15 June 2016). http://arxiv.org/abs/1606.04930.Search in Google Scholar

[20] Hiroshi Ishii. 2008. Tangible Bits: Beyond Pixels. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction (TEI ’08). ACM, New York, NY, USA, xv–xxv. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1347390.1347392.10.1145/1347390.1347392Search in Google Scholar

[21] Hiroshi Ishii and Brygg Ullmer. 1997. Tangible Bits: Towards Seamless Interfaces between People, Bits and Atoms. In CHI. 234–241. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.46.4416.Search in Google Scholar

[22] Diana James and Judy Drennan. 2005. Exploring Addictive Consumption of Mobile Phone Technology. ANZMAC 2005 Conference: Electronic Marketing (2005). http://smib.vuw.ac.nz:8081/WWW/ANZMAC2005/cd-site/pdfs/12-Electronic-Marketing/12-James.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

[23] Donald R. Jones and Darrell Brown. 2002. The division of labor between human and computer in the presence of decision support system advice. Decision Support Systems 33, 4 (2002), 375–388. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0167-9236(02)00005-2.10.1016/S0167-9236(02)00005-2Search in Google Scholar

[24] Bhautik Joshi, Kristen Stewart, and David Shapiro. 2017. Bringing Impressionism to Life with Neural Style Transfer in Come Swim. (18 Jan. 2017). http://arxiv.org/abs/1701.04928.10.1145/3105692.3105697Search in Google Scholar

[25] Martin Kaltenbrunner and Ross Bencina. 2007. reacTIVision: A Computer-Vision Framework for Table-Based Tangible Interaction. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction (TEI ’07). ACM, 69–74. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1226969.1226983.10.1145/1226969.1226983Search in Google Scholar

[26] Joseph Kaye. 2004. Olfactory Display. In Proceedings of the 17th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST ’04). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 163. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1029632.1029661.10.1145/1029632.1029661Search in Google Scholar

[27] Shin’ichi Konomi, Christian Müller-Tomfelde, and Norbert A. Streitz. 1999. Passage: Physical Transportation of Digital Information in Cooperative Buildings. In Cooperative Buildings. Integrating Information, Organizations, and Architecture, Norbert A. Streitz, Jane Siegel, Volker Hartkopf, and Shin’ichi Konomi (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 45–54.10.1007/10705432_5Search in Google Scholar

[28] Mei K. Lai. 2015. Universal Scent Blackbox: Engaging Visitors Communication Through Creating Olfactory Experience at Art Museum. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual International Conference on the Design of Communication (SIGDOC ’15). ACM, New York, NY, USA. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2775441.2775483.10.1145/2775441.2775483Search in Google Scholar

[29] Jaron Lanier. 2013a. How Should We Think about Privacy? Sci Am 309, 5 (Nov. 2013), 64–71. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican1113-64.10.1038/scientificamerican1113-64Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[30] Jaron Lanier. 2013b. Who Owns the Future? (first ed.). Simon & Schuster.Search in Google Scholar

[31] Yu K. Lee, Chun T. Chang, You Lin, and Zhao H. Cheng. 2014. The Dark Side of Smartphone Usage: Psychological Traits, Compulsive Behavior and Technostress. Comput. Hum. Behav. 31 (Feb. 2014), 373–383. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.047.10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.047Search in Google Scholar

[32] Yong K. Lee, Youn K. Lim, and KunPyo Lee. 2016. Timelessness: User Experience of Unplanned Smartphone Use. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 73–83. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2901790.2901839.10.1145/2901790.2901839Search in Google Scholar

[33] Scott D. Mainwaring and Charlotte P. Lee. 2017. Turnover and the Model of Coordinated Action (MoCA). In Companion of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (CSCW ’17 Companion). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 239–242. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3022198.3026359.10.1145/3022198.3026359Search in Google Scholar

[34] Paul Marshall. 2007. Do tangible interfaces enhance learning?. In Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Tangible and embedded interaction (TEI ’07). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 163–170. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1226969.1227004.10.1145/1226969.1227004Search in Google Scholar

[35] Aleksandar Matic, Martin Pielot, and Nuria Oliver. 2015. Boredom-computer Interaction: Boredom Proneness and the Use of Smartphone. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing (UbiComp ’15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 837–841. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2750858.2807530.10.1145/2750858.2807530Search in Google Scholar

[36] Shalini Misra, Lulu Cheng, Jamie Genevie, and Miao Yuan. 2014. The iPhone Effect: The Quality of In-Person Social Interactions in the Presence of Mobile Devices. Environment and Behavior 48, 2 (1 July 2014), 275–298. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916514539755.10.1177/0013916514539755Search in Google Scholar

[37] Daisuke Noguchi, Sayumi Sugimoto, Yuichi Bannai, and Ken I. Okada. 2011. Time Characteristics of Olfaction in a Single Breath. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 83–92. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1978956.10.1145/1978942.1978956Search in Google Scholar

[38] Tadashi Okoshi, Jin Nakazawa, and Hideyuki Tokuda. 2016. Interruptibility Research: Opportunities for Future Flourishment. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing: Adjunct (UbiComp ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1524–1529. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2968219.2968543.10.1145/2968219.2968543Search in Google Scholar

[39] Alex Soojung Kim Pang. 2013. The Distraction Addiction: Getting the Information You Need and the Communication You Want, Without Enraging Your Family, Annoying Your Colleagues, and Destroying Your Soul (first ed.). Little, Brown. http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2563523.Search in Google Scholar

[40] Eric Paulos. 2013. The Rise of the Expert Amateur: DIY Culture and the Evolution of Computer Science. In Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems (ASPLOS ’13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 153–154. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2451116.2451133.10.1145/2451116.2451133Search in Google Scholar

[41] Jon Penney. 2016. Chilling Effects: Online Surveillance and Wikipedia Use. Social Science Research Network Working Paper Series (27 April 2016). http://ssrn.com/abstract=2769645.Search in Google Scholar

[42] Andrew K. Przybylski and Netta Weinstein. 2013. Can you connect with me now? How the presence of mobile communication technology influences face-to-face conversation quality. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 30, 3 (1 May 2013), 237–246. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0265407512453827.10.1177/0265407512453827Search in Google Scholar

[43] Susan M. Ravizza, Mitchell G. Uitvlugt, and Kimberly M. Fenn. 2017. Logged In and Zoned Out. Psychological science 28, 2 (Feb. 2017), 171–180. http://view.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28182528.10.1177/0956797616677314Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[44] Ariel Rosenfeld, Noa Agmon, Oleg Maksimov, Amos Azaria, and Sarit Kraus. 2015. Intelligent Agent Supporting Human-Multi-Robot Team Collaboration. In IJCAI. 1902–1908.Search in Google Scholar

[45] Anand Sriraman, Jonathan Bragg, and Anand Kulkarni. 2017. Worker-Owned Cooperative Models for Training Artificial Intelligence. In Companion of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (CSCW ’17 Companion). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 311–314. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3022198.3026356.10.1145/3022198.3026356Search in Google Scholar

[46] Sayumi Sugimoto, Daisuke Noguchi, Yuichi Bannnai, and Kenichi Okada. 2010. Ink Jet Olfactory Display Enabling Instantaneous Switches of Scents. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM International Conference on Multimedia (MM ’10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 301–310. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1873951.1873994.10.1145/1873951.1873994Search in Google Scholar

[47] Axel Sylvester, Tanja Döring, and Albrecht Schmidt. 2010. Liquids, smoke, and soap bubbles: reflections on materials for ephemeral user interfaces. In TEI ’10: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on Tangible, embedded, and embodied interaction. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 269–270. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1709886.1709941.10.1145/1709886.1709941Search in Google Scholar

[48] Sherry Turkle. 2016. Reclaiming Conversation: The Power of Talk in a Digital Age (reprint ed.). Penguin Books. http://www.worldcat.org/isbn/0143109790.Search in Google Scholar

[49] John Underkoffler and Hiroshi Ishii. 1999. Urp: A Luminous-tangible Workbench for Urban Planning and Design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’99). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 386–393. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/302979.303114.10.1145/302979.303114Search in Google Scholar

[50] Jelle van Dijk, Remko van der Lugt, and Caroline Hummels. 2013. Beyond Distributed Representation: Embodied Cognition Design Supporting Socio-sensorimotor Couplings. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Tangible, Embedded and Embodied Interaction (TEI ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 181–188. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2540930.2540934.10.1145/2540930.2540934Search in Google Scholar

[51] Yanan Wang, Shuai Liu, Yujia Lu, Jun Duan, Cheng Yao, and Fangtian Ying. 2016. Designing with Concrete For Enhancing Everyday Interactions. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1497–1502. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2851581.2892372.10.1145/2851581.2892372Search in Google Scholar

[52] Adrian F. Ward, Kristen Duke, Ayelet Gneezy, and Maarten W. Bos. 2017. Brain Drain: The Mere Presence of One’s Own Smartphone Reduces Available Cognitive Capacity. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research 2, 2 (1 April 2017), 140–154. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/691462.10.1086/691462Search in Google Scholar

[53] Mark Weiser and John S. Brown. 1996. The Coming Age of Calm Technology. (5 Oct. 1996).Search in Google Scholar

[54] Aaron Weiss. 2009. A Digital Trail is Forever. netWorker 13, 2 (June 2009), 14–19. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1540392.1540397.10.1145/1540392.1540397Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2018-11-14
Published in Print: 2018-12-19

© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 28.3.2024 from https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/icom-2018-0023/html
Scroll to top button