Kinesthetic Interaction - Revealing the Bodily ... - Semantic Scholar

Download PDF
6 downloads 29372 Views 135KB Size Report
Comment
domains of interaction, such as experience centers [6], sports [31]. [16] and museums ... challenges call for a conceptual framework to identify unexplored possibilities ...... Comics: A performance space with full body interaction. In. Proceedings ...
Kinesthetic Interaction - Revealing the Bodily Potential in Interaction Design Maiken Hillerup Fogtmann

Jonas Fritsch

Karen Johanne Kortbek

Center for Interactive Spaces Aarhus School of Architecture Norreport 20, DK-8000 Aarhus C, Denmark

Information and Media Studies University of Aarhus Helsingforsgade 14, DK-8200 Aarhus N, Denmark

[email protected]

[email protected]

Center for Interactive Spaces Dept. of Computer Science, University of Aarhus Aabogade 34, DK-8200 Aarhus N, Denmark

[email protected] ABSTRACT Within the Human-Computer Interaction community there is a growing interest in designing for the whole body in interaction design. The attempts aimed at addressing the body have very different outcomes spanning from theoretical arguments for understanding the body in the design process, to more practical examples of designing for bodily potential. This paper presents Kinesthetic Interaction as a unifying concept for describing the body in motion as a foundation for designing interactive systems. Based on the theoretical foundation for Kinesthetic Interaction, a conceptual framework is introduced to reveal bodily potential in relation to three design themes – kinesthetic development, kinesthetic means and kinesthetic disorder; and seven design parameters – engagement, sociality, movability, explicit motivation, implicit motivation, expressive meaning and kinesthetic empathy. The framework is a tool to be utilized when analyzing existing designs, as well as developing designs exploring new ways of designing kinesthetic interactions.

Categories and Subject Descriptors H.5.2 User Interfaces – Interaction Styles, Theory and Methods. H.5.m Information Interfaces and Presentation (e.g., HCI): Miscellaneous.

General Terms Design, Human Factors, Theory.

Keywords Interaction design, bodily movement, motor skills, kinesthetic interaction, kinesthesis, kinesthetic experience, interactive technologies.

1. INTRODUCTION In 1986, Bill Buxton [3] described a human interacting with a computer as a being with one well-developed eye, a long right arm, uniform-length fingers, ears, however, lacking legs, and a sense of smell or touch. He argued for a greater involvement of the body in Human-Computer Interaction, “(…) when compared

to other human operated machinery (such as the automobile), today's computer systems make extremely poor use of the potential of the human's sensory and motor systems” [3]. Today, the idea that interaction is strictly about a perceptive human being in a sedentary body interacting with a mouse and keyboard in front of a desktop computer is rapidly evolving to also include bodily movement that enables the user to experience the world through physically and socially engaging activities. In Grudin’s historical continuity of interface design [14], the interface is pushed further and further away from the computer, and it becomes an even greater part of a social context in physical space. This new territory both comprises new design ideals and directions [7], new design domains [35], and new interaction forms made possible through developments of both interactive technologies, and theoretical shifts in the conception of how we might interact, or live, with the computer [28]. In the field of Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), several attempts have been made to meet these new challenges, both in developing theoretical frameworks [7], and in carrying out practical research projects [30][6] to explore the bodily potential when designing interactive systems. However, no coherent vocabulary has been proposed to address the bodily potential unifying the existing work done within interaction design as well as presenting a foundation for work to be done in the future. The growing interest in movement-based interfaces and interactive systems can be ascribed to an increasing focus on new domains of interaction, such as experience centers [6], sports [31] [16] and museums [8][15]. A bodily experience at a museum, for instance, can be much more present and palpable when the user can move around freely in the physical space of experience, compared to exploring a system through an index finger [6]. Another reason for involving the body more directly in the design of interactive systems stems from an increased focus on health and work related problems or life style problems, such as obesity1 and back problems due to sedentary work [21]. These new challenges call for a conceptual framework to identify unexplored possibilities when designing interactive systems addressing the body in motion.

OZCHI 2008, December 8-12, 2008, Cairns, QLD, Australia. Copyright the author(s) and CHISIG. Additional copies are available at the ACM Digital Library (http://portal.acm.org/dl.cfm) or can be ordered from CHISIG([email protected])

The first section of the paper presents the diversity of work done on bodily approaches in interaction design. We then introduce a foundation for defining Kinesthetic Interaction (KI). KI functions as a unifying concept for understanding the bodily potential in interaction design comprising physiological aspects of

OZCHI 2008 Proceedings ISBN: 0-9803063-4-5

1

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7722888/

kinesthetics, kinesthetic experience and interactive technologies in a kinesthetic perspective. The concept describes a physiologically grounded new direction in the design of technologically mediated bodily interaction. Founded on the notion of KI, we present three design themes - kinesthetic development, kinesthetic means and kinesthetic disorder - in order to develop a conceptual framework revealing bodily potential in interaction design. In relation to the three themes we derive a set of design parameters, which support a practical exploration of the possibilities for addressing bodily potential in the design of interactive systems. We finish with a conclusion of the bodily potential based on a discussion on how to design for kinesthetic means, kinesthetic development and kinesthetic disorder in interaction design.

2. RELATED WORK ON BODILY APPROACHES IN INTERACTION DESIGN The design literature is rich with work addressing bodily potential defined by a great diversity of approaches and concepts dealing with the body in motion and its relation to technology interaction. The directions within embodiment account for a large amount of this work. Dourish [7] develops the concept of embodied interaction as a foundation for a range of design principles which aim at ensuring a design of interactive systems based on our embodied actions in the world. Dourish ties together Tangible Computing [20] and Social Computing taking phenomenology and how we experience the world as a starting point for the design. In line with Dourish [7], Klemmer et al. [22] further explore how bodies matter in interaction design, while Fishkin et. al. [9] also use the idea of embodiment for designing meaningful interfaces that mimic our physical interaction with real-life objects. Other approaches include Larssen et al. [25] who look at the role the kinesthetic (kinesthetics and proprioception) and haptic sense, as well as motor skills play when incorporating a tool into bodily space. Likewise, Hummels et. al. [19] use the concept of movement-based interaction focusing on movement as central to all human skills, including emotional and perceptual motor skills. Another range of prominent directions in revealing the bodily potential in interaction design is theoretically informed by pragmatism. McCarthy and Wright [28] develop a theoretical foundation for understanding technology as part of human felt experience, where our sensory engagement in a situation is important for the design of experience-oriented interactive systems. Also focusing on experience, Forlizzi and Battarbee [10] advocate that the design of interactive systems should address the whole experience of a digital artefact by addressing physical, sensual, cognitive and aesthetic modes of human experience. Petersen et al. [35] develop the notion of Aesthetic Interaction as a new ideal for interactive systems design, creating involvement, experience and serendipity in the interaction through promoting bodily, as well as complex symbolic representations, when interacting with the system [35]. Other directions exploring the role of the body in interaction design include Gesture Based Interaction [26], Exertion Interfaces [31] and Full Body Interaction [37][18][34] which seeks to exploit and explore the possibilities of designing novel interfaces and applications which experiment with new interaction techniques utilizing parts of, or our whole body as an input device. Moen also describes Kinesthetic (Movement) Interaction as an approach to interaction design which explores free and expressive full-body movement as an interaction modality [30].

Although the starting point for the approaches within embodiment and pragmatism is our bodily presence in the world and the intertwining of the body and the mind in our experience of the world, in neither of the presented approaches is the body in motion and how it biologically functions explicitly defined from a physiological perspective. As presented in the next section, we will argue that the body can be described in a distinct physiological manner opening new possibilities for creating interactive experiences. In embodiment and pragmatism it remains unclear how we can use our knowledge of the physiological body to enhance or develop for instance motor skills on a perceptual level when interacting with interactive systems. In Gesture Based Interaction and Full Body Interaction, the authors seek to reveal the bodily potential in interactive systems design, but fall short in giving a coherent explanation of the theoretical foundations leading to the design terminology. Except for Moen [30], none of the presented approaches explicitly deal with describing the physiological properties of the moving body, and how the interaction with interactive systems might enhance or experiment with bodily motor skills. As for Moen, we will argue that her description needs to be further explicated in physiological terms to provide a genuine resource for interaction design. Following this overview, we would argue that there is a need to establish a common ground for understanding the physiological body in motion and its relation to human experience within the interaction design community. This necessitates the development of a unified terminology which embraces the body’s role in the interaction with technology - spanning from minor bodily involvement, as seen when interacting with a desktop computer through a computer mouse, to interfaces that require utilization of the whole body.

3. TOWARDS THE CONCEPT OF KINESTHETIC INTERACTION To create a unified understanding of what it means to address the body in motion in interaction design, we now turn to a physiological definition of the body in motion, and how it conditions our experience of interactive technologies synthesized in the concept of Kinesthetic Interaction as shown in Figure 1. We do so by defining the physiological aspects of kinesthesis, and by giving a definition of kinesthetic experience. From this follows an overview of interactive technologies in a kinesthetic perspective. Finally, the concept of Kinesthetic Interaction is presented.

Figure 1: Three axioms of Kinesthetic Interaction In defining KI, the focus is both on the human and the technological side of the design work. The theoretical positioning moves from a definition of the body in motion and how this conditions our experience of the world (and vice versa), to how we as humans experience the world and hence interactive

technologies through our bodies in motion. The physiological understanding of kinesthetics is positioned in relation to an overview of how existing and future technologies enable the design of interactive systems that address the body in motion, and the development and utilization of motor abilities.

3.1 The Physiological Aspect of Kinesthesis Our bodies are the foundation for the manner in which we experience and interact with our surroundings. We use various sensory feedbacks to determine an adequate response to our surrounding environment [39]. The stimuli received act as motivation for bodily action [12]. This is similar to the way in which we use the five senses: smell, sight, touch, hearing and taste. An example is how we use sight in order to know when to stretch out our arm to catch a ball [36][39]. Kinesthesis is part of the sensory capacities dealing with bodily perception. The physiological definition of the term is the awareness of the position and movement of the body in space [36]. If a person closes her eyes and places the index finger on the nose, the kinesthetic sense is utilized. Kinesthesis is part of the somatosensory system that is conscious bodily perception distributed throughout the whole body. This also includes all skin sensation, proprioception, and the perception of the internal organs [1]. When defining kinesthesis the proprioception is often included, since both deal with the perception of bodily movement. The difference between the two is that kinesthesis is kinetic motion, while the proprioception is the sensory faculty of being aware of the position of the limbs, and the state of internal organs. When introducing the term into interaction design, we choose to follow this approach, and make one combined definition. [36][38][39]. It is through the kinesthetic sense that the body keeps track of its own movements and position of the limbs: “(…) my body itself I move directly, I do find it at one point of objective space and transfer it to another, I have no need to look for it, it is already with me…”[29]. The knowledge of whether a movement has been performed accurately is not only determined by how it looks, but more importantly, from how it feels [5]. Movements are produced by the motor system. How well a movement is performed depends on a person’s ability to coordinate and control muscular movement. Motor skills are divided into two groups, fine or gross motor skills. Gross motor skills involve movement of the whole body or large portions of the body, as when crawling, walking, running, balancing, jumping on one leg, catching or swinging. As opposed to the gross motor skills, fine motor skills are defined by the coordination of small muscle movement, which occur in the fingers, eyes, mouth, feet and toes [23][17]. A skill is defined as the ability to use the correct muscles to execute pre-determined actions with minimum outlay of time and energy [5]. It is not only vital to know how to execute a certain action, but also to know where and when to apply it. This is the empathic part of our innate bodily intelligence [4]. A person’s kinesthetic empathy is affected by his or her relation to other people, and stimuli from the surrounding environment. When training motor skills one is learning where and when to apply a certain action, how to adapt the action to the changing environmental conditions, and how to practice the consistency of the action from time to time. In interaction design it is relevant to look at how we can design artefacts and installations that support our motor learning, and through that utilize the bodily potential inherently present within the human body [16]. There has been a

tendency to utilize the fine motor skills in interaction as seen with the invention of the computer mouse, and in areas such as Tangible Interaction. Interactive systems that incorporate the gross motor skills and utilize the kinesthetic sense are a fairly new and unexplored area. When designing for larger parts of the body it becomes relevant to question the movability of the body. A design can either help mediate existing movements or physically change a person’s movement patterns.

3.2 Kinesthetic Experience Based on the physiological definition of kinesthetics, kinesthetic experience describes how the kinesthetic sense grounds our everyday actions in the world as moving bodies [39]. As MerleauPonty states, our experience of the world is always grounded in our bodily movement in it [29]. Our kinesthetic sense therefore conditions the manner in which we experience the world in framing our embodied actions, by providing a sense of spatiality and bodily-motor potential in our relation to the physical and socio-cultural world. Our motor abilities are developed into motor skills when they meet the cultural world [32]. The kinesthetic sense and our motor abilities and skills are constantly mediating other forms of sensation, e.g. vision, hearing and the tactile sense, both in relation to exteroceptive and interoceptive sensation. Since our experience of the world is always rooted in the body, kinesthesis is the backbone of our perception of the world; a perception which is always actionoriented and intentional in motor terms [32]. Our experience of the world is thus always accompanied by a kinesthetic experience of the world, and our bodily relation to it. This kinesthetic experience can be more or less conscious, and our acting in the world is constantly mediated by what Merleau-Ponty [29] refers to as “praktagnosia”, a “motor memory” which includes motor skills and the kinesthetic memory of performing them [32]. According to Merleau-Ponty human subjects are primarily engaged in answering a motor question with a motor response, by searching through a catalogue of movement memories or gestural routines [29]. The motor memory is therefore composed of both naturally and culturally appropriated motor skills, which guide our actions in the world. As moving bodies in the world, we constantly have to choose a motor response in relation to the perceptual signals the body receives [32]. This is determined as a more or less conscious reflection relating the given cultural situation to our motor skills. The concept of kinesthetic experience specifically points to the possibility of understanding kinesthetis, and the manner in which it mediates our experience of a cultural and social world, which in turn manifests itself in our motor memory as motor skills and potential for action. Our bodily experience of movement is not a particular case of knowledge; rather it is the basis for our experience of the world as we experience the world through our motor memory.

3.3 Interactive Technologies in a Kinesthetic Perspective The amount of interactive technologies that enables bodily movement in interaction design is steadily growing. Looking at the execution of interaction, the computer gets its input via one or more sensors. Sensors are the sense organs of the computer, through which the computer can sense its environment. There are sensors available for all things perceivable for humans, e.g. light, sound, temperature; and on the unperceivable side -

electromagnetic fields and ultrasonic sounds. Sensors can be found on the body, in equipment or in the environment (as shown in Figure 2). This distinction of three types of “real-world objects” is derived from [27]. Actuators, on the other hand, are the opposite of sensors, in the sense that they convert input signals (mainly electrical signals) into outputs, for instance those perceivable by human beings (which is our main focus), such as loudspeakers or motors [2]. They thus contribute to creating a kinesthetic experience to the user when interacting. However, mainly the sensors enable bodily movement in interaction, thus we will focus on sensors in the following.

applications such as a tennis racket in a tennis game, or as a golf club in a golf tournament. The three above-mentioned interaction technologies make visible the diversity in possibilities for sensing bodily movement in interactive systems. Yet, they only cover a small area of the wide range of technologies which could be utilized. Each technology senses only a very specific part of bodily movement; the cameras sense the position of the body in two dimensions; the pressure sensors sense e.g. whether or not the body has stepped on a tile; and the accelerometers sense the acceleration of an object or the body. This means that the comprehension of the body when interacting is highly dependent on the technology used, and hence the benefits and drawbacks of that particular technology. Further, the choice of technology is closely related to how the system can motivate use in terms of facilitated interaction forms. When interacting with interactive systems there will always be constraints in how the body is involved in the interaction, however, these constraints do not necessarily dictate the design process. Instead, they can act as a substantiating factor in exploring the bodily possibilities.

3.4 Kinesthetic Interaction Figure 2: The sensors and actuators can be placed on the body, in equipment and in the environment. In recent years, several sensor technologies have emerged and given rise to a wide range of new possibilities in interaction design. One of the more disseminated technologies used is cameras. Here, a program gets an input from the camera, which decodes the position of the user. The program analyses every single picture using algorithms of picture analysis, which makes it possible to identify colors, contrast, contours and movement. When the program has analyzed the full picture, coordinates and id numbers are sent to the application using the camera input (e.g. a game of table tennis in PlayStation 2®’s EyeToy Play™ 2). In this manner, the application gets to know where the user is located from the input of the camera, and the position of an arm or the full body in camera based interaction will for instance correspond to using a cursor in a traditional graphical user interface. Another technology utilized in interaction design is pressure sensors. One type of pressure sensors are force-sensing resistors that have a variable resistance as a function of applied pressure. When external force is applied to the sensor, the resistive element is deformed against the substrate. The sensor exhibits a "switchlike response", meaning some amount of force is necessary to break the sensor's resistance at rest. The Magic Carpet [33] and LiteFoot [13] are examples of interaction systems utilizing pressure sensors. Furthermore, accelerometers are sensors that can measure the acceleration and gravity induced reaction forces it experiences. When looking at technologies that enable bodily movement, it is interesting to explore physical objects with built-in accelerometers, as the movements of these objects are results of the bodily movements during interaction. As an example the Nintendo WiiTM 3 controller can be used in a vast number of

2

http://www.eyetoy.com.

3

http://uk.wii.com/.

In the previous sections, we have identified the three main axioms for developing a unifying concept of Kinesthetic Interaction – physiology, kinesthetic experience and interactive technologies. Kinesthesis as a physiological term defines the kinesthetic sense as the perception of the position and movements of one’s body parts in space. The kinesthetic sense is made up of motor abilities and motor skills, the latter being a result of kinesthetic experiences in a social and cultural world. The kinesthetic perspective on interactive technologies makes visible some of the possibilities for more directly addressing the bodily potential in interactive systems. KI works as a theoretical foundation and vocabulary for describing the body in motion and how it conditions our experience of the world in the interactions with and through interactive technologies. This leads to a broad definition of Kinesthetic Interaction as when the body in motion experiences the world through interactive technologies. This definition of KI offers a view on interaction with interactive environments where the focus is on the awareness of the body and the perception of the body’s movements mediated by interactive technologies.

4. REVEALING THE BODILY POTENTIAL IN INTERACTION DESIGN As shown earlier, much of the work done in interaction design focuses on using only a limited part of the body - mostly only design for the eyes and index finger as physical means of interacting with a system. Although these approaches are also covered by the definition of Kinesthetic Interaction, we would like to open the field of interaction design to alternative directions, exploring new bodily potential in designing for the body in motion. By designing for the body in motion, it is possible to motivate people to take actively part in the interaction and to design interactive environments and artefacts that explore new configurations of kinesthetic use and interactive technologies, making it possible for the kinesthetic sensations to interact and influence each other in the motor development. Instead of bodily movement being dictated by the interaction, the interactions are designed based on the potential inherently present within the

body. Kinesthetic Interaction thus makes it possible to enhance, utilize or develop one’s motor skills through the interaction with interactive technologies. We therefore present three design themes, kinesthetic development, kinesthetic means and kinesthetic disorder. Each theme points to a specific area of interest in designing interactive systems, and is composed of seven parameters highlighting specific areas of interest. By overlaying the three themes and the seven parameters in a conceptual framework, we make visible the bodily potential in the analysis of existing interactive systems. The framework can also be used to inform the design process by highlighting which of the themes and parameters the concept adheres to, and by providing new directions in which the design could be developed. Further, the framework identifies new areas of interest to be explored in future work of designing for bodily potential in interaction design.

4.1 Kinesthetic Design Themes The three themes are derived partly from the presented survey on related work (section 2), and partly from our theoretical development of Kinesthetic Interaction. They highlight three different motivations to address the bodily potential. When looking into previous work the most dominant motivation for designing for KI focuses on bodily interaction and means to reach a higher goal (e.g. the gameplays of the Nintendo Wii games). New tendencies within the field point in the direction of utilizing interaction to improve bodily skills [31][16]. Another inspiration comes from digital aesthetics creating a more experimental approach to bodily exploration. Though the three themes differ, they are not mutually exclusive. It is possible for one design concept to adhere to more themes at the same time. Kinesthetic development deals with acquiring, developing or improving bodily skills. This is possible on three levels; knowing where and when to apply a certain action, knowing how to adapt the action to the changing environmental conditions, or by practicing the consistency of the action from time to time.

how the bodily potential is addressed in the design process, and they provide more practical guidelines for designing KI. The parameters make it possible to analyze existing concepts by pointing out possible limitations and design possibilities to generate new ideas based on KI. Engagement describes KIs that engage users in a kinesthetically memorable manner, and facilitate interested exploration through the body in motion. Sociality relates to designing for a body among other bodies. By designing Kinesthetic Interaction, the interaction often moves into a collaborative and social place, where others are invited to take part in the interaction, actively or as spectators. Explicit motivation means that the system tells the users explicitly how to interact with the system. The range of movements is restricted, and there is a direct motivational invitation to react. Implicit motivation is when the interaction with the system is open, and there are no restrictions on the movements. Implicit motivation denotes a more explorative motivational form. Movability is central for an understanding of whether the body can move freely, or is physically restricted while interacting with the system. Expressive meaning occurs when the bodily engagement fits the system output. The interactive possibilities are congruent with the kinesthetic capabilities the design has been made for – and the bodily interaction is meaningful for achieving the system goal. Kinesthetic empathy is where specific and controlled movement patterns are affected by the relation to other people, and stimuli from the surrounding environment. Kinesthetic empathy is achieved when the system opens up for the possibility of the users being able to read, decode and react on each others’ movements.

4.3 Applying the Conceptual Framework The themes and parameters are brought together in a conceptual framework (Figure 3).

Kinesthetic means deals with KI as a means for reaching a goal other than kinesthetic development. While the interaction can be defined as kinesthetic, the goal of the interaction is something other than improving bodily skills such as learning activities, playful experiences and gameplay. Kinesthetic disorder deals with transforming the kinesthetic experience in a given situation by challenging the kinesthetic sense. This can be achieved by changing the possibility of kinesthetic experience, either by affecting how a person senses, which motor skills can be applied, or how the environment is perceived. Following these design themes, we provide a conceptual framework that, when applied, reveals bodily potential in interaction design that otherwise would have remained hidden. The design themes point in the direction of actively using interactive technologies to explore new configurations in the manner in which we as moving bodies experience the world. It is thus possible to design interactive technologies that explore or experiment with how we can develop our kinesthetic sense in radically new ways.

4.2 Kinesthetic Design Parameters The seven parameters are derived from the theoretical development of KI in relation to the three design themes to reveal

Figure 3: The conceptual framework showing how the four design concepts relate to the three design themes and seven design parameters.

The framework makes it possible to evaluate an existing interactive system in relation to Kinesthetic Interaction, and provides an overview of the system’s capacity to address bodily potential. In the following, we analyze four different interactive systems to illustrate how the framework works. Finally, we sum up the section by discussing the relevance of the framework in interaction design.

4.3.1 Octopus Trainer The Octopus Trainer4 is a piece of interactive sports equipment that trains abilities such as reaction time, strength, concentration and speed. The equipment consists of a computer and 8 lamps, illuminating randomly when the device is in use. The user must locate the light and turn it off by waving a body part 30 cm in front of it as quickly as possible. This extinguishes the light, and another target light ignites at random. Feedback is given to the participant on how well he/she has performed. The main purpose of the Octopus Trainer is to develop and train the users’ bodily movement skills by engaging the users in a kinesthetic experience (Figure 3). Therefore, the Octopus trainer solely falls within the kinesthetic development theme. The motivation for executing an action is explicitly provided by the system through the lights telling the user where and when to apply an action. Although the system only detects minimal movement, the users are able to move freely, without constrains, while interacting with the system. The movements provoked by the equipment are the same as the ones executed when playing the actual sport, in this case team handball, which gives expressive meaning to the kinesthetic development. Since the Octopus Trainer is designed for one person only, the system does not invite for others to join in, thereby disabling the users in exploiting his/her kinesthetic empathy or sociality.

4.3.2 BodyBug The BodyBug is a small digital device, designed to generate new and otherwise unexplored movements. It consists of a small box that can move up and down a metal wire. It can be attached to optional parts of one or two users by using Velcro strips. The device senses the users’ movements, and responds by moving up and down the wire. To keep the device moving, the users have to continuously feed the BodyBug with movements. The movements needed are not explicitly defined which encourage the users to explore their own repertoire of movements, thus enhancing their kinesthetic potential [30]. The BodyBug falls within kinesthetic development and kinesthetic means at the same time, addressing the same design parameters in each theme (Figure 3). Through interaction with the BodyBug it is possible to acquire and develop new motor skills. At the same time it can be used for simple play, leisure or as a social activity as well as for personal exploration and expression. By moving in relation to the BodyBug, the users are kinesthetically engaged by exploring and broadening their kinesthetic sense. The artefact calls for social engagement between the users, as well as attracting spectators, who might influence the interaction by commenting on the use of the BodyBug. The users are implicitly motivated by their own interpretation of the device, which ultimately provokes the motor development in relation to both kinesthetic development and kinesthetic means. Since the meaning of the interaction with the

device is created by the users themselves, expressive meaning is missing. Though it is possible for two people to interact with the BodyBug at the same time, kinesthetic empathy is absent because it is not possible to predict the movements developed by the users on the course of the interaction.

4.3.3 Nintendo Wii Tennis The Nintendo WiiTM 5 application is a computer game, where one physically utilizes the Nintendo WiiTM console as a tennis racket to control a tennis player in the game world. By moving your arm back and forth and from side to side, the tennis player performs accordingly in the virtual world. It is possible to play against the computer or against another human player. Wii Tennis activates the user of the system by providing a kinesthetically engaging experience of interacting with the virtual world in relation to the gameplay (Figure 3). Wii Tennis is a social game, where users come together either by playing against each other or by observing other players. The motivation for the game is made explicit by the rules of the gameplay. The users are physically free to move when interacting with the system. The expressive meaning is clear in the mapping of the interaction in the physical world, and the resulting gameplay in the virtual world. The attention of the players is on the screen, and the movements are related to the gameplay, not to the movements of other people. Therefore there is no kinesthetic empathy in Wii Tennis. Although the Wii engages the users kinesthetically, there is no direct kinesthetic development of new motor skills that can be directly transferred to the tennis court.

4.3.4 Shaking the World Shaking the World (SW)6 is a sensation interface device that uses galvanic vestibular stimulation (GVS) to control balance. The device is placed on the neck of a person and can be remotely controlled by another person or computer-system. This allows for the person with the remote to alter the sense of balance of the person wearing the device, thereby directly affecting the kinesthetic sense. SW’s most direct application is in walking guidance and postural support. Other possible applications include automatic avoidance of collisions or falls, GPS-guided walking navigation, and pedestrian flow control. SW is mainly an example of kinesthetic disorder, since it directly influences the kinesthetic experience of the environment by altering the kinesthetic sensation (Figure 3). It is through the exploration of the kinesthetic sense that the user, wearing the sensors, engages in a memorable kinesthetic experience, thus broadening his/her own kinesthetic awareness. SW is a social device that due to its spatiality invites others to indirectly take part in and affect the experience as spectators. The motivation for interacting with the device is both explicit and implicit. The user wearing the sensors is explicitly motivated, due to the fact that another person or a computer is controlling his/her kinesthetic interaction. The person in control of the remote is implicitly motivated to explore the interaction possibilities provided by the device. The movability in the interaction is present for the person controlling the remote, whereas the person being controlled is restricted to move as the other person sees fit. Expressive meaning 5 6

http://www.nintendo.com/wii/.

http://www.siggraph.org/s2005/main.php?f=conference&p= etech&s=etech24. 4

http://www.octopustrainer.dk/.

occurs because there is congruence between what the person with the remote control is doing, and the kinesthetic effect on the person wearing the device. The goal of the interaction becomes a mean for reaching a higher goal such as walking guidance or postural control, which is why the expressive meaning is placed within kinesthetic means, and not in kinesthetic disorder. Since the person wearing the device has no control over his/her own body, the interaction achieved by the system does not open up for the possibility of the user being able to read and react on other people’s movements, the main goal of kinesthetic empathy.

4.4 Discussion Through the analysis of the four interactive systems, we have shown the way in which the conceptual framework works as a tool for visualizing the manner in which the bodily potential is addressed in relation to the concept of Kinesthetic Interaction. The model provides a coherent framework for revealing what themes and parameters the interactive systems adhere to. In doing so, it becomes possible to identify similarities and differences in the bodily potential. The framework facilitates an analysis of systems from seemingly disparate directions, bridging them through highlighting the bodily potential in the designs. In addition, the framework can be used to redesign existing interactive systems. This is achieved through exploring the way in which the system can cut across themes, or incorporate new parameters into the design. An example could be the Wii Tennis, which engages the body kinesthetically as a means of being able to play a computer game (kinesthetic means). In redesigning the system, it would be possible to develop Kinesthetic Interaction that enhances motor skills, thus relating it to tennis in the real world (kinesthetic development). In a redesign of Wii Tennis, kinesthetic empathy can be applied through moving the screen in between players, so the players are able to read and react to each others’ movements in addition to those simulated by the animated figures on the screen. This makes it possible to react on the bodily movements before they are shown on the screen, in the same manner you would react to a player’s movements in real life tennis. Another example would be to experiment with the expressive meaning of Shaking the World in relation to kinesthetic disorder, exploring the way in which altering the kinesthetic sense might provide self-reflective experiences. Also, the Octopus trainer could be redesigned by incorporating kinesthetic means through adding a strategic element to the exercise, thus supplementing the kinesthetic development. When starting a new design process, the three themes can help identify possible areas of interest that can be explored through the design. An initial draft or idea for a design can be applied to the framework to spark new design ideas through addressing the unused parameters to the design idea. This will help address the full bodily potential, thus bringing the design concepts into directions that would have otherwise remained untouched. Furthermore, the conceptual framework for KI makes it possible to imagine interactive systems that explore new configurations of themes and parameters.

5. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK This paper contributes to the field of interaction design for the whole body in two respects; First, it presents Kinesthetic Interaction as a unified concept for describing the body in motion and how it conditions our experience of the world in the interactions with and through interactive technologies. Second, it provides a conceptual framework consisting of three themes and

seven parameters that make it possible to analyze existing interactive systems in relation to how they meet bodily potential. It further opens new directions for a future exploration of addressing bodily potential in interactive systems design. The conceptual framework presented is not exhaustive in describing all the aspects of designing for Kinesthetic Interaction. However, it provides a way of articulating pertinent aspects when it comes to addressing the bodily potential in the design of interactive technologies. In developing the concept of KI, we seek to inform the previous approaches and directions presented in the related work section by introducing a physiological description of the body. In doing so we initiate a more direct exploration of the design themes uncovering new potential in interaction design. Future work focuses on empirically informing the conceptual framework through developing working prototypes in real contexts. This will provide feedback on how the framework works, and make it possible to further develop the design themes and parameters.

6. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work has been supported by Aarhus School of Architecture, Institute of Information and Media Studies (University of Aarhus), Department of Computer Science (University of Aarhus) and Center for Interactive Spaces. We would like to thank our colleagues, especially Professor Kaj Grønbæk who has provided useful recommendations for structuring and focusing our writing.

7. REFERENCES [1] Bloom, F. et al. 2001. Brain, Mind, and Behavior, third ed., Educational Broadcasting Corporation, USA. [2] Bongers, B. 2000. Physical Interfaces in the Electronic Arts: Interaction Theory and Interfacing Techniques for Real-time Performance. Trends in Gestural Control of Music. M. Wanderley, M. Battier (eds.), IRCAM, Paris. [3] Buxton, B. 1986. There's More to Interaction than Meets the Eye: Some Issues in Manual Input. In Norman, D. A. and Draper, S. W. (Eds.), User Centered System Design: New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 319-337. [4] Czajkowski, Z. 2006. The essence and importance of timing (sense of surprise) in fencing. Kinesiology. 16 (2006), 35-42. [5] Davids, K. et al. 2003. Acquiring Skill in Sport: A Constraints-Led Perspective. In International Journal of Computer Science in Sport, 2, 2. [6] Dindler, C., Krogh, P., Beck, S., Stenfeldt, L. Nielsen, K. & Grønbæk, K. 2007. Peephole Experiences – Field Experiments with Mixed Reality Hydroscopes in a Marine Center. In Proceedings of DUX2007. ACM Press. [7] Dourish, P. 2001. Where the Action Is: The Foundations of Embodied Interaction, MIT Press. [8] Eisenberg, M., Elumeze, N., Buechley, L., Blauvelt, G., Hendrix, S., and Eisenberg, A. 2005. The homespun museum: computers, fabrication, and the design of personalized exhibits. In Proc. of the 5th Conference on Creativity & Amp; Cognition, London, UK, April 12 - 15, New York, NY, 13-21.

[9] Fishkin, K. P., Moran, T. P. & Harrison, B. L. 1998. Embodied User Interfaces: Towards Invisible User Interfaces. In Proc. of EHCI’98 (Heraklion, Greece, 1-18. [10] Forlizzi, J., Battarbee, K. 2004. Understanding Experience in Interactive Systems. In Proceedings of the 5th conference on Designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques (DIS2004). Massachusetts. USA. [11] Forman, G. 2003. An extensive empirical study of feature selection metrics for text classification. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 3 (Mar. 2003), 1289-1305. [12] Fredens, K. 1987. Hvad er motorik? Motorikkens betydning for den kognitive udvikling. Tidsskrift for idræt. 3 (Danish). [13] Griffith, N. & Fernström, M. 1998. LiteFoot: A Floor Space for Recording Dance and Controlling Media. In Proceedings of ICMC 1998. [14] Grudin, J. 1990. The Computer Reaches Out: The Historical Continuity of Interface Design Evolution and Practice in User Interface Engineering. In Proc. of ACM CHI’90 Conf. on Humane Factors in Computing Systems, 261-268. [15] Hall, T. and Bannon, L. 2005. Designing ubiquitous computing to enhance children's interaction in museums. In Proceeding of the 2005 Conference on interaction Design and Children (Boulder, Colorado, June 08 - 10, 2005). IDC '05. ACM, New York, NY, 62-69. [16] Hämäläinen, P. 2007. Novel applications of real-time audiovisual signal processing technology for art and sports education and entertainment. Doctoral thesis for Helsinki University of Technology. [17] Holm, K. 2002. Sæt fart på dit barns udvikling. Algarve, Rønne (in Danish). [18] Höysniemi, J. and Perttu H. 2005. Children’s and Parents’ Perception of Full-Body Interaction and Violence in a Martial Arts Game. In Proc. of the 2005 conference on Designing for User experience, San Francisco, California. [19] Hummels, C., Overbeeke, K. C. J. & Klooster, S. 2007. Move to get moved: a search for methods, tools and knowledge to design for expressive and rich movementbased interaction. In Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, Volume 11, Springer-Verlag, 677-690. [20] Ishii, H. & Ulmer, B. 1997. Tangible Bits: Towards Seamless Interfaces Between People, Bits and Atoms. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, 234-241, March 22-27, 1997, Atlanta, Georgia. [21] Kjölberg, J. 2004. Designing Full Body Movement Interaction Using Modern Dance as a Starting Point. In Proceedings of the 2004 conference on Designing Interactive Systems, Cambridge, MA, 353-356. [22] Klemmer, S. R., Hartmann, B., Takayama, L. 2006. How Bodies Matter: Five Themes for Interaction Design. In Proceedings of the 6th conference on Designing Interactive systems (DIS 2006). Pennsylvania. USA. [23] Kolb, B. 2006. An Introduction to Brain and Behavior. Second Ed. Worth Publishers, New York. [24] Lakoff, G., Johnson, M. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought. Basic Books.

[25] Larssen, A. T., Robertson, T. & Edwards, J. 2006. How it Feels, not Just How it Looks: When Bodies Interact with Technology. In Proceedings of OZCHI 2006, November 2024, Sydney, Australia. [26] Long, A. C., Landay, J. A., Rowe, L. A. 1999. Implications For a Gesture Design Tool. In CHI '99: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. [27] MacKay, W. 1998. Augmented Reality: Linking real and virtual worlds - A new paradigm for interacting with computers. In Proceedings of the working conference on Advanced visual interfaces (AVI ’98), 13-21. [28] McCarthy, J., Wright, P. 2004. Technology as Experience, MIT Press, Cambridgde Massachusetts. [29] Merleau-Ponty, M. 1945 (publ. 2002). Phenomenology of Perception, Routledge Classics. [30] Moen, J. 2006. KinAesthetic Movement Interaction: Designing for the pleasure of Motion, Ph.D. dissertation, KTH, Numerical Analysis and Computer Science, Sweden. [31] Mueller, F., Agamanolis, S. and Picard, R. 2003. Exertion Interfaces: Sports over a Distance for Social Bonding and Fun. In Proceedings of CHI 2003, April 5-10, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, USA, 561-568. [32] Noland, C. 2007. Motor Intentionality: Gestural Meaning in Bill Viola and Merleau-Ponty. Postmodern Cultures, Volume 17, Number 3. [33] Paradiso, J., Abler, C., Hsiao, K., Reynolds 1997. The Magic Carpet: Physical Sensing for Immersive Environments. In CHI ’97 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems: looking to the future. ACM Press, 277-278. [34] Parés, N., Carreras, A., & Soler, M. 2004. Non-invasive attitude detection for full-body interaction in MEDIATE, a multisensory interactive environment for children with autism. In Proceedings of Vision, Modeling, and Visualization 2004 (VMV'04). Stanford, California, USA. [35] Petersen, M. G., Iversen, O. S., Krogh, P. G., Ludvigsen, M. 2004. Aesthetic Interaction: A Pragmatist's Aesthetics of Interactive Systems. In Proc. of the 2004 Conference on Designing interactive systems (DIS2004), August 1-4, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. [36] Rasch, P.J., and Burke, R.K. 1971. Kinesiology and Applied Anatomy. Henry Kimpton, Great Britain. [37] Samanci, Ö., Chen, Y. & Mazalek, A. 2007. Tangible Comics: A performance space with full body interaction. In Proceedings of the international conference on Advance in Computer Entertainment Technology. Salzburg, Austria. [38] Seitz, J. A. I move…Therefore I Am. 2003. Psychology Today, Marts 2003. [39] Thompson, C. W. 2004. Manual of Structural Kinesiology. McGraw-Hill, New York. [40] Ulmer, B & Ishii, H. 2001. Emerging Frameworks for Tangible User Interfaces. In Human-Computer Interaction in the New Millenium, John M. Carroll, ed., Addison-Wesley, August 2001, 579-601. [41] Zahavi, D. 2001. Husserl's Phenomenology: New, revised edition. Gyldendal.