Real-Time Interactive Multimodal Systems for Physiological and Emotional Wellbeing
There has been lately significant progress in the design of clinically assistive technologies for physiological and emotional wellbeing, driven by developments in Human Computer Interaction, Virtual Reality systems for rehabilitation and social interaction and Rehabilitation Robotics. The clinical, task-driven nature of such systems though often affects negatively the user acceptance of technology, resulting in lesser interactions with the user. At the same time, interactive environments which are not constructed for strictly medical applications, can also instigate interaction dialogues which generate physiological and emotional benefits for the user, while also incorporating a more playful dimension. As there is currently lack of communication channels between Clinically Assistive technologies and Socially Interactive Design Systems, the chapter attempts to merge these domains by identifying parameters related to physiological and emotional wellbeing that could inform the design of interactive systems for health and wellbeing at variable scales. These parameters are presented as a set of guidelines for Interaction design for healthcare and wellbeing, and the chapter elaborates on their practical application through three case studies: RoboZoo, Textrinium and Reflectego. All the presented case studies operate as public indoor or outdoor installations and have been tested in different contextual conditions, in Netherlands, Spain and France.
KeywordsArchitecture Real-time interaction Robotics User behaviour Tangible interaction
We would specially like to thank the research and design team members involved in the RoboZoo, Textrinium and FLUID projects: Dr. Jia Rey Chang, Javid Jooshesh, Guang Yang, Jan Paclt, Chris Pydo, Kasper Siderius, Radoslaw Flis, Bob Heester, Esther Slagter, Marien Teeuw, Veronika, Laszlo, Ricardo Galli, Chrysostomos Tsaprailis, Leslie Che, Jiarui Sun, Yağ ız Söylev, Tanya Somova, Nick van Dorp, Hua Fan, Y. Lyu, Danny Cheng, R. Chheda. Additionally, we would like to thank the European Union Culture Grant for providing us with the opportunity and for funding such interactive environments, as well as the Swedish School of Textiles from the University of Boras, and especially Dr. Delia Dumitrescu, Dr. Hanna Landin and Marjan Kooroshnia, for the provision of guidance and facilities for the construction of the interactive textiles.
- Been-Lirn Duh, H., et al. (2010). Senior-friendly technologies: Interaction design for senior users. In CHI extended abstracts (pp. 4513–4516). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
- Fernaeus, Y., & Sundström, P. (2012). The material move how materials matter in interaction design research. In Proceedings of the designing interactive systems conference (pp. 486–495). Newcastle Upon Tyne.Google Scholar
- Hirsch, T. et al. (2000). The ELDer project: Social, emotional, and environmental factors in the design of eldercare technologies. In CUU ’00 Proceedings on the 2000 conference on Universal Usability (pp. 72–79). Arlington, Virginia, USA.Google Scholar
- Hornecker, E., & Buur, J. (2006). Getting a grip on tangible interaction: A framework on physical space and social interaction. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 437–446). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
- Javed, H. et al. (2015). Thomas and friends: Implications for the design of social robots and their role as social story telling agents for children with autism. In 2015 IEEE international conference on robotics and biomimetics (ROBIO) (pp. 1145–1150). Zhuhai, China.Google Scholar
- Kidd, C. D. et al. (2006). A sociable robot to encourage social interaction among the elderly. In Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation , (pp. 3972–3976). Orlando: IEEE.Google Scholar
- Law, E. et al. (2017). A wizard-of-Oz study of curiosity in human-robot interaction. In 26th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN) (pp. 607–614). Lisbon, Portugal.Google Scholar
- Lee, K. M., et al. (2006). Are physically embodied social agents better than disembodied social agents?: The effects of physical embodiment, tactile interaction, and people’s loneliness in human–robot interaction. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64(10), 962–973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Luo, X. et al. (2005). An augmented reality training environment for post-stroke finger extension rehabilitation. In Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE 9th international conference on rehabilitation robotics (pp. 329–332). Chicago: IEEE.Google Scholar
- Oosterhuis, K. (2002). Programmable architecture. L’Arca Edizione.Google Scholar
- Polygerinos, P. et al. (2015). Soft robotic glove for hand rehabilitation and task specific training. In 2015 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (pp. 2913–2919).Google Scholar
- Taysheng, J. (2005). Advanced ubiquitous media for interactive space. Computer Aided Architectural Design Futures, 6, 341–350.Google Scholar