Advertisement

Resonance: An Interactive Tabletop Artwork for Co-located Group Rehabilitation and Play

  • Jonathan DuckworthEmail author
  • Nick Mumford
  • Karen Caeyenberghs
  • Ross Eldridge
  • Scott Mayson
  • Patrick R. Thomas
  • David Shum
  • Gavin Williams
  • Peter H. Wilson
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9177)

Abstract

In this paper we describe the design and development of Resonance, an interactive tabletop artwork that targets upper-limb movement rehabilitation for patients with an acquired brain injury. The artwork consists of several interactive game environments, which enable artistic expression, exploration and play. Each environment aims to encourage collaborative, cooperative, and competitive modes of interaction for small groups (2-4) of co-located participants. We discuss how participants can perform movement tasks face-to-face with others using tangible user interfaces in creative and engaging activities. We pay particular attention to design elements that support multiple users and discuss preliminary user evaluation of the system. Our research indicates that group based rehabilitation using Resonance has the potential to stimulate a high level of interest and enjoyment in patients; facilitates social interaction, complements conventional therapy; and is intrinsically motivating.

Keywords

Interactive art Group interaction Tabletop display Movement rehabilitation Acquired brain injury 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work is supported by an Australian Research Council (ARC) Linkage Grant LP110200802, and Synapse Grant awarded by the Australia Council for the Arts.

References

  1. 1.
    Murphy, T.H., Corbett, D.: Plasticity during stroke recovery: from synapse to behaviour. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 10(12), 861–872 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Esbensen, A.J., Rojahn, J., Aman, M.G., Ruedrich, S.: Reliability and validity of an assessment instrument for anxiety, depression, and mood among individuals with mental retardation. J. Autism. Dev. Disord. 33(6), 617–629 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Starkstein, S.E., Pahissa, J.: Apathy following traumatic brain injury. Psychiatr. Clin. North Am. 37(1), 103–112 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Green, D., Schertz, M., Gordon, A.M., Moore, A., Schejter Margalit, T., Farquharson, Y., Ben Bashat, D., Weinstein, M., Lin, J.P., Fattal-Valevski, A.: A multi-site study of functional outcomes following a themed approach to hand–arm bimanual intensive therapy for children with hemiplegia. Dev. Med. Child Neurol. 55(6), 527–533 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Aarts, P.B., Hartingsveldt, M., Anderson, P.G., Tillaar, I., Burg, J., Geurts, A.C.: The pirate group intervention protocol: description and a case report of a modified constraint-induced movement therapy combined with bimanual training for young children with unilateral spastic cerebral palsy. Occup. Ther. Int. 19(2), 76–87 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tatla, S.K., Sauve, K., Virji-Babul, N., Holsti, L., Butler, C., Loos, H.F.M.: Evidence for outcomes of motivational rehabilitation interventions for children and adolescents with cerebral palsy: an american academy for cerebral palsy and developmental medicine systematic review. Dev. Med. Child Neurol. 55(7), 593–601 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pietrzak, E., Pullman, S., McGuire, A.: Using virtual reality and videogames for traumatic brain injury rehabilitation: A structured literature review. Games Health Res. Dev. Clin. Appl. 3(4), 202–214 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kruger, R., Carpendale, S., Scott, S., Greenberg, S.: How People use orientation on tables: comprehension, coordination and communication. In: GROUP 2003, AMC Press (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dietz, P., Leigh, D.: DiamondTouch: a multi-user touch technology. In: Proceedings of the 14th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, pp. 219–226. ACM, Orlando (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wellner, P.: Interacting with paper on the Digital Desk. Commun. ACM 36(7), 87–96 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Scott, S., Grant, K., Mandryk, R.: System guidelines for co-located, collaborative work on a tabletop display. In: Proceedings of the 2003 Eighth European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wu, M., Balakrishnan, R.: Multi-finger and whole hand gestural interaction techniques for multi-user tabletop displays. In: UIST 2003, pp. 193–202. AMC Press (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ullmer, B., Ishii, H.: The metaDESK: models and prototypes for tangible user interfaces. In: UIST 1997, pp. 223–232. ACM Press (1997)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rick, J., Marshall, P., Yuill, N.: Beyond one-size-fits-all: how interactive tabletops support collaborative learning. In: IDC 2011, Ann Arbor (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fleck, R., Rogers, Y., Yuill, N., Marshall, P., Carr, A., Rick, J., Bonnett, V.: Actions speak loudly with words: unpacking collaboration around the table. In: ITS 2009, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Giusti, L., Zancanaro, M., Gal, E., Weiss, P.: Dimensions of collaboration on a tabletop interface for children with autism spectrum disorder. In: CHI 2011, AMC Press (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Duckworth, J., Wilson, P.H.: Embodiment and play in designing an interactive art system for movement rehabilitation. Second Nat. 2(1), 120–137 (2010)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mumford, N., Duckworth, J., Thomas, P.R., Shum, D., Williams, G., Wilson, P.H.: Upper limb virtual rehabilitation for traumatic brain injury: initial evaluation of the elements system. Brain Inj. 24(5), 780–791 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mumford, N., Duckworth, J., Thomas, P.R., Shum, D., Williams, G., Wilson, P.H.: Upper-limb virtual rehabilitation for traumatic brain injury: a preliminary within-group evaluation of the elements system. Brain Inj. 26(2), 166–176 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Duckworth, J., Thomas, P.R., Shum, D., Wilson, P.H.: Designing co-located tabletop interaction for rehabilitation of brain injury. In: Marcus, A. (ed.) DUXU 2013, Part II. LNCS, vol. 8013, pp. 391–400. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dourish, P.: Where the Action is: The Foundations of Embodied Interaction. MIT Press, Cambridge (2001)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gajadhar, B., de Kort, Y.A.W., Ijsselsteijn, W.A.: Rules of engagement: influence of co-player presence on player involvement in digital games. Int. J. Gaming Computer-Mediated Simul. 1(3), 14–27 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Multitaction. Accessed from: http://www.multitaction.com
  24. 24.
    Ishii, H.: Tangible Bits: beyond Pixels, In: TEI 2008. 2008, AMC Press: New York. pp. xv-xxv (2008)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rizzo, A.A.: A SWOT analysis of the field of virtual reality rehabilitation and therapy. Presence 14(2), 119–146 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ishii, H., Ullmer, B.: Tangible bits: towards seamless interfaces between people, bits and atoms. In: SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM Press, Atlanta (1997)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    McCrea, P.H., Eng, J.J., Hodgson, A.J.: Biomechanics of reaching: clinical implications for individuals with acquired brain injury. Disabil. Rehabil. 24(10), 534–541 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
  29. 29.
  30. 30.
    McAuley, E., Duncan, T., Tammen, V.V.: Psychometric properties of the intrinsic motivation inventory in a competitive sport setting: a confirmatory factor analysis. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 60(1), 48–58 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jonathan Duckworth
    • 1
    Email author
  • Nick Mumford
    • 6
  • Karen Caeyenberghs
    • 6
  • Ross Eldridge
    • 1
  • Scott Mayson
    • 2
  • Patrick R. Thomas
    • 3
  • David Shum
    • 4
  • Gavin Williams
    • 5
  • Peter H. Wilson
    • 6
  1. 1.School of Media and CommunicationRMIT UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.School of Architecture and DesignRMIT UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  3. 3.School of Education and Professional StudiesGriffith UniversityBrisbaneAustralia
  4. 4.Behavioural Basis of Health, Griffith Health Institute and School of Applied PsychologyGriffith UniversityBrisbaneAustralia
  5. 5.School of PhysiotherapyUniversity of Melbourne, Epworth HospitalMelbourneAustralia
  6. 6.Faculty of Health Sciences, School of PsychologyAustralian Catholic UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations