Personal and Ubiquitous Computing

, Volume 15, Issue 2, pp 133–149 | Cite as

Hyperform specification: designing and interacting with self-reconfiguring materials

  • Michael Philetus Weller
  • Mark D. Gross
  • Seth Copen Goldstein
Original Article

Abstract

We are on the verge of realizing a new class of material that need not be machined or molded in order to make things. Rather, the material forms and re-forms itself according to software programmed into its component elements. These self-reconfiguring materials are composed of robotic modules that coordinate with each other locally to produce global behaviors. These robotic materials can be used to realize a new class of artifact: a shape that can change over time, i.e., a four-dimensional shape or a hyperform. Hyperforms present several opportunities: objects such as furniture could exhibit dynamic behaviors, could respond to tangible and gestural input, and end-users could customize their form and behavior. To realize these opportunities, the tangible interaction community must begin to consider how we will create and interact with hyperforms. The behaviors that hyperforms can perform will be constrained by the capabilities of the self-reconfiguring materials they are made of. By considering how we will interact with hyperforms, we can inform the design of these systems. In this paper, we discuss the life cycle of a hyperform and the roles designers and end-users play in interacting with hyperforms at these various stages. We consider the interactions such a system could afford as well as how underlying hardware and software affect this interaction. And we consider the extent to which several current hardware systems, including our own prismatic cubes (Weller et al. in Intelligent Robots and Systems. IEEE, 2009), can support the hyperform interactions we envision.

Keywords

Modular robotics Tangible interaction Hyperforms Programmable matter 

References

  1. 1.
    Anderson D, Frankel J, Marks J, Leigh D, Ryall K, Sullivan E, Yedidia J (1999) Building virtual structures with physical blocks. In: User interface software and technology (UIST). ACM, pp 71–72Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Butler Z, Kotay K, Rus D, Tomita K (2002) Generic decentralized control for a class of self-reconfigurable robots. In: International conference on robotics and automation (ICRA). IEEE, pp 809–816Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Christensen DJ, Østergaard EH, Lund HH (2004) Metamodule control for the atron self-reconfigurable robotic system. In: Intelligent autonomous systems (IAS), pp 685–692Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Esposito C, Paley WB, Ong J (1995) Of mice and monkeys: a specialized input device for virtual body animation. In: Symposium on interactive 3D graphics, pp 109–114Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jorgensen MW, Østergaard EH, Lund HH (2004) Modular atron: modules for a self-reconfigurable robot. In: Intelligent robots and systems (IROS). IEEE, pp 2068–2073Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Karagozler ME, Campbell JD, Fedder GK, Goldstein SC, Weller MP, Yoon BW (2007) Electrostatic latching for inter-module adhesion, power transfer, and communication in modular robots. In: Intelligent robots and systems (IROS). IEEE, pp 2779–2786Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    LeClerc V, Parkes A, Ishii H (2007) Senspectra: a computationally augmented physical modeling toolkit for sensing and visualization of structural strain. In: Human factors in computing (CHI). ACM, pp 801–804Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lynch N, Segala R, Vaandrager F (2003) Hybrid I/O automata. J Inf Computing 185(1):105–157MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Merrill D, Kalanithi J, Maes P (2007) Siftables: towards sensor network user interfaces. In: Tangible and embedded interaction (TEI). ACM, pp 75–78Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Murata S, Yoshida E, Kamimura A, Kurokawa H, Tomita K, Kokaji S (2002) M-tran: self-reconfigurable modular robotic system. Trans Mech 7(4):431–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Parkes A, LeClerc V, Ishii H (2006) Glume: exploring materiality in a soft augmented modular modeling system. In: Ext. abstracts of human factors in computing (CHI). ACM, pp 1211–1216Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Raffle H, Parkes A, Ishii H (2004) Topobo: a constructive assembly system with kinetic memory. In: Human factors in computing (CHI). ACM, pp 647–654Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rosa MD, Goldstein SC, Lee P, Campbell JD, Pillai P (2006) Scalable shape sculpting via hole motion: motion planning in lattice-constrained module robots. In: International conference on robotics and automation (ICRA). IEEE, pp 1462–1468Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rus D, Vona M (2001) Crystalline robots: self-reconfiguration with compressible unit modules. Autonomous Robots 10(1):107–124MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schweikardt E, Gross MD (2006) roblocks: A robotic construction kit for mathematics and science education. In: International conference on multimodal interfaces (ICMI). ACM, pp 72–75Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shneiderman B (1983) Direct manipulation: a step beyond programming languages. Computer 16(8):57–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stoy K, Nagpal R (2004) Self-reconfiguration using directed growth. In: Distributed autonomous robotic systems (DARS), pp 1–10Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Suh JW, Homans SB, Yim M (2002) Telecubes: mechanical design of a module for self-reconfigurable robotics. In: International conference on robotics and automation (ICRA). IEEE, pp 4095–4101Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Theraulaz G, Bonabeau E (1995) Modelling the collective building of complex architectures in social insects with lattice swarms. J Theor Biol 177(4):381–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Watanabe R, Itoh Y, Asai M, Kitamura Y, Kishino F, Kikuchi H (2004) The soul of activecube—implementing a flexible, multimodal, three-dimensional spatial tangible interface. In: Advanced computer entertainment technology (ACE). ACM, pp 173–180Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Weller MP, Do EY-L, Gross MD (2008) Posey: instrumenting a poseable hub and strut construction toy. In: Tangible and embedded interaction (TEI). ACM, pp 39–46Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Weller MP, Do EY-L, Gross MD (2009) Exploring architectural robotics with the human hive. In: Creativity and cognition (C&C), ACM (to appear)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Weller MP, Do EY-L, Gross MD (2009) An optocoupled poseable ball and socket joint for computationally enhanced construction kits. In: Robot communication and coordination (RoboComm). IEEE, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Weller MP, Kirby BT, Brown HB, Gross MD, Goldstein SC (2009) Design of prismatic cube modules for convex corner traversal in 3D. In: Intelligent robots and systems (IROS), IEEE (to appear)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Yim M, Duff DG, Roufas KD (2000) Polybot: a modular reconfigurable robot. In: International conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), pp 514–520Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yim M, Shen WM, Salemi B, Rus D, Moll M, Lipson H, Klavins E, Chirikjian GS (2007) Modular self-reconfigurable robot systems. Robotics Automation 14(1):43–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Yim M, Shirmohammadi B, Sastra J, Park M, Dugan M, Taylor C (2007) Towards robotic self-reassembly after explosion. In: Intelligent robots and systems (IROS). IEEE, pp 2767–2772Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Yu CH, Willems FX, Ingber D, Nagpal R (2007) Self-organization of environmentally-adaptive shapes on a modular robot. In: Intelligent robots and systems (IROS). IEEE, pp 2353–2360Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zykov V, Mytilinaios E, Desnoyer M, Lipson H (2007) Evolved and designed self-reproducing modular robotics. Trans Robotics 23(2):308–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Philetus Weller
    • 1
  • Mark D. Gross
    • 1
  • Seth Copen Goldstein
    • 2
  1. 1.Computational Design LabCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.Computer Science DepartmentCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations