Springboard: Designing Image Schema Based Embodied Interaction for an Abstract Domain

  • Alissa N. AntleEmail author
  • Greg Corness
  • Allen Bevans
Part of the Human-Computer Interaction Series book series (HCIS)


In this paper, we describe the theoretical framing, design, and user study of a whole body interactive environment called Springboard. Springboard supports users to explore the concept of balance in the abstract domain of social justice through embodied interaction. We present the foundational theory of embodied conceptual metaphor, focusing on the twin-pan balance schema, which can be enacted spatially or physically. We describe how these enactments of the balance schema and the conceptual metaphor of balance in social justice can be used to design the interaction model for a whole body interactive environment. We present the results of our qualitative interview style user study with 45 participants. The study was conceived to explore how participants enact, perceive, and understand spatial, physical, and conceptual balance through whole body interaction with an abstract domain such as social justice. We conclude with a discussion of implications for whole body interaction design.


Social Justice Image Schema Body Interaction Abstract Domain Balance Schema 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Antle, A.N., Corness, G., Bakker, S., Droumeva, M., van den Hoven, E., Bevans, A.: Designing to support reasoned imagination through embodied metaphor. In: Conference on Creativity and Cognition, pp. 275–284. ACM Press, Berkeley (2009a)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Antle, A.N., Corness, G., Droumeva, M.: Human-computer-intuition? Exploring the cognitive basis for intuition in embodied interaction. Int. J. Art Technol. 2(3), 235–254 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Antle, A.N., Corness, G., Droumeva, M.: What the body knows: exploring the benefits of embodied metaphors in hybrid physical digital environments. Interact. Comput. Spec. Issue Enactive Interfaces 21(1–2), 66–75 (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bakker, S., Antle, A.N., van den Hoven, E.: Embodied metaphors in interaction design. Pers. Ubiq. Comput. Special Issue on Children and Tangibles, (2011), in pressGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Droumeva, M., Antle, A.N., Corness, G., Bevans, A.: Springboard: exploring embodied metaphor in the design of sound feedback for physical responsive environments. In: Conference on Auditory Display, Copenhagen. (2009). Accessed 30 Sept 2010
  6. 6.
    Holland, S., Marshall, P., Jon Bird, J., Dalton, S., Morris, R., Pantidi, N., Rogers, Y., Clark, A.: Running up Blueberry Hill: prototyping whole body interaction in harmony space. In: Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction, pp. 93–98. ACM Press, Cambridge (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hurtienne, J., Weber, K., Blessing, L.: Prior experience and intuitive use: image schemas in user centred design. In: Langdon, P., Clarkson, J., Robinson, P. (eds.) Designing Inclusive Futures, pp. 107–116. Springer, London (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Johnson, M.: The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1987)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Svanaes, D.: Context-aware technology: a phenomenological perspective. Hum. Comput. Interact. 16, 379–400 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Interactive Arts and TechnologySimon Fraser UniversitySurreyCanada

Personalised recommendations