Advertisement

Meaningful Interaction with Physiological Computing

  • Stephen H. Fairclough
  • Kiel Gilleade
Chapter
Part of the Human–Computer Interaction Series book series (HCIS)

Abstract

Physiological data can be used as input to a computerised system. There are many types of interaction that can be facilitated by this form of input ranging from intentional control to implicit software adaptation. This type of interaction directly with the brain and body represent a new paradigm in human–computer interaction and this chapter will discuss how meaning is associated with data interpretation and changes at the interface. The chapter will categorise the different systems physiological input allows and discuss how interaction with the system can be made meaningful for the user.

Keywords

Input Control Motor Imagery Physiological Data Gesture Recognition Body 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.

References

  1. Allison B, Graimann B, Graser A (2007a) Why use a BCI if you are healthy? In: ACE workshop—Brainplay’07: brain–computer interfaces and games, SalzburgGoogle Scholar
  2. Allison BZ, Wolpaw EW, Wolpaw JR (2007b) Brain–computer interface systems: progress and prospects. Expert Rev Med Devices 4:463–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allison BZ, Dunne S, Leeb R, Millan J, Nijholt A (2012) Towards practical brain–computer interfaces: bridging the gap from research to real-world applications. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Cacioppo JT, Tassinary LG (1990) Inferring psychological significance from physiological signals. Am Psychol 45:16–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Craig AD (2003) Interoception: the sense of the physiological condition of the body. Curr Opin Neurobiol 13(4):500–505CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. Fairclough SH (2008) BCI and physiological computing: similarities, differences and intuitive control. In: Workshop on BCI and computer games: CHI’08, FlorenceGoogle Scholar
  7. Fairclough SH (2009) Fundamentals of physiological computing. Interact Comput 21:133–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fairclough SH (2011) Physiological computing: interfacing with the human nervous system. In: Ouwerkerk M (ed) Sensing emotions in context. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Fairclough SH, Gilleade K (2012) Construction of the biocybernetic loop: a case study. In: Proceedings of the 14th ACM international conference on multimodal interaction, ACM, Santa MonicaGoogle Scholar
  10. Gallagher S (2005) How the body shapes the mind. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  11. Gilleade K, Allanson J (2003) A toolkit to explore affective interface adaptation in videogames. In: Stephanidis C, Jacko J (eds) HCI International 2003, vol 2. Lawernce Erlbaum Associates, Crete, pp 370–374Google Scholar
  12. Gilleade KM, Dix A (2004) Using frustration in the design of adaptive videogames. In: Proceedings of the 2004 ACM SIGCHI international conference on advances in computer entertainment technologyGoogle Scholar
  13. Gilleade K, Dix A, Allanson J (2005) Affective videogames and modes of affective gaming: assist me, challenge me, emote me. In: DiGRA 2005, VancouverGoogle Scholar
  14. Gilleade K, Fairclough SH (2010) Physiology as XP—Bodyblogging to Victory. In: BioS-Play workshop at fun and games 2010, Leuven, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  15. Gilleade K (2010) The body blogger—physiology in a public space. Presentation at quantified self London. http://vimeo.com/16649098. Accessed 03 Feb 2012
  16. Gilleade K (2011) Lessons from a year of heart rate data. Presentation at quantified self Europe. http://quantifiedself.com/conference/Amsterdam-2011. Accessed 03 Feb 2012
  17. Gilleade K, Lee K (2011) Issues inherent in controlling the interpretation of the physiological cloud. In: CHI 2011 workshop on brain and body interfaces: designing for meaningful interaction, VancouverGoogle Scholar
  18. Haynes NK (1999) How we became post human: virtual bodies in cybernetics, literature and informatics. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  19. Hwang H-J, Kwon K, Chang-Hawang I (2009) Neurofeedback-based motor imagery training for brain-computer interface (BCI). J Neurosci Methods 179:150–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kaber DB, Wright MC, Prinzel LJ, Clamann MP (2005) Adaptive automation of human–machine system information processing functions. Hum Factors 47:730–741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kapoor A, Burleson W, Picard RW (2007) Automatic prediction of frustration. Int J Hum Comput Stud 65:724–736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Klein J, Moon Y, Picard RW (2002) This computer responds to user frustration: theory, design and results. Interact Comput 14:119–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Klein G, Woods DD, Bradshaw JM, Hoffman RR, Feltovich PJ (2004) Ten challenges for making automation a “team player” in joint human–agent activity. IEEE Intell Syst 19(6):91–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Klimesch W (1999) EEG alpha and theta oscillations reflect cognitive and memory performance: a review and analysis. Brain Res Rev 29:169–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Krusienski DJ, Sellers EW, McFarland DJ, Vaughan TM, Wolpaw J (2008) Towards enhanced P300 speller performance. J Neurosci Methods 167:15–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kubler A, Muller K-R (2007) An introduction to brain-computer interfacing. In: Dornhedge G, del R Millan J, Hinterberger T, McFarland DJ, Muller K-R (eds) Towards brain–computer interfacing. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 1–25Google Scholar
  27. Lindström M, Ståhl A, Höök K et al. (2006) Affective diary: designing for bodily expressiveness and self-reflection. In: CHI ’06 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems. ACM, New York, pp 1037–1042Google Scholar
  28. Lee JD, See KA (2004) Trust in automation: designing for appropriate reliance. Hum Factors 46:50–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lotte F, Larrue F, Mühl C (2013) Flaws in current human training protocols for spontaneous brain–computer interfaces: lessons learned from instructional design. Frontiers in Hum Neurosci. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00568 Google Scholar
  30. Nijholt A, Plass-Oude Bos D, Reuderink B (2009) Turning shortcomings into challenges: brain–computer interfaces for games. Entertain Comput 1:85–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Peck E, Lalooses F, Chauncey K (2011) Framing meaningful adaption in a social context. In: CHI 2011 workshop on brain and body interfaces: designing for meaningful interaction, VancouverGoogle Scholar
  32. Philips Direct Life (2011) http://www.directlife.philips.com. Accessed 12 Jan 2011
  33. Picard RW (1997) Affective computing. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  34. Pope AT, Bogart EH, Bartolome DS (1995) Biocybernetic system evaluates indices of operator engagement in automated task. Biol Psychol 40:187–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pope AT, Palsson OS (2001) Helping video games “rewire our minds”. In: Playing by the rules. University of Chicago Cultural Policy Center, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  36. Prinzel LJ (2002) Research on hazardous states of awareness and physiological factors in aerospace operations. NASA, HamptonGoogle Scholar
  37. Ramoser H, Muller-Gerking J, Pfurtscheller G (2000) Optimal spatial filtering of single trial EEG during imagined hand movement. IEEE Trans Rehabil Eng 8:441–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rani P, Sarkar N, Lui C (2005) Maintaining optimal challenge in computer games through real-time physiological feedback. In: 11th human–computer interaction international, Las Vegas, 2005Google Scholar
  39. San Agustin J, Skovsgaard H, Paulin Hansen J, Witzner Hansen D (2009) Low-cost gaze interaction: ready to deliver the promises. In: Human factors in computing systems (CHI), ACMGoogle Scholar
  40. Ståhl A, Höök K, Svensson M et al (2008) Experiencing the affective diary. Pers Ubiquit Comput 13:365–378. doi: 10.1007/s00779-008-0202-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tan DS, Nijholt A (2010) Brain–computer interfaces. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  42. Wiener N (1964) God and golem inc. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  43. Wilson GF, Russell CA (2007) Performance enhancement in an uninhabited air vehicle task using psychophysiologically determined adaptive aiding. Hum Factors 49:1005–1018CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Natural Sciences and PsychologyLiverpool John Moores UniversityEnglandUK

Personalised recommendations