Advertisement

Movement-Based Co-creation of Adaptive Architecture

  • Holger SchnädelbachEmail author
  • Hendro Arieyanto
Chapter
Part of the Springer Series in Adaptive Environments book series (SPSADENV)

Abstract

Research in Ubiquitous Computing, Human Computer Interaction and Adaptive Architecture combine in the research of movement-based interaction with our environments. Despite movement capture technologies becoming commonplace, the design and the consequences for architecture of such interactions require further research. This chapter combines previous research in this space with the development and evaluation of the MOVE research platform that allows the investigation of movement-based interactions in Adaptive Architecture. Using a Kinect motion sensor, MOVE tracks selected body movements of a person and allows the flexible mapping of those movements to the movement of prototype components. In this way, a person inside MOVE can immediately explore the creation of architectural form around them as they are created through the body. A sensitizing study with martial arts practitioners highlighted the potential use of MOVE as a training device, and it provided further insights into the approach and the specific implementation of the prototype. We discuss how the feedback loop between person and environment shapes and limits interaction, and how the selectiveness of this ‘mirror’ becomes useful in practice and training. We draw on previous work to describe movement-based, architectural co-creation enabled by MOVE: (1) Designers of movement-based interaction embedded in Adaptive Architecture need to draw on and design around the correspondences between person and environment. (2) Inhabiting the created feedback loops result in an on-going form creation process that is egocentric as well as performative and embodied as well as without contact.

Keywords

Human-computer interaction Adaptive architecture Human-machine interaction 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all study participants and the two Tetsudo performers in particular. This research has been funded by the University of Nottingham through the Nottingham Research Fellowship ‘The Built Environment as the Interface to Personal Data’ and the EPSRC via grant EP/M000877/1 ‘Living with Digital Ubiquity’.

References

  1. Abawajy JH (2009) Human-computer interaction in ubiquitous computing environments. Int J Pervasive Comput Commun 5:61–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson F, Grossman T, Matejka J, Fitzmaurice G (2013) YouMove: enhancing movement training with an augmented reality mirror. In: Proceedings of the 26th annual ACM symposium on user interface software and technology. ACM, St. Andrews, Scotland, United KingdomGoogle Scholar
  3. Archdaily (2012) Mirror house/MRLP. ArchDaily. http://www.archdaily.com/200735/mirror-house-mlrp. Accessed 10 Mar 2016
  4. Banham R (1984) The architecture of the well-tempered environment. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  5. Barris S, Button C (2008) A review of vision-based motion analysis in sport. Sports Med 38:1025–1043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benford S, Schnädelbach H, Koleva B, Anastasi R, Greenhalgh C, Rodden T, Green J, Ghali A, Pridmore T, Gaver WW, Boucher A, Walker B, Pennington S, Schmidt A, Gellersen H, Steed A (2005) Expected, sensed, and desired: A framework for designing sensing-based interaction. TOCHI 12:3–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bernstein NA (1967) The co-ordination and regulation of movements. Pergamon Press, Oxford, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Bier H (2014) Robotic Building(s). Next Gener Build 1:83–92Google Scholar
  9. Bolbroe C (2013) Adaptive architecture. Copenhagen, Denmark. http://adaptive.itu.dk/projects/Adaptive_Architecture/. Accessed 26 Sept 2017
  10. Borenstein G, Odewahn A, Jepson B (2012) Making things see: 3D vision with Kinect, Processing, Arduino, and MakerBot. O’Reilly, Make Books, Sebastopol, CAGoogle Scholar
  11. Bourdot P, Convard T, Picon F, Ammi M, Touraine D, Vézien JM (2010) VR–CAD integration: multimodal immersive interaction and advanced haptic paradigms for implicit edition of CAD models. Comput-Aided Design 42:445–461Google Scholar
  12. Brand S (1994) How buildings learn: what happens after they’re built. Viking, London, UK, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  13. Brave S, Ishii H, Dahley A (1998) Tangible interfaces for remote collaboration and communication. In: Proceedings of the 1998 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work. ACM, Seattle, Washington, USAGoogle Scholar
  14. Bullivant L (ed) (2005) 4dspace: interactive architecture. Wiley-AcademyGoogle Scholar
  15. Coyne R (2016) Places to play. Interact ForthcomGoogle Scholar
  16. Dhaliwal GUBS (2012) Introduction to Tetsudo. In: Association T (ed). Tetsudo Association, UKGoogle Scholar
  17. Dhaliwal GUBS (2016) Tetsudo-the art form. http://www.tetsudo.co.uk. Accessed 10 Mar 2016
  18. DRMM (2009) Sliding house. http://drmm.co.uk/projects/view.php?p=sliding-house. Accessed 03 Mar 2015
  19. Duffy F (1990) Measuring building performance. Facilities 8:4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Eriksson E, Hansen TR, Lykke-Olesen A (2006) Movement-based interaction in camera spaces: a conceptual framework. Pers Ubiquitous Comput 11:621–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Farahi Bouzanjani B, Leach N, Huang A, Fox M (2013) Alloplastic architecture: the design of an interactive Tensegrity structure. In: Proceedings of the 33rd annual conference of the association for computer aided design in architecture (ACADIA), CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  22. Fox MA, Kemp M (2009) Interactive architecture. Princeton Architectural Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Fuchs T, de Jaegher H (2009) Enactive intersubjectivity: participatory sense-making and mutual incorporation. Phenomenol Cogn Sci 8:465–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Greenberg S, Fitchett C (2001) Phidgets: easy development of physical interfaces through physical widgets. In: 14th annual ACM symposium on user interface software and technology, 2001 Orlando, Florida, vol 502388. ACM Press, pp 209–218Google Scholar
  25. Habraken NJ (1972) Supports: an alternative to mass housing. Architectural Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  26. Hachimura K, Kato H, Tamura H (2004) A prototype dance training support system with motion capture and mixed reality technologies. In: 13th IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication, ROMAN 2004, 20–22 Sept 2004, pp 217–222Google Scholar
  27. Herman IP (2007) Physics of the human body. Springer, Berlin, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hong T, Sun H, Chen Y, Taylor-Lange SC, Yan D (2016) An occupant behavior modeling tool for co-simulation. Energy Build 117:272–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hubers JC (2004) Muscle tower ii. TU Delft, Delft, The Netherlands. http://www.bk.tudelft.nl/index.php?id=16060&L=1. Accessed 1 Nov 2013
  30. Ishii H, Ullmer B (1997) Tangible bits: towards seamless interfaces between people, bits and atoms. In: CHI 1997. ACM Press, Atlanta, USA, pp 234–241Google Scholar
  31. Jacobs M, Findley J (2001) Breathe. http://www.sonicribbon.com/sonicribbon/breathe/. Accessed 03 Mar 2015
  32. Kohlstedt K (2004) Mirrored street facade art turns pedestrians into acrobats. http://weburbanist.com/2013/01/27/mirrored-street-facade-art-turns-pedestrians-into-acrobats/. Accessed 10 Mar 2016
  33. Kronenburg R (2002) Houses in motion: the genesis, history and development of the portable building. Academy Editions, LondonGoogle Scholar
  34. Kronenburg R (2007) Flexible: architecture that responds to change. Laurence King, LondonGoogle Scholar
  35. Kyan M, Sun G, Li H, Zhong L, Muneesawang P, Dong N, Elder B, Guan L (2015) An approach to ballet dance training through MS Kinect and visualization in a CAVE virtual reality environment. ACM Trans Intell Syst Technol 6:1–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Larssen AT, Robertson T, Loke L, Edwards J (2007) Introduction to the special issue on movement-based interaction. Person Ubiquitous Comput 11:607–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Latour B, Yaneva A (2008) Give me a gun and I will make all buildings move: an ANT’s view of architecture. Explor Archit Teach Design Res:80–89Google Scholar
  38. Lefebvre H (2013) Rhythmanalysis: space, time and everyday life. Bloomsbury Publishing PLC, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  39. Loke L, Robertson T (2013) Moving and making strange: an embodied approach to movement-based interaction design. ACM Trans Comput-Hum Interact (TOCHI) 20:7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Long R (1967) A line made by walking, UKGoogle Scholar
  41. Marshall J, Rowland D, Egglestone SR, Benford S, Walker B, Mcauley D (2011) Breath control of amusement rides. In: Proceedings of the sigchi conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, Vancouver, BC, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  42. Montgomery GT (1994) Slowed respiration training. Appl Psychophysiol Biofeedback 19:211–225Google Scholar
  43. Nehaniv CL, Dautenhahn K (2002) The correspondence problem. In: Kerstin D, Chrystopher LN (eds) Imitation in animals and artifacts. MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  44. Phidgets INC (2006) Phidgets INC: unique and easy to use usb interfaces. Phidgets INC, Calgary, Canada. http://www.phidets.com. Accessed 12 June 2006
  45. Processing Foundation (2016) Processing.Org. http://www.processing.org. Accessed 10 Mar 2016
  46. Ricardo Cruz M, Nadia, B-B, Pablo R, Gustavo Casillas L (2015) A classification of user experience frameworks for movement-based interaction design. Design J 18:393–420Google Scholar
  47. Rogers Y (2009) The changing face of human-computer interaction in the age of ubiquitous computing. In: Holzinger A, Miesenberger K (eds) 2009 Proceedings of the HCI and Usability for e-Inclusion: 5th symposium of the workgroup human-computer interaction and usability engineering of the austrian computer society, USAB 2009, Linz, Austria, November 9–10. Springer, Berlin, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  48. Schnädelbach H (2010) Adaptive architecture-a conceptual framework. In: Geelhaar J, Eckardt F, Rudolf B, Zierold S, Markert M (eds) MediaCity. Bauhaus-Universität Weimar, Weimar, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  49. Schnädelbach H (2012) Hybrid spatial topologies. J Space Syntax 3:204–222Google Scholar
  50. Schnädelbach H (2016) Movement in adaptive architecture. In: Griffiths S, Lünen AV (eds) Spatial cultures: towards a new social morphology of cities past and present. Routledge/Ashgate, LondonGoogle Scholar
  51. Schnädelbach H, Glover K, Irune A (2010) ExoBuilding-breathing life into architecture. In: NordiCHI. ACM Press, Reykjavik, IcelandGoogle Scholar
  52. Schnädelbach H, Irune A, Kirk D, Glover K, Brundell P (2012) ExoBuilding: physiologically driven adaptive architecture. ACM Trans Comput Hum Interact (TOCHI) 19:1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schumacher M, Schaeffer O, Vogt, M-M (2010) MOVE: architecture in motion-dynamic components and elements, BirkhäuserGoogle Scholar
  54. Solodkin A, Hlustik P, Buccino G (2007) The anatomy and physiology of the motor system in humans. handbook of psychophysiology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  55. Studio Gang Architects (2009) Bengt sjostrom starlight theatre/studio gang architects. ArchDaily. http://www.archdaily.com/?p=28649. Accessed 02 Mar 2015
  56. Thomsen MR (2008) Robotic membranes-exploring a textile architecture of behaviour. Protoarchitecture-analogue and digital hybrids. Wiley, LondonGoogle Scholar
  57. Varela FJ, Thompson E, Rosch E (1991) The embodied mind: cognitive science and human experience. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  58. Weiser M (1991) The computer for the twenty-first century. Scient Am 265:94–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wheeler M (2005) Reconstructing the cognitive world. MIT Press, Cambridge, USAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mixed Reality Lab, School of Computer ScienceUniversity of NottinghamNottinghamUK
  2. 2.Casajardin Residence Software MaintenanceJakarta RayaIndonesia

Personalised recommendations