Is Seeing Believing?

Askari, Sima Ipakchian; Haans, Antal; IJsselsteijn, Wijnand A.

doi:10.1145/3290607.3312976

Cited by 5 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We classified such systems as "other". An example of such a system is the AHD used by Ipakchian Askari et al (2019), as the aim of the study was to investigate the influence of the input device. A system was used where input could be provided by tapping a touchscreen (the touch screen contained buttons with different body locations as labels) or by stroking a morphologically congruent input device (i.e., a rubber hand), depending on the condition.…”

Section: Input Typementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The design dimension morphologically congruent input represents whether or not the system makes use of an input medium representing a human form (e.g., a hand or a mannequin)-a so-called morphologically congruent input (see Ipakchian Askari et al, 2019). Systems with such a feature are classified as "morphologically congruent" and those without as "morphologically incongruent".…”

Section: Morphologically Congruent Inputmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The input needs to be applied directly on a morphologically congruent input device. There are also systems that have the option of either a morphologically congruent or incongruent input (e.g., the system used in Ipakchian Askari et al, 2019). Such systems are classified as "other".…”

Section: Morphologically Congruent Inputmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This may explain the popularity of vibrotactile actuators as they are more easily implemented in portable or wearable devices. Technical complexity may also explain why the use of a morphological congruent input medium is not common, despite previous work suggesting it can influence touch experience (Haans and IJsselsteijn, 2009b;Ipakchian Askari et al, 2019). It may also explain why nonsexual MSTs are currently limited to touches to the upper body and the hand, even though naturalistic social touch can be provided on multiple body locations.…”

Section: Possible Explanations For Design Choices Made Regarding Mst ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Uncovering terra incognita in the AHD design space: A review of affective haptic devices

Askari

Haans

IJsselsteijn

2022

Front. Comput. Sci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Affective haptic devices (AHDs) have been developed with the aim of communicating touch acts, symbolic messages, emotions, and/or providing a sense of social awareness. Within AHDs, three categories can be distinguished: mediated social touch (MST), symbolic communication systems, and awareness systems. For each of these categories, prototypes have been developed and discussed in the literature. Each such prototype, however, describes but a small part of the design space of AHDs. What is lacking is a description of the design space itself—of all choices that can be considered during the design process. Such a description will allow for a more systematic exploration of AHD designs and provides a means of combining insights gained from individual point solutions (i.e., existing prototypes). Therefore, in this article, we provide a systematic description of the design space of AHDs and its underlying dimensions based on general (e.g., revisability or synchronicity) and AHD-specific (e.g., actuation type) communication system characteristics. This resulted in 17 design dimensions, each consisting of two or more categories (the design characteristics). Based on a systematic literature search from devices up to 2019, 89 AHD prototypes were identified, and each was classified on the design dimensions. The empirical analysis of where these AHDs are located in the design space revealed, first, that potentially interesting characteristics from mediated communication, such as revisability and reviewability, are underexplored in AHDs. Second, MST devices were found to often lack those system characteristics, such as real-time modalities, that seem crucial for providing the affordances needed to simulate social touch. In particular, when comparing symbolic and awareness devices to MST devices, we found the latter to more frequently lack some of the key characteristics of face-to-face communication (i.e., bi-directional and symmetric communication). Limitations and implications are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Input Typementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Morphologically Congruent Inputmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Morphologically Congruent Inputmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Possible Explanations For Design Choices Made Regarding Mst ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Uncovering terra incognita in the AHD design space: A review of affective haptic devices

Askari

Haans

IJsselsteijn

2022

Front. Comput. Sci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, a body of work is steadily building, showing the potential of AHDs as communication tools. Research has been conducted on testing the affective and behavioral responses toward haptic stimulation (e.g., Haans et al, 2014;Erk et al, 2015;Harjunen et al, 2017;Ipakchian Askari et al, 2019) and has explored the possibility of using touch devices for communicating emotions [e.g., Hertenstein et al, 2006b;Teyssier et al, 2020]. However, research investigating people's interest in and perceptions toward AHDs has been rare (but see Rognon et al, 2021).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring views on affective haptic devices in times of COVID-19

Askari

Huisman²,

Haans³

et al. 2022

Front. Comput. Sci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Affective haptic devices (AHDs) are communication technologies utilizing the sense of touch, and include mediated social touch (MST), symbolic haptic messaging, and awareness systems that, for example, let one feel another person's heartbeat. The COVID-19 pandemic and consequent social distancing measures have led to a reemphasis of the importance of social touch, and many people have experienced firsthand what it is like to miss touching loved ones. This offers an excellent opportunity to study people's intention to use AHDs. For this purpose, a survey study (n = 277) was conducted combining qualitative and quantitative data analysis methods. Touch deprivation, resulting from not being able to touch a loved one, was associated with intention to use AHDs: the more deprived an individual, the higher his or her intention to use AHDs. Technology readiness and touch aversion did not affect intention to use AHDs. AHDs for symbolic messaging gained higher interest than MST and awareness devices, and long-distance relationships were seen as the most likely scenario for using AHDs. Bi-directionality, synchronicity, and symmetry were regarded as important features for providing shared meaning and a sense of connectedness. Reviewability, multimodality, and actuation type were also deemed important. Limitations of the study and implications for the design of AHDs are discussed.

show abstract