How perception gets emotional value through the use of an
object
Citation for published version (APA):
Deckers, E. J. L., Westerhoff, J., Pikaart, M., van Wanrooij, G. A. F., & Overbeeke, C. J. (2009). How perception gets emotional value through the use of an object. In Proceedings of the Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces 2009 - DPPI'09
Document status and date: Published: 01/01/2009
Document Version:
Accepted manuscript including changes made at the peer-review stage
Please check the document version of this publication:
• A submitted manuscript is the version of the article upon submission and before peer-review. There can be important differences between the submitted version and the official published version of record. People interested in the research are advised to contact the author for the final version of the publication, or visit the DOI to the publisher's website.
• The final author version and the galley proof are versions of the publication after peer review.
• The final published version features the final layout of the paper including the volume, issue and page numbers.
Link to publication
General rights
Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain
• You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal.
If the publication is distributed under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the “Taverne” license above, please follow below link for the End User Agreement:
www.tue.nl/taverne Take down policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us at: openaccess@tue.nl
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON DESIGNING PLEASURABLE PRODUCTS AND INTERFACES, DPPI09
13-16OCTOBER2009,COMPIEGNEUNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY, COMPIEGNE,FRANCE
HOW PERCEPTION GETS EMOTIONAL VALUE
THROUGH THE USE OF AN OBJECT
E.J.L. Deckers, J. Westerhoff, M. Pikaart, G.A.F. van Wanrooij, C.J. Overbeeke
Eindhoven University of Technology, Department Industrial Design
ABSTRACT
In this paper we explain and interpret theories on perception and indicate how they can inform design. The driving question is how to augment perceived emotional value in design. Based on these theories we state that subjects need similar perceptive bodies, i.e. perceive by the same senses, to be able to perceive the emotional content of reciprocal perception. A basic experiment shows this effect and gives insights on how to design an object that could restore this sharing and understanding between subjects perceiving a scene with different perceptual senses. These insights are used to analyze different designs. In all these case studies the users are unable to naturally perceive reciprocal perception. The first case study is a direct implementation of the theory. User explorations with this prototype show the importance of embodiment in perception. We further investigated this issue in a second case study. This second design investigates the influence of embodiment on the perception of emotional value through direct haptic communication using a mediator. The third example also explores a mediator for perception between users but focuses on auditory stimuli. Finally we show a novel application based on the theory.
Keywords: perception, user-user interaction, embodiment, design
1 INTRODUCTION
The research builds on theories and experiments performed by Lenay et al [1]. They built on known theories of ecological perception by Gibson [2] and on the phenomenology philosophy by Merleau-Ponty. [3] Their work is based on the Sensory Substitution Systems work of Bach-y-Rita [4]. This latter research includes the invention of the Tactile Vision Sensory Substitution (TVSS). [5] This system transforms visual stimuli into tactile stimuli for blind people. Various studies have shown that blind subjects developed spectacular capacities to recognize shapes. But the system has been an economic and social failure, for two reasons: first, the fact people feel uneasy about appearing as “cyborg” in the eyes of others, and second, the fact that the emotional content, or qualia, of the sensory experience appear to be missing.[5]
Lenay et al. conclude that; “there are two kinds of perceptions over time: perceiving the other as part of the environment, versus perceiving the activity of the other perceiving me. It is by switching between these two kinds of perceptions that it becomes possible for one subject to understand the position from which the other subject perceives the scene.” To make it possible to get a feeling of sharing a common space between subjects this constitution of the other subject’s perspective, or ‘point of view’ is essential. [1] Lenay et al. put the following hypothesis to the test. “The emotional value of the lived experience only emerges through a common history, built in the course of interactions between several subjects in a common environment defined by the same means of access.” In more simple words: one can only feel present in an environment when there are other people that share (or could share) one’s way of perceiving, (inter)acting through the same means of perceiving. It is because people have similar perceptual bodies that we feel ourselves as part of the world.
2 PROPOSED THEORY
Figure 1 gives our interpretation of the two kinds of perception over time. Both subjects perceive the object and each other. They perceive by means of active perception, so perception is a result of actions undertaken towards the perceived and the sensory feedback it results in. [2] Note that reciprocal
are able to perceive reciprocal actions towards the self and the object. It are these perceptive actions that enable the subjects to perceive that the other also perceives the self and the object.
Figure 1. Interpretation two kinds of perception over time
On the basis of the work of Bach-Y-Rita we can compare two different situations: (1) Both subjects perceive with similar perceptual modalities; they perceive both visual and (2) one subject perceives only tactile stimuli. In this case subject 2 should touch subject 1 in order to perceive the perceptive actions of subject 1. In most situations this can be awkward or inappropriate which leads to the fact subject 2 is unable to understand subject 1’s point of view. Both situations are sketched in Figure 2. This can be made clear placing the users of the TVSS of Bach-y-Rita as described before into this diagram. The blind people live in a world where perception is predominantly visual. So they perceive the environment and objects tactually by means of the TVSS. As they perceive the world by different means, they are not able to constitute the viewpoints of the other subject. This situation of not sharing viewpoints results in a lack of emotional content when perceiving the object and the scene because the subjects are not able to build a common history.
Figure 2. Comparison of two situations; left both subjects perceive visual, right one subject perceives tactile
The question addressed in this paper: can this loss of perception of perceptive activity, and therefore emotional content, be restored through the perceived object. In figure 3 a visualization of this hypothesis is presented.
3 EXPERIMENT
Before it is possible to design an object that restores the loss of reciprocal perception it is important to gain information on this loss. Lenay et al. performed several experiments and show the effect quite extensively. However, they mediate all the experiments through a virtual world. [1] We like to show the effect in a real life setting and gain information to inform design. In our experiment, a comparison between the two situations sketched in figure 2 is made. We compare these two basic situations in which loss of reciprocal perception is caused by dissimilar perceptual modalities. We think that this loss also exists when subjects are separated in time or location. These situations can be seen as a variation on situation sketched in figure 3. Reciprocal perception of the self is restored by means of a mediator, figure 4.
Figure 4. Restoring reciprocal perception through a mediator 3.1 Set up
In the experiment two subjects are situated in front of each other. The subjects experience four different situations, in which the bodies of interaction differ, in random order all subjects go through all situations. The different situations are; both participants perceive visual (VV), the first participant perceives tactile and the other visual (TV), both participants perceive tactile (TT), and last the second situation is turned round, the second participant perceives tactile and the other visual (VT). The participants perceive an object assigned to the situation and fill out, after every situation, the same questionnaire. The participants answer several questions relating to the same issue. All questions are answered according to a semantic rating. The person perceiving tactile is blindfolded. Auditory feedback is limited by the use of music through a headphone; this is done to minimize the auditory sensory input. In total 14 students participated in pairs of two. The students are not likely to be informed about the theoretical background of the experiment.
Figure 5. Two participants of the test, both perceiving tactile 3.2 Hypotheses and Conclusions
Three hypotheses were put to the test. The first hypothesis concerns the basic effect; does the fact that the subjects perceive with different bodies influence the constitution of reciprocal perception. In other words are they indeed less able to perceive and share their perception with the other subject. The second and third hypothesis are more concerned with the effect on the emotional content of perception when the subject is capable or incapable to share perception All the questions of the questionnaire as said were answered on a differential scale. In the analysis of the experiment we made use of the CHI-square test. [6]
3.2.1 Hypothesis 1
“When both subjects perceive the object by different perceptual bodies, situation VT and TV, subjects are less able to understand and share reciprocal perception of the object and the self.”
We compared, separately, the difference in level of sharing and perceiving reciprocal perception of the tactile and visual bodies in the situations TV/VT to the visual bodies in situation VV. Results are summarized in Table 1. The results indicate indeed, with a level of significance beyond 0,001, that when perceiving by different bodies participants are less able to share and understand reciprocal perception and reaction. Note that the TT situation is not considered as in this situation the participants felt awkward touching each other.
Table 1. Results Hypothesis 1
3.2.2 Hypothesis 2
“As a subject gets less able to share and perceive reciprocal perception, situation Visual-Tactual, the perception of the object will get ‘colder’. “
This seems to be not the case. The data even indicate that for the participants perceiving tactile, also in the VT/TV situations, experience a ‘warmer’ perception of the object when they touch it. The fact perception even got warmer when touching it might be because touching is more intimate, especially to the participants who normally perceive dominantly visual.
3.2.3 Hypothesis 3
“As a subject gets less able to share and perceive reciprocal perception, situation Visual-Tactual, the subject will feel less involved in the situation.”
Participants were asked to what extent they felt involved in the situation in reaction to the extent they were able to share and understand reciprocal perception Results are summarized in Table 2. Indeed the decrease of perceiving and sharing of reciprocal perception affects the feeling of involvement negatively.
Table 2. Results Hypothesis 3
Question Comparison x2 Level of
significance Level of sharing perception TV/VT compared to VV 197,2 <0,001 Ability to perceive perceptive activity TV/VT compared to VV 87,09 <0,001 Ability to perceive reaction TV/VT compared to VV 142 <0,001 Ability to perceive presence TV/VT compared to VV 138 <0,001
Question Comparison x2 Level of
significance Extend of feeling involved in the
situation in relation to extend of sharing perception
Situation high level of sharing indicated to situation low level
of sharing indicated
71,94 <0,001
Extend of feeling involved in the situation in relation to extend of
perceiving perception
Situation high level of sharing indicated to situation low level
of sharing indicated
3.2.4 General Conclusion
The most interesting conclusion is about the proposed missing ‘qualia’ by Bach-Y-Rita [5]. Where the hypotheses was on a lack of emotional content in the perception of the object as well as the context, it appears that it is the context which predominantly determines the emotional content of the perception, when perceiving by means of a different perceptual body. The perception of the other subject does not result in a significant different perception of the object but results in a significant different position of the self within the situation. Restoring, like in figure 3, the sharing of perception and the perception of perceptive actions of the other will apparently restore the feeling of involvement, change the placement of the self, and therefore restore the ‘qualia’ or emotional content of the perception of the scene.
4 DESIGN FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
The question now is; how can these ‘qualia’ of the context be re-created through different modalities. The experiment performed resulted in quantitative data but also qualitative data as all experiments were filmed and reviewed. The combination of both, results in three steps important for designing an object that restores emotional content in perception as they determine the placement of the self within the scene.
1. Perceiving the presence of the other subject (as a subject and not an object)
2. Perceiving the perceptive actions towards the object and the self of the other subject 3. Perceiving the reaction on the object and on the self of the other subject
We now like to discuss four different designs; the first three are research designs that are respectively created by the first three authors of this paper. The last case study is much more concerned with a real world application and is created by the fourth author. All the designs are discussed according to the three steps we propose to inform design.
5 CASE STUDIES
In the first design one of the subjects has a loss of perceiving perceptive activity of other subjects because the subject perceives purely tactile. This design is a direct embodiment of the theory and designed to explore the situation visualized in Figure 3. It is therefore not a mediator without little intrinsic value but a recognizable object in itself. The other three examples are derivates of this idea and are in fact mediators that have little intrinsic value themselves. The lack of natural perception of reciprocal perceptive activity in this case is not caused by a difference in perceptive modality but because subjects are separated by distance and/or time. Figure 4 sketches perception through a mediator. The first of the mediator designs is built to investigate the influence of embodiment on emerging of emotional value in direct haptic communication between subjects. The second investigates the added value of the ability to determine position of the other subject in a telephone conversation; does auditory localization restore the idea of reciprocal perception. Lastly we show a more real life design based on the forgoing theory. This novel application gives an idea on how design, founded in theory, could manifest in our daily lives.
5.1 Case Study 1: Restoring Reciprocal Perception through the perceived Object
Two concepts are proposed of which quick and simple prototypes were created. We believe making concepts tangible is very important to clarify and communicate them. We discuss first the two concepts, than the final concepts and last some first results from an exploration with the final design. This structure is also used in the discussion of the other case studies.
5.1.1 Concept 1
The goal of the first concept is to perceive presence through the object, by letting an almost identical second object follow the movements of the first object. The subjects are separated but can perceive each others presence as the movement of the object reveals someone else, capable of turning the object, is present. The way the object moves might already indicate something about the perceptive actions as it shows characteristics like speed and position.
5.1.2 Concept 2
The second concept focuses more on perceiving perceptive actions and shows that the design steps are not to be looked at separately. Little knobs in one object are connected to vibration motors in an almost identical second object. If the object with the little knobs is for example touched on the bottom side or the top side this gives a difference in perception of the other object. The way the object vibrates shows how the other subject touches the object, and reveals something about the reaction of the other subject to the object. This concept, of transforming touch into tactile feedback, provides already in this basic appearance a rich experience and provides more freedom of interaction than the concept of following movement. Also it is more applicable to the three steps of perception proposed before. A final concept based on this principle is worked out.
Figure 6. Left Concept 1; perceiving presence through movement, Right Concept2; perceiving perceptive action using touch sensitivity and vibration as sensory feedback
5.1.3 Final Concept
For the third and final to-be-built prototype it would be ideal to make an object in line with the foregoing experiment; an object that would be perceived by a visual perceiving subject and a tactile perceiving subject. This would mean that the sight of the one subject is captured and guided through the object into tactile feedback for the tactile perceiving subject. The perceptive actions like looking at different sides of the object results in tactile feedback at different sides of the object. There is just one object. However, to make the research feasible we chose to capture touch in one object and transform this to tactile output in a second identical object. Two vases that are directly linked were created. In one vase 26 capacity sensors are integrated that are directly linked to a vibration motor in the other vase on the exact same spot of the vase.
The vibration itself indicates the vase is being touched by someone else, so another subject is present, the location and dynamics of the vibration on different spots indicate the perceptive actions of the other subject and interpretation of this could result in the perception of the reaction; touching the vase with two hands or with just one fingertip might indicate how the subject feels towards the object. This design is an embodiment of the diagram in Figure 3, subject 1 is the subject perceiving visual, subject 2 the subject perceiving tactile, and the vases are object 1 transmitting perceptive actions of subject 1 to subject 2.
Figure 7. Experiment with the final prototype, blindfolded subject perceives the other subject through vibration in the vase
5.1.4 Results
An explorative experiment is set up with the final prototype. The outcome indicates the objects have the potential to indeed restore the connection between the subjects but gives no significant result yet. A reason for this outcome is that the experiment is quite hard to set up. This is not surprising when reconsidering the theory proposed by Lenay et al. They make a distinction between ‘in hand’ and ‘put down’ perception. [1] The difference becomes very clear in a simple example: when reading glasses are on the table they are an object. The moment one puts them on the nose the glasses become a tool, an extension of the body. The glasses are no longer an object but an embodied tool, part of the subject. The only way for the design to restore the perceptual understanding and sharing is when the stimuli are embodied by the subject. The subject shouldn’t just feel a vibration but have the experience of directly perceiving another subject within the object. The next design investigates this so called perceptual crossing.
5.2 Case Study 2: Remote Haptic Touch
The second case study shows how the design principles proposed earlier can be applied to create a haptic communication device. The design is built around the concept of perceptive crossing [1]. The concept of perceptual crossing is best described by a simple example: a blind person is navigating his way trough a room using a cane. This cane is in the so-called in-hand mode [1] and acts as an extension of the blind persons arm. Suddenly the blind person encounters a second blind person with a cane, and their canes touch each other. The result is a play of perceptive actions, felt by both persons. In this loop one person feels the perceptive actions of the other, and vice versa. This crossing of perceptions makes it clear for the subject that he is not dealing with an object, but with another intelligent being that is trying to perceive him too. As we have discussed before this perceptual crossing, or perceiving reciprocal perception, is essential to feel involved in a scene.
The design recreates this perceptive crossing over distance by presenting two subjects with an actuated surface [7] that is connected to the other subject. The challenge for such a communication device is to be fully in the in-hand state, or embodied by the subject. Any interfering aspects will detach the object from the subject, making the subject aware of physical properties of the object rather than actions from the other subject he is trying to communicate with.
5.2.1 First Prototype
To create the mediator firs several prototypes are created. The first simple one is based on a traditional pin-screen. A grid of rods directly translates the movements on one side of the screen to the other, providing a very direct communication. This prototype does not enable simultaneous interaction which hinders the desired perceptive crossing; when touching one side, the actions from the other side are blocked. A good thing however is the very direct communication of movements from one side to the other.
5.2.2 Second Prototype
A second prototype is created to allow for simultaneous interaction from both sides. It consists out of two sets connected air-tubes. The air acts as a buffer and allows for both sides to be pressed at the same time, while still communicating movement to the other side. This prototype is already close to the desired effect; two people interact with each other through the object and feel each others perceptive activity. However the friction caused by the air-tubing makes the interaction is rather slow. A distortion of perceptive actions could occur as the subject might not intend the action to be that slow. The variation in speed becomes limited and minimizes the reaction that could be read from the other subject’s actions.
5.2.3 Final Prototype
The final prototype counters the slowness, while still maintaining the simultaneous interaction. The prototype uses servo motors driven by pressure sensors. The servo motors are connected to an elastic surface, which they push or pull. The result is a surface that creates peaks corresponding to the place the other surface is touched. Each tip of a servo-arm is equipped with a touch sensor; which is linked to the servo in the other surface. So, when one surface is touched, the servos on the other surface create peaks on the spots corresponding to the touched spots. When a second subject touches the peaks, the first subject notices the reaction as the surface the subject touches reacts and perceptive crossing starts.
The two sides of the prototype have a different size. This is done to test whether the size of the surface has any effect on the experience of intimacy people would have. The theory of embodiment states that as soon as a tool becomes embodied (part of the subject’s body), it looses physical properties (in the eyes of the subject) and purely becomes an extension of the body. Changing the scale should have no effect on how a person experiences the communication through the device.
5.2.4 Results
Six pairs of subjects participated in a user test with the final prototype. The test-subjects were placed in a room. They were separated from each other by means of a screen. The only way they are able to communicate is through the actuated surface in front of them. The subjects first freely explore the possibilities of the system; try to establish contact with the other subject. After this the subjects were asked to communicate given emotions to the other subject by only using the actuated surface.
After the test all subjects filled in a series of semantic differential scales [8] and were individually interviewed. The results from these tests show strong evidence that the test-subjects experienced a high sense of presence, perceptive actions and reaction of another subject. Next to this it became clear that the small and big sides of the prototype score quite similarly on the semantic differential. This shows that the size of the surfaces does not have an effect on the experience and so functions as an embodied extension for communication.
Figure 9. Final prototype, left overview, right close up servo motor pushing the surface
5.3 Case Study 3: Auditory Localization during a telephone conversation
The third concept design describes how the concept of perceptive crossing [1] can be used perceiving with a different modality. The earlier described case studies focus on tactile stimuli, this third case study focuses on auditory stimuli and how these can be used to design an object that enriches the emotional content in perception during a telephone conversation.
Starting point for this design is the difference in perceptual qualities during a face to face conversation and a telephone conversation. When talking to someone face to face, the way you perceive the other persons presence (including the perceptive actions and reactions) is totally different from the situation in which you talk to that same person on the telephone. Important difference between both types of conversations is the way you perceive the other subject’s voice during the conversation and vice versa. When talking to someone on the phone you are not aware of the changes in distance and direction of the other person according to your own position, which makes it more difficult to understand the other person’s point of view an thus the emotional content that is communicated decreases. In literature this ability of the listener to judge the direction and distance of a sound source is defined as auditory localization [9]. This ability is influenced by different parameters, like time difference, frequency difference, reflection, vertical positioning difference etc.
To restore the loss of perceptual qualities during a telephone conversation a design application is built that tries to apply the principles of auditory localization in the context of a telephone conversation. The direction and distance of both subjects in space influence the characteristics of the sound of the voice perceived by both subjects. A schematic overview of this is illustrated in figure 10. In this figure a telephone conversation between Bob and Julia is illustrated. During this conversation Julia experiences Bob as being in her living room, which is caused by the perceptual qualities added through auditory localization.
Figure 10. Schematic overview of two people having a phone conversation using the device.
5.3.1 Technical Application
Auditory localization parameters are combined with a Max/msp patch that applies algorithms to create quadraphonic sound. This quadraphonic sound is almost the same as Dolby surround sound, only it is divided over 4 speakers in stead of 6. By applying the quadraphonic sound into a quadraphonic headphone the sound heard by the user is ‘3D’.
As active movement is involved in the telephone conversation application, a next step in the creation of an ‘active quadraphonic sound localization application’ is to combine the headphone and Max/msp with the positions of the subjects. These positions are measured with the help of a ‘Wii-mote’ that tracks a light beacon that is attached on the top of the headphone. Besides this coordinates the rotation of both subjects is an important factor to measure. This is done with help of a compass module that measures the heading relative to the earth’s magnetic field. Also this module was attached to the headphone.
5.3.2 Results
With the application build an explorative experiment was done. Goal of the experiment is to investigate if the perceptual qualities of a telephone conversation would increase when adding an extra perceivable action/sensation crossing (auditory localization). The overall hypothesis is that”In a telephone conversation in which one-way auditory localization is applied, the perceptual qualities perceived by both subjects will be higher compared to a normal telephone conversation.”
During the test 5 couples participated in different situations, in which one-way auditory localization was applied. The couples were asked to have a 5 minute conversation with each other through the quadraphonic headphone about a pre-defined topic.
After the test all subjects were asked to fill in a series of semantic differential scales. [8] The results from this experiment indicate that the assumptions made earlier indeed are true. First of all the use of auditory localization influenced the movement of subjects. Subjects got a feeling of embarrassment when ‘virtually’ showing their back to the other subject. Secondly the fact that people were not aware of the perceived sensations of the other subject resulted in one-way auditory localization that was experienced as mutual auditory localization. Overall the idea of perceiving perceptive actions and reactions are strongly present in this concept as the subject actively explores activity of the other subject and reacts, by undertaking new actions, to the sensory feedback it receives.
5.4 Case Study 4: A ‘real world’ application
This novel design focuses much more on implementation of a mediator based on the proposed design principles in daily live. A device for remote communication using movement and light is created.
5.4.1 Concept
When friends are geographically separated, the context of their friendship changes drastically. Opportunities to meet become rare, just like mutual activities and natural traces of each other’s existence, wellbeing, and other clues inherent to close contact and shared experiences.
This design aims at reintroducing those traces and mutual activities by providing a new space of interaction; providing a new manner for reciprocal perception of the self. As the design has to be used over a longer period of time intertwined with daily life, it has to be accessible and operate in the periphery of attention for most of the time.
The resulting device sports a turning pad and is coupled trough the internet to another, similar device in such a way that the pads copy each other’s movement. They directly perceive their perceptive actions. When manipulated simultaneously, they give force feedback of the movements induced on the other pad; this gives the subject the opportunity to react on the actions. While turning, the subject also changes the color of light that has been augmented to allow for traces of (inter)action, combining synchronous and asynchronous use. This means that presence can be perceived over time.
5.4.2 Synchronous and asynchronous interaction
During an early test using a technology probe [10], it became apparent that the synchronous and asynchronous aspects of this means of communication could not be combined that easily. The subjects used the device with the intention of having either synchronous or asynchronous communication, and matched their expectations accordingly. These expectations could not always be met, as the subjects using the coupled device were not always present at the same time. The importance of perceiving presence of another intentional subject has been discussed before.
The subjects are not only separated in distance like in the previous two designs but also in time. So besides the need of being in the vicinity of the device, the subjects needed to meet in time as well, making time an important aspect of the shared space of interaction and the traces that result from interacting with it. These traces in fact are feedback on already performed perceptive actions. The device has been designed in such a way that light is just a small part of the synchronous communication. As time passes, synchronous communication becomes less likely and the light becomes a trace by moving from inside the device to its surface and ultimately lighting its surroundings. This gives the users clues on what to expect; clues on perceptive activity of the other subject. This kind of communication technology assumes availability of the users. While this is not a problem in a laboratorial setting, it is in daily live. This design proposes a way to deal with these problems.
Figure 13. Dynamic lights indicates bygone presence
6 SUMMARY
In this paper we discussed several designs based on our interpretation of theories on perception. We first investigated our interpretation of the effect that is brought forward in these perception theories. By setting up an experiment, trying to observe the effect in its basic form, we were able to gain rich information for design. Qualitative and quantitative data lead to proposing three steps to restore reciprocal perception through the design of an object. Not only did we bring forward a design that implements the theory and outcome of the experiment quite directly, but we also investigated, through design, if the theory and proposed design characteristics are applicable to design meaningful interactions through mediators. Observing the designs in use brought forward strong clues that the three design characteristics, perceiving presence, perceptive actions and reaction, are indeed valuable to understand and create reciprocal perception when this is not naturally possible. The reactions of participants of the performed tests with the several prototypes indicate that this mutual perception, like in the first experiment, raises the feeling of involvement through sharing and understanding reciprocal perception.
In this research we focused on user-user interaction and how objects can be used to enhance or restore this interaction. Next our research will focus on user-product interaction. Designing perceptive qualities in products presumably creates more meaningful interaction between product and user. The concept of sharing and understanding perception could exist between user and product, leading to a greater feeling of involvement within the interaction and the scene.
REFERENCES
[1] Lenay, C., Thouvenion, I., Guénand A., Gapenne, O., Stewart, J., Maillet, B., Designing the ground for pleasurable experience, (2007), Proc. DPPI, 2007, Helsinki Finland
[2] Gibson J.J. (1979), An ecological approach to visual perception, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, London, Reprinted in 1986
[3] Merleau-Ponty, M., Phenomenology of Perception; An Introduction, Taylor & Francis Ltd, 2nd Revised edition , May 2002
[4] Bach-y-Rita, P., Tyler, M.E., Kaczmarek, K.A., Seeing with the Brain, International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 2003
[5] Bach-y-Rita, P., Sensory Substitution and Qualia, Perception et Intermadalité, Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, 81-100. 1996
[6] Siegel, S., Nonparametric Statistics for the behavioral sciences, p249, Mc-Graw Hill, 1956 [7] Poupirev,I et al. (2007) Actuation and tangible user interfaces: the Vaucanson duck, robots, and
shape displays. Proceedings of conference on Tangible and embedded interaction (pp 205-212) Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
[8] Osgood, C.E., Suci, G.J., & Tannenbaum, P.H. (1957).The measurement of meaning. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
[9] Maltier G., (2006) Foundations of perceptions, pp. 126-130
[10] Hutchinson, H., Mackay, W., Westerlund, B., et all, (2003), Technology probes: inspiring design for and with families, Proc. SIGGHI, 2003, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, USA
