On “Emotion in Human-Computer Interaction” and Developing Compassion

People are inherently emotional. Emotions, sentiments, and moods effect each aspect of response and interaction in our lives. Indeed, if any interface ignores this, it “risks being perceived as cold, socially inept, untrustworthy, and incompetent.” Part of the truth of this lies in the personification of the computer or software by the user. However, we also have the choice to change our emotions, sentiments, and moods in order to modify our behavior. The key lies in consistent intention and progression.

Brave and Nass reveal the underlying mechanisms of emotion with a figure that demonstrates the connections between the thalamus, the cortex, and the limbic system. The thalamic-limbic pathway is responsible for the primary emotions, while secondary emotions “result from activation of the limbic system by processing in the cortex.” They then go on to cover the debate over whether or not emotion is innate or learned. Regarding this debate, Brave and Nass describe the middle of the two extremes where “the limbic system is prewired to recognize the basic categories of emotion, but social learning and higher cortical processes still play a significant role in differentiation.”

One recent article that came to my attention involves the ability to learn compassion using meditative states. The experiment in the article entitled Regulation of the Neural Circuitry of Emotion by Compassion Meditation: Effects of Meditative Expertise used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to measure differences in brain activity between novice and experienced meditators, those having 10,000 plus hours of Buddhist compassion mediation practice. They were asked two alternate between actively generating a condition of compassion mediation and refraining from the practice.

In this case:

The meditative practice studied here involves the generation of a state in which an “unconditional feeling of loving-kindness and compassion pervades the whole mind as a way of being, with no other consideration, or discursive thoughts” ... According to the tradition, as a result of this practice, feelings and actions for the benefit of others arise more readily when relevant situations arise. Our main hypothesis was thus that the concern for others cultivated during this meditation would enhance the affective responses to emotional human vocalizations, in particular to negative ones, and that this affective response would be modulated by the degree of meditation training.

They analyzed the areas of the brain associated with empathy including the insula cortex and the somatosensory cortex. The data support their main hypothesis, namely that “the brain regions underlying emotions and feelings are modulated in response to emotional sounds as a function of the state of compassion, the valence of the emotional sounds and the degree of expertise.”

One interesting way to see these results is to acknowledge that the meditation itself, over time, changes the neurology of the practitioner in such a way that the empathy and compassion become more automatic and spontaneous. In the section on Effects of Affect: Attention, Brave and Nass state, “people also often consciously regulate mood, selecting and attending to stimuli that sustain desired moods or, alternatively, counteract undesired moods.” Compassion meditation would then put people in a more sustained compassionate mood. I say mood because it seems to fit the definition better than emotion. “Moods...are nonintentional; they are not directed at any object in particular and are thus experienced as more diffuse, global, and general.” This would seem to be the case with long-term practitioners of compassion mediation. It becomes a “way of being.”

Brave and Nass support this by saying, “Intense or repetitive emotional experiences tend to prolong themselves into moods.” The Lutz, Johnstone and Davidson study used fMRI results to measure affect, but Brave and Nass also suggest other methods for doing so, including electroencephalogram (EEG) to test neurological responses, autonomic activity, facial expression, voice, self-report measures, and affect recognition by users.

Depending on the conditions of the study, these methods for testing affect differ in efficacy. The Compassion Mediation study did not use behavioral analysis during the testing because the meditators informed them that this would interfere with the meditation process itself. So they has to rely on the fMRI measurements and a certain amount of self-reporting. Self-report measures, in particular, suffer from a problem with temporal relevance. Brave and Nass point out that “questionnaires are capable of measuring only the conscious experience of emotion and mood. Much of affective processing, however, resides in the limbic system and in nonconscious processes.”

The dimensional theories using arousal and valence were also used during the Compassion Mediation study and with correlational results. This would support that for further research, where any self-reporting is necessary, compassion should be tested as a mood emergent from a two-dimensional space of “conscious emotional experience.”

By Christine Rosakranse
Professor Nathan Freier
Theory and Research on Tech Comm and HCI
September 29, 2009

References:
Brave, S., & Nass, C. (2007). Emotion in human-computer interaction. In Sears, A. & Jacko, J. (Eds.). The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies and Emerging Applications, 2nd Edition. (pp. 77-92). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Fledman Barrett, L. & Russell. (1999). The structure of current affect: Controversies and emerging consensus. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8(1), 10-14.
Lutz A, Brefczynski-Lewis J, Johnstone T, Davidson RJ (2008) Regulation of the Neural Circuitry of Emotion by Compassion Meditation: Effects of Meditative Expertise. PLoS ONE 3(3): e1897. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0001897



1 Brave, S., & Nass, C. (2007). Emotion in human-computer interaction. In Sears, A. & Jacko, J. (Eds.). The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies and Emerging Applications, 2nd Edition. (pp. 77-92). Lawrence Erlbaum.
2 Brave, S., & Nass, C. (2007). Emotion in human-computer interaction. In Sears, A. & Jacko, J. (Eds.). The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies and Emerging Applications, 2nd Edition. (pp. 77-92). Lawrence Erlbaum.
3 Lutz A, Brefczynski-Lewis J, Johnstone T, Davidson RJ (2008) Regulation of the Neural Circuitry of Emotion by Compassion Meditation: Effects of Meditative Expertise. PLoS ONE 3(3): e1897. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0001897
4 Brave, S., & Nass, C. (2007). Emotion in human-computer interaction. In Sears, A. & Jacko, J. (Eds.). The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies and Emerging Applications, 2nd Edition. (pp. 77-92). Lawrence Erlbaum.
5 Brave and Nass, pg. 87.
6 As described by Fledman Barrett, L. Russell, 1999. The structure of current affect: Controversies and emerging consensus. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8(1), 10-14.

Douglas Engelbart: Augmenting Human Intellect and Bootstrapping

The Roaring Twenties witnessed fast economic growth until the Wall Street Crash of 1929. Before finally bottoming out in 1932, the Dow Jones Industrial Average would lose 89% of its value.1 Growing up during this time period meant a more simplified view of one’s needs. This led to a definitive moment that occurred in Douglas Engelbart’s life when he was just 25 years old. During the December of 1950, after taking stock of his current life, with his job at the National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics, and figuring out that he had achieved the goals he had set forth as a kid growing up during the Great Depression to “get an education, get a steady job, get married”, he discovered that he “no longer had any goals.”2 On a drive through Northern California, being an electrical engineer at Ames Research, he actually calculated that he had roughly 5.5 million more minutes to work during his life. He had to figure out what to do with this precious time.
With no particular designs on getting rich or changing careers, he though about saving the world. And while pondering about how to fulfill this need after several months he came up with the following insight:

FLASH-1: The difficulty of mankind’s problems was increasing at a greater rate than our ability to cope. (We are in trouble.)
FLASH-2: Boosting mankind’s ability to deal with complex, urgent problems would be an attractive candidate as an arena in which a young person might try to “make the most difference.” (Yes, but there’s that question of what does the young electrical engineer do about it? Retread for a role as educator, research psychologist, legislator...? Is there any handle there that an electrical engineer could...?
FLASH-3: Aha - graphic vision surges forth of me sitting at a large CRT console, working in ways that are rapidly evolving in front of my eyes (beginning from memories of the radar-screen consoles I used to service.)3

After working through some details regarding the implementation of such a device where a “general-purpose, computer-powered information environment”4 would assist with network-based collaborations between colleagues, he dubbed this new route in his career “augmenting the human intellect.” However, it wouldn’t be so easy to get others to share in his vision or to provide funding for this lofty endeavor.
Within the context of 1950’s technological ability, this vision still seemed unattainable to others in his department or in the business world. Afterall, the leading edge in technology was the IBM 704, capable of executing up to 40,000 instructions per second. So instead of developing the idea of augmenting human intellect for his PhD, he wrote his dissertation on bi-stable gaseous plasma digital devices. After graduating, he tried to find a more “congenial” environment for his augmentation work, but found out that he had to subsume his intentions even at the Stanford Research Institute where he began working in October 1957.
When he was finally able to work on augmentation in 1959 after receiving funding from the Air Force’s Office of Scientific Research, it was difficult to get intellectual backing for his project because he had to place his augmentation research squarely in the realm of other’s disciplines in order for them to be responsive to his message. In general, his augmentation environment was written off “as just another information-retrieval system.” So, in order to be taken more seriously, he decided to create a manifesto, taking him almost two years to write.
“Augmenting the Human Intellect: A Conceptual Framework” was finished in 1962. Engelbart believed technology could augment human intellect by developing “an integrated hierarchy of cooperative mancomputer process capabilities.” This would “step-up” the mental abilities of a person level by level to be able to handle more complex thought processes. He also explains that, “We refer to a way of life in an integrated domain where hunches, cut-and-try, intangibles, and the human ‘feel for a situation’ usefully coexist with powerful concepts, streamlined technologies and notation, sophisticated methods, and high-powered electronic aids.”5
In his paper, Engelbart writes that two people during the previous two decades had “speculated upon the possibilities of close manmachine cooperation.” Those influences were Vannevar Bush and J.C.R. Licklider. Bush coined the term Memex to describe a system where items were categorized by associative indexing and then searched for using a specialized workstation. Licklider (1960) defined a concept called “man-computer symbiosis”, a system whereby humans and computers work in conjunction to “think as no human brain has ever thought and process data in a way not approached by the information-handling machines we know today.”6 Engelbart also placed his aspirations within the context of work being done by Vazsonyi, Morse, Teager, Culler and Huff. One amongst his list would prove to be a powerful supporter and ally.
While Engelbart attempted to figure out how human beings have so far evolved to deal with complex situations, he tried to receive funding from various sources. His proposal for creating an “interdisciplinary Knowledge Augmentation Laboratory that could pursue the technology of human augmentation as quickly as possible”7 finally came across the desk of J.C.R. Licklider at ARPA.
By 1963, Engelbart had funding. Later he would explain, “Lick was the first person to believe in me. And he was the first person to stick his neck out and give me a chance. In fact, if he hadn’t done that, if he hadn’t stuck his neck out and given me money, I don’t think anybody ever would have done so. That was why I trusted him. Lick was like my big brother.”8
While working towards augmenting human intellect, he would invent the mouse, work on “hypertext systems as part of the NLS” (oNLine System), and work towards his “vision for a personal workstation that can legitimately be thought of as one of the sources of ideas for the personal computer.”9
The NLS was first publicly demonstrated at the 1968 Fall Joint Computer Conference during a 90-minute multimedia presentation where Engelbart debuted the mouse, hypermedia, and on-screen video teleconferencing. In 1989 he founded the Bootstrap Institute, with its main focus being to create high-performance organizations that include “pro-active participation from stakeholders” in all realms of influence including government, industry, and society.
Engelbart, with his evolving pursuits, realizes that with the quick development of technology coming to surpass the development of human intellect, certain adjustments must be made. As the sophistication of technology increases, society has to continually revise it’s methods of information appropriation to accommodate these changes. Engelbart (1998) has conceded this need for modification in the following quote:

Real social danger today is that the technology is erupting and moving so much faster than it ever ever ever has in all of our historical experience ... [It’s] time to start adapting society to this revolution in the technology. There’s a lot of potential dangers ahead if we don’t adapt it successfully.10

Stated more succinctly as the Law of Disruption, Downes and Mui in Unleashing the Killer App (2000) write that “[s]ocial, political and economic systems change incrementally, but technology changes exponentially.”11
The bootstrapping approach is being developed upon currently by the Doug Engelbart Institute. Additionally, in 2005 Engelbart received funding for the HyperScope project from the National Science Foundation. Once again, we find that time often leads to newer technology that is more easily capable of achieving previously stated goals. In this case, Hyperscope uses Ajax and DHTML to recreate the abilities of the NLS and the renamed software Augment that can link within and across documents in order to “engage a wider community in a dialogue of collaborative software and services.”12
Augmenting human intellect as a theory and aspiration has itself been further augmented to suggest that all facets of society must come together and work towards a common goal. As coined by Engelbart, organizations can improve the process they use for improvement, thereby iteratively compounding the effect. As a goal for HCI, iterative progress towards making information more usable, intuitive, and effective would be the perfect compliment to Engelbart’s dream. It seems that intellect’s final compatriots would be responsibility and compassion, and if this has not yet been addressed, perhaps it will be in the next iteration.
--Christine Rosakranse, for Comm-6480
Resources:
1 "Wall Street Crash of 1929." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 20 Sep 2009, 16:26 UTC. 20 Sep 2009 .

2 Waldrop, M. Mitchell. The Dream Machine: J.C.R. Licklider and the Revolution That Made Computing Personal. New York: The Penguin Group. 2001. pg. 211.

3 Waldrop, M. Mitchell, The Dream Machine. pgs, 211-212

4 Waldrop, M. Mitchell, The Dream Machine. pgs, 212

5 Engelbart, Douglas C. Augmenting Human Intellect: A Conceptual Framework. Summary Report AFOSR-3223 under Contract AF 49(638)-1024, SRI Project 3578 for Air Force Office of Scientific Research, Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, Ca., October 1962.

6 Jacko, Julie A., and Andrew Sears, eds. The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies and Emerging Applications. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. (2003) pg. 3.

7 Waldrop, M. Mitchell. The Dream Machine. pg. 216.

8 Waldrop, M. Mitchell, The Dream Machine. pgs, 217.

9 Jacko, Julie A., and Andrew Sears, eds. The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies and Emerging Applications. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. (2003) pg. 5

10 Brown, John Seely and Duguid, Paul. The Social Life of Information. pg. 84 (Engelbart, interviewed on National Public Radio’s Morning Edition, 11 December 1998)

11 Downes, Larry, and Chunka Mui. 2000 Unleashing the Killer App: Digital Strategies for Market Domination. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

12 "Douglas Engelbart." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 22 Sep 2009, 00:43 UTC. 22 Sep 2009 

Music Is My Hot Hot Sex

MP3 MP3 What Art Thee

In a world of high definition video and audio, Blu-Ray, players, high end game counsels, and portable compact computers; media for these devices can only exist if they develop with the hardware. Currently it seems a global goal for most technology is to make it smaller and faster without sacrificing quality. It is this same goal that fueled The Fraunhofer Institute of Germany to create compressed audio for digital media. And so was born the MP3…

What exactly is a MP3? A MP3 is lossy audio on the third layer of standard MPEG-1. The goal of any compressed audio is lower the bit rate, and consequently the size of the audio file, without noticeable degradation of the sound quality. When Fraunhofer’s research was completed on MP3s, they were reported by its creators to reduce an audio file’s original CD size by a factor of twelve without losing quality.

What do MP3s allow us to do? With MP3 technology we have been able to make use of high capacity storage in new ways (standard data on a CD vs. MP3 data disk), easily transfer music throughout the internet, and even make music more portable/customizable. Without compressed audio modern computer users would probably have whole hard drives just dedicated to the music we want to store (And if you already dedicate a hard drive to music… multiply that data used by twelve to get an idea).

Historical Context

The MP3 Fraunhofer project started in the late 80s with a seemly cliché code name “EUREKA Project.” In the 80s there was a huge uprising of interest in personal computing. Apple and Microsoft were both competing for ubiquity, but neither had a market for sound at this point. Computers were mostly designed in replacement of typing devices to do word processing, and also to give a graphical interface to programming.

The way we see digital technology now was created rapidly over the last twenty years. The uprising of computing brought a lot experimental programming to the plate and spawned many new interfaces or mediums if you will, for media to exist on. For example, some of the first MP3 players were technically created before MP3s even existed. As with most awesome inventions that are ahead of their time, the idea was there with no practical use… yet.

One other major event happening in sync with MP3 creation was the creation music videos for TV. MTV brought out a whole new interest and incentive for music. Not only could people listen to new high quality sound CD versions of the music, but they could also view the artist’s visual interpretations of music by watching MTV. MTV allowed for people to find new up and coming artists also. This created a new and thriving music culture that gave each person the ability to learn more about their musical preferences. Now if only there was an easy way to share all your CDs and preferences with the community.

Digital videos and audio seem like a ‘must have” by today’s standards. Unfortunately in the 80’s, there was really no common use for such a technology due to lack of available hardware. Two of the lead designers of MP3s, Prof. Dieter Seitzer and Karlheinz Brandenburg imagined this technology could be used to transfer data of phone/fax lines, but it would have to be compressed to work. If you think back, there was only really telephone modems to connect to the internet. Therefore thinking along the lines of music transfer through fax would be acceptable.

Computer media also had no function in the early years of computing. Computers weren’t toys, they weren’t entertainment centers, and they mostly just focused on data processing. Even if you had an MP3, what program would be able to play it? Why wouldn’t you just find a way to fit more music on a compact disc instead? Why bog up the limited hard drive space on a computer when you already have a personal media play in your home (VHS, CD player, Cassette Tapes, etc.)?

How Did The Creation Of MP3s Connect With The World?

The real question is why not have all of your personal media playable from your computer? Even after MP3 technology was published in 1993, there was still no way to play a MP3. As hard drives got a little bigger, computers got a little faster, and interfaces got a little more useable, Tomislav Uzelac was working on an MP3 player called AMP. Later, the program was adapted to the Windows operating system and renamed Winamp. Since Windows could previously only play proprietary files (wma/wmv), this was a huge step for digital media.

Apple was also working on its own proprietary audio playback engines but was nowhere near its productivity with the loss of Steve Jobs in 1985. Now that there is a way to play MP3 in the late 90s, Apple needed a way to compete in the digital sound market. Apple looked like it was in a spiraling downfall in 1998 until Jobs miraculously returned as CEO to save the day. One of his biggest remodeling ideas for the company was to run full steam ahead into the MP3 market.

The iPod was one of Steve Jobs’ greatest ideas for apple to date. Released in 2001, it was not the very first portable player of MP3 player on the market. However, Jobs combined fashion, state of the art technology, culture, and marketability to transform Apple into a power house in the music industry. Now people could fulfill that desire to bring their personal music preferences everywhere they go, and all in a new “micro-sized’ pakage. There was no more CD player or boom box with a whole flipbook of cds to carry around. All that was need was one device that could hold all your favorites at the time.

How Did MP3 Development Affect Other Industries?

Usually with hardware, the smaller it gets the more portable it gets. When hard drives, CPUs, and circuits got smaller, we had personal computers. When we had personal computers we had the power to convert analogue to digital. MP3s allowed us to store in essence multiple CDs on one CD. Once we learned about compression we tried to find new ways to perfect it. Apple came out with its AAC audio format used with MPEG-4. MP3 players started being created by every major electronics company. A new music culture was formed like the 80’s MTV.

The MP3 culture started with the iPod. It was trendy, you identify with others, and it was relatively expensive. Although there were plenty of other MP3 players on the market iPods sold more units than another competing company. I myself had a third party MP3 all through high school and never complained once about the quality I got at a quarter price of an iPod. What was different? I always knew the difference was the culture, but what I realize now that I never understood was why everyone thought that culture was so cool. It was all about the interface… not the “cool” silhouetted commercials or one hit wonder songs… but the interface.

Apple put mass amounts of time, effort and user testing into finding the right solution to portable media experience. This is shown through the decade of 2000-2010, by the mass increase in models of iPods. What they have done is create a unique instance of MP3 listening for every individual. With first iPod it wasn’t that you could just hear the audio, a little LCD screen showed who was playing with album art and touch sensitive volume. Then hard drives aren’t needed or top-of-the-line anymore, Apple switches to flash storage with the iPod Nano and shuffle. That is what the MP3 culture is about. The crazy part is because of MP3s … the culture has expanded way past just audio.

After flash memory was cheap enough for most consumers to own gigabyte thumb drives (Mid 21st century), it wasn’t about what kind of MP3 player you had… it was about where you had it. Now people can set MP3s as your ringtone for your phone, smart phones can store gigs of music through external memory, game counsels can download media from the internet, and the same MTV that was just for watching, is now interactive. You can download MP3 ringtones by texting a number on the screen. There was a lot of transfer being done from MP3 to computer, from computer to MP3 player, Mp3 player to other MP3 player (Zune). Where is the media convergence? I believe that the universal takeover of all Medias today lies in the iPhone’s hands. It has single handedly dipped its toes in almost every major market and it has succeeded because that’s what people want… a black box device…a universal remote

What can your MP3 player do? Mine can, browse through my picture, access the internet, play video games, create music, share files, write word documents, find a date and a restaurant to bring her… o yea did I mention play MP3s?… and this all was spawned from the convenience of a compressed audio file.

In Conclusion

Mp3s have affected production and user interfaces in many different industries, even outside of audio. Compression made it possible to fit hundreds of songs on one CD, which in turn made manufactures of any CD player (home stereo, car audio, personal walkmens, etc.) adapt to MP3 playable. Compressed audio allowed DVD’s and Blu-Ray’s to have more space for video. Visualization for audio became “hot” and now every player needed a graphical element. Computer players had to find new ways to organize mass amounts of MP3s (tagging). Tagging is now used for intelligent playlists. Omputers and operating systems have been designed to play MP3s. Mp3 plays have been turned into computers and phones. MP3s created a need for ubiquitous systems.

Will there ever be a totally universal black box?

In the case of the iPod the functionality was basically already created with Winamp, how did this affect the focus on its interface?

Besides turning MP3 players in to personal micro-computers and spawning ideas for ubiquitous computing, what other technologies did its creation affect?

Works cited :

Wikipedia.org

About.com

Augmenting Human Compassion

Augmenting Human Compassion
“Augmenting human intellect” represents one of the continual goals of any well-designed technology. In the course of our readings, three major influences have sprung up time and again as to how we, as a society, may go about using technology to evolve our cognitive capabilities. For Douglas Engelbart (1962), technology may do so by leveraging already existing perceptual mappings or by bringing the mental abilities of a person up to a level of more complex thought through various methods including “streamlined terminology” and “powerful concepts.” Licklider (1960) also defines a similar concept called “man-computer symbiosis”, a system whereby humans and computers work in conjunction to “think as no human brain has ever thought and process data in a way not approached by the information-handling machines we know today.” William Ross Ashby (1956) also wrote of “amplifying intelligence” in his work on cybernetics. However, intelligence needs to be countered and balanced by basic moral and ethical considerations. I would argue that the foundation of these considerations lies squarely with an entity’s capability to feel compassion. Additionally, with a certain level of compassion (and intelligence), ethics, as in a listing of rules or system of conduct, becomes secondary. So, instead of concentrating on the aspect of human cognitive evolution defined as intellect, I would like to find methods for augmenting human compassion using digital media.
Compassion as a component of a healthy mental state and as a necessity for a large societal organization is a sometimes marginalized concept. That may be because it is seen as a responsibility of parents and families to develop compassion in their children. Certain concepts are only slowly adopted into the mainstream’s consideration. As it is, the research into human-computer interaction focuses mainly on functionality and usability. Even more human-centered designs are concerned with business considerations such as turnaround and click-through analytics.
For example, while reading Myers’ A Brief History of Human Computer Interaction Technology, I found that the introduction clearly states that his history only covers the “computer side of HCI” and that “a companion article on the history of the ‘human side,’ discussing the contributions from psychology, design, human factors and ergonomics would also be appropriate.” This “human side” approach would form the basis of my research project for determining how one might augment human compassion.
Discovering what makes one more compassionate would be the first topic for research. Within the context of digital media and within the constraints of one semester, it seems daunting to hone compassion down to a measurable aspect, but I hope that by making an open call for ideas that some epiphany will come about.
From the historical perspective, we can see that in developing his conceptual framework for augmenting human intellect, Engelbart defines the objectives for his study and covers his basic perspective. He promotes leaving room for intuition or a human’s “feel for a situation”. For augmenting compassion, I would also say that one would have to leave room for epiphany as well.
My first avenue for exploration could include researching whether or not any current internet memes act to augment compassion. From cute LOLCATS with funny captions to YouTube videos like Christian the Lion, does sharing these with others help to augment our society’s overall level of compassion? And, conversely, is sharing morbid imagery damaging to compassion? One caveat comes with the level of interaction that might be necessary for long-term effects. If one sees something, is it enough to have a persisting effect? Or must one also be involved somehow to ensure a stable change in mentality?
Given these possibilities for investigation, another avenue for exploration that might prove to engender long-term increases in compassion levels would involve the integration of a participation component through interactive art or music. If a lack of compassion stems from a lack of empathy with others or with a disconnect from humanity or nature, then a key component to developing compassion in others would involve creating a palpable connection to others and, thereby, to humanity in general. With interactive art, the person becomes a component of the creation, a powerful metaphor that might prove helpful for compassion development. However, a connection beyond the computer might also be necessary for augmentation. An association from human to art piece to creator of art piece to humanity would be ideal.
Following Engelbart’s format, the objective of a study taking in the previous suppositions and conjectures would include the following goals: (1) to find the factors that determine a given individual’s level of compassion; and (2) to develop methods that would act to augment human compassion using digital media. Engelbart’s specifications for his framework still fit for this research direction.
Step one would be to find a test for compassion so that quantitative results can verify any changes over time, from before exposure to the stimulus to afterwards. Step two would involve testing non-participatory stimuli such as the YouTube videos for changes in levels of compassion. Step three could then cover participatory situations of varying complexity.
As this blog post/response essay is written in response to our second week’s readings on the subject of History in Perspective, any further reading suggestions along these lines of augmenting compassion, augmenting empathy, or developing emotional intelligence would be greatly appreciated. Any studies that have been performed on the effect of interactive art would also be of great interest to me. Usually I am not one for trying to pin down the exact meaning or relevance of a piece of art, but in the context of a compassionate evolution I would concede the necessity for some formal investigation into the matter.
I believe that the nexus of intelligence and compassion would negate the need for overly strict rules that may be based on a narrow or subjective morality. The ultimate goal for technological society must include room for this augmented compassion.

--Christine Rosakranse, Master's Student: HCI - RPI

Someone Please Think of the Children

As technology progresses and thus results in a change in social norms, it is often the case that we must adapt in order to continue our development. Such is the case of children and technology. Children today have more information at their fingertips than ever before possible, they are constantly connected, and constantly informed of their current circumstances. As designers of technology, and conduits of technology and information, we must take into account this fact of the increasing degree of exposure that the youth of the world has. In no way should it be suggested to censor material, however, that does not mean that we should ignore potential differences and implications in children accessing technology versus that of an adult.

One of the questions posed by Livingstone, poses if the Internet is a distinctive technology. This is a perfectly understandable question, as the Internet is not a physical device or really anything specific. The Internet is simply a series of protocols that allows users to connect to servers and other users, which contain data, for the purpose of exploring content and information. It may not interact with it physically, however we do tend to associate with it as if it were a tangible object, which perhaps can be attributed to the interaction involved with the modern computer. In many cases, it would seem that the computer is viewed less directly as a piece of technology itself, but more of a means to an end, functioning as an interface or point of contact for the user to interact with other pieces of technology, such as software applications or the internet. As such, it can be argued that, indeed, the internet is truly it’s own technology, which can be interacted with through the intermediary of the modern computer (and indeed many other devices as well), bringing the potential for a broad range of interactions with it to the user.

Livingstone also asks if children belong to that of a specific “group”, suggesting that some feel that they might be “accounted for” within other demographics, or by responses given by their parents. As the existence of Internet access in one’s household becomes more common, it is only natural that the everyday interaction with this technology adapt to its ever-presence. It can also be said that, in the past, children have a great potential to learn about new technology, and to interact with it in a much more natural manner than adults, as in many cases it is a technology they are “growing up with”. Learning about said newer technology at a young age, when the brain is still like that of a sponge, facilitates the intuitive and natural interaction that children often have with technology. Livingstone reports “In the UK, recent surveys show that among 7–16-year-olds, 75 percent have used the Internet, a figure which doubled the adult population figure of 38 percent”. Children are using the internet at nearly twice that of the average adult, perhaps it is then no surprise that interactions on the internet are frequently geared towards the fast comprehension and browsing habits of children.

Not only do children frequent the Internet more than the average adult, but their habits when utilizing this time are typically different as well. As we can see in Livingstone, “BMRB’s Youth TGI (2001) showed that the most common uses are studying/homework (73%), email (59%), playing games (38%), chat sites (32%) and hobbies and interests (31%).” However, for adults, we can see that “Looking for information and using email were the two most common online activities of Internet users in 2006. These were done by 85 per cent and 81 per cent of adult users respectively in the three months before interview in 2006.” (NSO). This points to a much larger amount of recreational use on the part of children users, and such interactions should be planned for accordingly. For example, a website such as MSNBC.com, a site that is much more likely to be frequented by adults, contains a wealth of information, however is not necessarily aesthetically appealing, at it is following function over form. Whereas a recreational site that is used by a typically younger audience, such as FACEBOOK.com, has much more emphasis on a cohesive, aesthetically pleasing interaction between itself and all of its different members. Not only are browsing styles and habits different in adults and children, but levels of trust as well. To many adults, the Internet is still a relatively new technology, which results in a certain sense of distrust involving it. Whereas children, as the result of their growing up with it, almost associate a certain naive expectation of trust with the Internet, which can, unfortunately, be easily exploited. As Livingstone points out, “in the UK, NOP’s Kids.net survey found that 29 percent of children using the internet would give out their home address and 14 percent their email address”. This level of trust is a startling thought in this day and age, in which information such as this could be so easily used in a manner in which the user had not desired or intended, even if that means receiving more spam mail.

An idea that seems to finally be gaining some recognition in the world of computing and web design is that indeed, “children are the future”. They are the forerunners, they don’t just spot upcoming trends, and they create them. “Children themselves play a key role in establishing emerging internet-related practices” (Livingstone). Druin also suggests that children potentially have four impacts or roles in the design process: user, tester, informant, and design partner. The latter two roles, informant and design partner, are perhaps the most important of the four. While the prior two give us as designers a framework to design around, the latter give us actual feedback on the interaction and design of the technology we are attempting to implement. As an informant and design partner with children, although they may be the more difficult roles for both the adult and child to fulfill, the information and potential designs and implementations as a result of the roles can be quite rewarding.

So what can we look forward to in the future? I would wager that much more technology and software should become “child-centric”. As the current generation of children grows to a point of power in society, their norms of Internet and technology usage will become the norms, and as such, we must prepare for this. Additionally, even amongst adult users, technology that is often first introduced as children’s technology, such as UI design within video games or movies, has a way of eventually becoming commercialized to an adult audience. This transition once again, enforces the link between what may start as technology intended for children, and moves on to technology for everyone.


Sources:

Druin, A. (2002). The role of children in the design of new technology. Behaviour and Information Technology, 21(1) 1-25.

Livingstone, S. (2003). Children’s use of the internet: Reflections on the emerging research agenda. New Media & Society, 5(2), 147-166.

“National Statistics Online (NSO)”. Usage of Internet. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=1711 .

Jason Grigely
VSD Conceptual Investigation


Socio-Technical System
The system or environment involving our problem space, may be described as a health center, gym, or home, however, it can be further extended to any area that contains a treadmill for the sole purpose of exercise. The existence of a treadmill within this space constitutes a problem by the very nature and behavior of a treadmill. The technology for treadmills has not vastly changed in quite some time, and perhaps it is because of this that we are starting to see a growing observation by large communities of runners. Simply put, running outdoors is “easier” than running indoors on a treadmill.

Values
It is a common experience amongst most runners, that there is a great degree of variance between the acts of running outdoors versus running indoors on a treadmill. While outdoor running is said to be of greater physical difficulty, running indoors on a treadmill is commonly accepted as being more of a psychological battle and less physically demanding. However, with the easy adaptability of running on a treadmill, in terms of adjustable incline, additional impact cushioning (reducing stress on ankle and knee joints), as well as the ability to easily control your pace and speed, perhaps we should think about bringing the perceptive ease of running outdoors to the treadmill.

As it is currently designed, repetitive and continued use of the treadmill requires a certain degree of willpower, almost as if the user must at times force themselves to use a treadmill, if only for convenience’s sake. This is in part due to “Running ‘on the spot’” which “can lead to an earlier onset of boredom and mental fatigue” (Anderson). The stationary nature of the treadmill, with its unchanging view, and the simply feeling the user gets that he/she simply isn’t going anywhere. This adds an unnecessary level of stress to an activity that is meant not only to get/keep the user in shape, but also to function as a stress reliever. The increase of stress through this activity not only effects the users motivation, and attitude towards the use of the treadmill, but can also have extended effects to the people around them, as the stress may manifest in other ways.

Physiological Advantages
A study done by Jennifer R. Abramczak et al. suggests that the physical act of running outdoors is more strenuous than that of running on a treadmill. This is substantiated by the mechanics involved with running on a treadmill, such as the belt, which quite literally moves beneath the runner’s feet, requiring less action to propel ones’ self forward; in stark contrast to outdoor running, where the runner must push themselves, as well as lean forward a bit, which tends to put a greater strain on the runner’s back. Theoretically, the difference in strain on your body experienced on a treadmill versus running outdoors, should allow the user to run much greater distances on a treadmill, however Abramczak et al. suggests that this may not necessarily be so. Even though outdoors, runners in the study reached a higher heart rate, their Rate of Perceived Exhaustion (RPE), was almost always lower when running outdoors. What this means, is that while running outdoors was shown to be more physically demanding, as runners obtained a higher heart rate, they often felt less fatigue, or exhibited fewer signs of fatigue than treadmill runners.

An advantage of running outdoors is airflow. The drag force you experience running outdoors, while it does require more energy from the runner at higher speeds, the “absence of wind resistance on a treadmill leads to a significantly lower oxygen consumption compared to running outside” (Anderson). As you continue to exercise, your body requires more and more oxygen in your blood to prevent the buildup of lactic acid, which is why after exercising for extended periods, your muscles begin to ache. Therefore, if we were able to bring the additional airflow (as well as perhaps even the drag force) of outdoor running to the treadmill, it would ultimately benefit the user.

What approach can we take to solve this problem?
In order to solve the issues faced by many involving the treadmill, we must augment and elevate the design of the treadmill. In doing so, we can combine the positive elements of both atmospheres, while sacrificing little, if anything from the user’s workout. The first step to take in the elevation of the treadmill design would involve a visual display, which encompasses the surroundings of the runner, and is designed to mimic outdoor terrain, which can be chosen by the user. These visuals would provide the user with a virtual environment in which they would be immersed. Infrared sensors could be used to adjust the display height, as the size of potential users of a treadmill is likely to vary greatly. The environment would reflect perspective changes to the user based on elements such as running speed/pace, as well as the slope/incline of the treadmill. Mimicking an outdoor environment would serve as a stress reducer, as well as give the user something to focus on while running, while still concentrating on the act of running, rather than being distracted by music, television, or simply fixing their attention to a spot in the room.

In addition to the virtual display, we could implement a supplementary ventilation system, which would provide airflow to the user, which mimics that of an outdoor environment. Additionally it would be possible for the user to mimic wind conditions (for example, if you’re running north, and there is a 5mph eastern wind gust, the user would feel the effects of the crosswind), as well as the drag force encountered in running outdoors. Not only would these changes in air flow assist in the recreation of the outdoor running experience, but it would also help to increase oxygen intake for the user. This, in theory, would allow for the user to maintain a reasonably higher heart rate for longer periods, as their body would be able to more aptly combat the buildup of lactic acid.

Preliminary Conclusions
By solving the psychological issues involved with running on a treadmill, we open the door to greatly expand the capacity for athletic training indoors. While most personal trainers and elite athletes agree that for the best results, when training for an outdoor event (such as a 5k race, marathon, etc.), it is best to train outdoors. However, they also acknowledge that this is not always an availible option for everyone. In addition, it may be possible, with these proposed changes, to increase the effectiveness of treadmill training from both a physiological, as well as a psychological perspective, thereby surpassing outdoor training in terms of effectiveness.


Sources

THE PHYSIOLOGICIAL DIFFERENCES OF OUTDOOR TRAIL RUNNING VERSUS INDOOR TREADMILL RUNNING. Jennifer R. Abramczak, LeAnn M. Hayes, Christopher A. Johnson. University of Wisconsin- Eau Claire, Eau Claire, WI.
10/19/2008. Link


THE DEBATE. George Anderson, Steve Barrett. FitPro Network.
10/19/2008 . Link