Designing for the Physical Margins of Digital Workspaces:
Fidget Widgets in Support of Productivity and Creativity
Michael Karlesky
Polytechnic Institute of New York University
Six MetroTech Center
Brooklyn, NY 11201
michael.karlesky@nyu.edu
ABSTRACT

We present our ongoing work to develop the concept ofphysical “margin” spaces around software and a new typeof human computer interaction. Our novel “Fidget
Widgets” seek to engage users’ interrelated bodily motions,affective states, and cognitive functions to selectively
enhance creativity, focus, calm, etc. Building playfulinteractions embodying “mindless” activities like doodling,
fidgeting, and fiddling, we are working to demonstrate thevalue of incidental tangible interactions in the physicalspaces surrounding digital workspaces. We intend thesesecondary interactions to have no intrinsic goals; rather
these interactions extrinsically enhance a user’s state
toward the completion of their primary tasks.
Author Keywords

Tangible; play; margin; productivity; creativity; affective;
cognition; doodle; fiddle; fidget; Sifteo.
ACM Classification Keywords

H.5.m. Information interfaces and presentation (e.g., HCI):
Miscellaneous.
General Terms

Human Factors; Design.

Katherine Isbister
Polytechnic Institute of New York University
Six MetroTech Center
Brooklyn, NY 11201
katherine.isbister@nyu.edu
Doodling has been shown to increase attention inmonotonous tasks and to improve recall [2]. Fidgeting istheorized to modulate focus [8,11,24]. We see opportunity
to design for tangible interactions that harness these andother effects in a novel manner removed from traditional
HCI work. That is, our goal is outside the interactions. The
effect is to be solely within the user, created through play inthe physical margin space around a digital workspace, andenabling of productive, creative workflows.
Research draws a clear link between affective state andeffectiveness in cognition (see Existing Work section).
Informal observations of those at work playing with objects
suggest the potential for a new interaction experience.
We envision providing digital workers a “sampler box” ofinteraction experiences from which they can selectively
modulate their own state to yield appreciable gains in focus,
creativity, calm, etc. To that end we introduce our concept
of “Fidget Widgets” as playful, secondary interactions able
to engage the interrelation of bodily movement, affective
state, and cognition to support primary serious tasks. We
intend these interactions to be both more intentional andmore capable in having effect than their analog inspirations.

INTRODUCTION

Work today is as much cognitive exercise as it is physicalexertion. We think, analyze, and create in front ofcomputing interfaces in our offices, classrooms, labs, andstudios. We observe from people at work that brainstorming
engages forms of embodied cognition. We fidget with paper
clips, tap pens, squeeze stress balls, doodle in notes, scootmice about, and generally play with any item at hand while
we contemplate problems, draw connections, and await
inspiration. Though we work by interacting with software,
our thinking extends into a physical “margin” space aroundour software through doodling, fidgeting, and fiddling [18].

Figure 1: Toys in our lab for thinking and inspiration.
TERMINOLOGY© Michael Karlesky and Katherine Isbister 2013. This is the authors’
version of the work. It is posted here for your personal use. Not forredistribution. The definitive Version of Record of this paper will be
published by ACM. This is a pre-print version of that to be published at
TEI’14, Feb 16–19, 2014, Munich, Germany.
Copyright is held by the owner/author(s). Publication rights licensed to ACM.

In this paper we repeatedly refer to “doodling”, “fiddling”,
and “fidgeting.” These terms are worthy of clarification.
Doodling is absentminded scribbling — often in a margin.
Fiddling is playing with an object usually throughabsentminded manipulation with the hand. Objects may be
paperclips, pens, magnets, computer mice, stress balls, etc.

Fidgeting is purely a bodily action, usually enacted
absentmindedly and repeatedly. Fidgeting includes finger
drumming, leg bouncing, tapping out rhythms, etc.
PHYSICAL MARGINS OF DIGITAL WORKSPACES

In the analog world, we have margins. Whether it is theruled edges of notebook paper or the shoulders of ahighway, physical spaces include margins. We utilize
margins in unexpected and often creative ways to support
our work tasks. Software systems tend to be purpose built
without margin. Word processing documents do not
generally support doodles. If there is any “scratch space” ina spreadsheet it is a region of cells appropriated by the user.
We observe that users of software tools make use of aworkspace larger than the digital one contained in acomputing device. Papers and books and other items extend
the workspace. Further, digital workers’ thinking processes
extend into the physical space and tangible objects
immediately around a digital workspace. That is, likedoodles at the edge of a notebook, digital workers actively
think in the physical margin surrounding their software. As
we will establish in the Existing Work section, componentsof thought are interrelated with bodily motion and sensation— in particular that of the hand. We submit that doodling,
fiddling, and fidgeting behaviors are an opportunity to build
tangible interactions that support and extend these naturally
self-modulating behaviors. Such tangible interactions candigitally enhance the physical margin surrounding software.

That is, these researchers and practitioners recognized
doodling as an interaction but made no explicit declaration
as to its motivation of use or hypothetical benefits.
Inspired by Chinese meditation balls, Philips created wood
LED-studded Mind Spheres as “a useful aid for de-stressing
and regaining a state of mindfulness at home or work” [29].
This project certainly engages bodily movement andsensation towards influencing affective and cognitive state.
In this sense, it exists in the same domain as our work.
However, in our work, we are interested in tangential,“mindless” interactions as much as those that absorb user
attention. The Relax! pen by Alonso senses telltale motions
associated with stress and provides a calming tactile
response [1]. This project is similar to our approach, but ourwork spans a range of user states and is intended to be moregenerally applicable in work contexts.
Impact of Affective States on Cognition

Research demonstrates numerous links between affective
states, performance, and cognition. Mildly positive affectpromotes creativity and cognitive flexibility [3,17]. Anxiety
and signs of impeded progress toward goals have beenshown to increase focus and attention [21,28]. Sadness andanxiousness have been shown to prime uncertainty
reduction during decision-making [34]. It is these effects
we are designing for with our Fidget Widget concept so as
to provide users choices in self-modulating their own state.
Embodiment and Affective StateFIDGET WIDGETS

To explore and test our ideas we are creating small “Fidget
Widgets.” The following characterize the concept:• Tangential. One “mindlessly” engages a Fidget Widget
while mulling an idea or paused in work.
• Playful. The goal is the experience of the interaction notachieving a goal with the interaction itself. [See section
Defining a Playful Technology.]• Digital. To allow for supple experiences [14], flexibility,and effect in users greater than possible in analog objects,
Fidget Widgets are programmable. Interactions arereactive but not necessarily predictably so.
• Tangible. Engaging the bodily movement inherent in our
inspirations of fiddling, fidgeting, and doodling, Fidget
Widgets embody physicality beyond screen abstractions.
EXISTING WORK
Doodling & Other Relevant Interaction Projects

Doodle Space paired camera phones and public displays forcollaborative expression [39]. Doodles have been utilized asalternative password mechanisms [12,36]. Levin and Yarin
developed “keychain” computers to implement small
gesture-based systems inspired by doodling [22]. Common
to each of these projects is a simple adoption of a doodlingmechanic without deeper motivation for its employment.

A phenomenological approach to human computerinteraction has shifted thinking to consider not only theabstractions and mental models of interactions but the entire
physical and emotional experience of interacting withcomputing interfaces [5,10].
Research shows a strong link between our bodies and our
feelings; the former strongly influences the latter. Carney,
et al have shown that holding one’s limbs away from thebody even for a short time (“power poses”) increases
confidence [6]. Contorting one’s face to activate muscles
used in facial expressions is known to induce feelings
correlated with those facial expressions [27]. Recent
research demonstrates that superstitious practice enacted
bodily and involving interactions with objects and physicalspaces (e.g. knocking on wood or tossing salt over one’s
shoulder) impacts an individual’s beliefs and expectationsof the future [38]. Other work has explored design ofgesture-based interfaces towards modulating affective statein human computer interaction [15,16,20,30].
We submit that interactions can be designed to inducechanges in affective state complementary to one’s work.
Further, we believe any success to be found in suchinterventions requires tangible, embodied interactions rather
than mouse-driven or even multi-touch interactions.

Impact of Bodily Movement (the Hand) on Cognition

New research is developing a compelling link between theact of writing (i.e. pen on paper) and cognition. The effects
in the brain due to writing are far beyond that involved intyping or even touchscreens [4,23,37,40]. Neurologist
Frank Wilson summarizes: “Any theory of human
intelligence which ignores the interdependence of hand andbrain function, the historical origins of that or the impact ofthat history on the developmental dynamics in modern
humans, is grossly misleading and sterile” [40]. Dr.
Virginia Berninger notes that handwriting requires
sequential strokes whereas use of a keyboard involves onlya single key press. Berninger has observed in brain scansthat sequential finger movements activate large brain
regions involved in language and working memory [4]. We
submit that tangible interactions have potential to inducechanges in cognition that are complementary to one’s work.
Fidgeting, Noise, Focus and the Brain’s Default Network

In “hyperactive” and ADHD children, researchers have
hypothesized that fidgeting is a coping mechanism the body
employs to promote natural stimulant release, enabling themind to focus on tasks [8,11,24]. Anecdotally, encouraging
fidgeting in the classroom through desk design and seating
seems to improve focus in children [25,35]. From these, we
extrapolate that we can design interactions to enable
fidgeting tendencies that modulate focus.
Similar to mildly positive affect, moderate levels of
ambient noise have been shown to increase creativity [26].
In fact, the startup Coffitivity provides tunable coffee shop
ambient sounds to boost creativity [41]. That is, softwarebased audio has been designed to spur creativity incognition. Consequently, we conclude that designed audio
interactions consistent with the goals presented herein canalso modulate cognitive state.
The brain’s so-called default network seems to establish abaseline of activity, engaged in boredom, impatience, andindecision. Researchers have noted parallels between the
motor activities of doodling, fidgeting, and fiddling with
objects and the patterns of activity in the default network of
the brain [32]. Questions remain as to whether “mindless”
doodling consumes resources, detracting from tasks at
hand, or whether it improves performance by aiding
concentration through regulation of arousal and cognition[2]. We find it plausible that tangible interactions canengage the brain’s self-modulating mechanisms able to deal
with boredom, decision making, etc.
PROJECT INSPIRATION

A simple observation of a student’s behavior during a classformed the genesis of the Fidget Widgets project [18]. Thisparticular student, like many of her peers, was using
software on her laptop computer to take notes during a
lecture. We observed her mindlessly using the arrow keysof her laptop keyboard to rapidly bounce her screen cursor
back and forth among the letters and spaces in her notes. Ina fashion, this behavior was crudely reminiscent of
doodling. This inspired questions such as:• Doodling usually takes place in the margin areas of
paper; how might human computer interactions with
software incorporate “margins”?
• How can we facilitate and encourage play and playfulinteractions? How do we do so without constructing
games? That is, play in software most often takes theform of games, but we wish to create interactions herethat are free of a goal orientation. [See section Defining a
Playful Technology for more on this topic.]• An input modality tends to shape a user’s interaction andmovement. If only a keyboard or mouse is present in aworkspace this seems to limit hand actions to thoseafforded by these devices. How can we facilitate greater
manual dexterity and manipulation akin to true fiddling?
• How might we design and construct secondary, incidental
interactions that are “mindless” like doodling, fidgeting,and fiddling? Can these design interventions support andcomplement thinking and working productively?
DEFINING A PLAYFUL TECHNOLOGY

We use playful specifically to distinguish our work fromthat of games. Philosophers, sociologists, anthropologists,and others have put forward many definitions for play [31].
While we could fill this paper attempting to draw a line
between “gameful” and playful, for our purposes, we willloosely define a playful activity as one:
1. Free of measurable goals;
2. Undertaken for an intrinsic motivation — that is, for theenjoyment of the experience itself;
3. Usually embodying delight, levity, or silliness.
From this, we can distinguish games from playful activities
in degree. Games tend to be structured and tend to be
extrinsically motivated by points, achievements, and/or
status. Conversely, playful activities tend to be unstructured
and engaged for their own sake (e.g. building with blocks,
playing dress up, paper airplanes, etc.). Playful
technologies, then, are material constructions that facilitate
playful interactions — often with electronics and software.
WORK TO DATEDesign and Study Challenges

Our Fidget Widgets concept has proven challenging todesign and test. The behaviors from which our concepts are
inspired are “mindless” and tangential, complicating
traditional design processes meant for directly yielding
productivity. Usability and psychologically-based testing
are generally best accomplished with direct interaction,
focused attention, and measurement of quantifiable primaryeffects. Our concept is antithetical to these approaches.

Iterative Design and a Supple Approach

Given the inherent challenges, our approach, then, is
iterative in understanding our users, the effects for which
we are designing, and the design of Fidget Widgets
themselves. Rather than an overly structured approach toaddressing many difficult complications, we are instead
employing a “supple” design and study strategy [14].
To date we have used lo-fi methods to understand basic
user behaviors and find the edges of our design envelope.
We used a survey to get at doodling, fiddling, and fidgeting
behaviors individuals employ in their work. We have built
two exploratory instances of the Fidget Widget concept.
With these, we have sought expert opinion and user
reactions to guide further development. At present we areinvestigating the Experience-Sampling Method to surmount
our study design challenges [33]. Our work and findings
thus far are discussed in the sections that follow.
Survey of Behaviors During Computer-based WorkWe created a web survey that collected 35 responses on
doodling, fiddling, and fidgeting behaviors during work.
While the results are surely biased by self-selection, it
reveals interesting trends nonetheless. A web-based surveyaligned well with our target user population.
Demographics

Survey respondents ranged from 21 to 47 years old. Gender
was nearly evenly split between 19 males and 16 females.
Doodling, Fiddling, and Fidgeting Behaviors

91% of our respondents doodle, fiddle, and/or fidget whileworking alone; 90% of these reported doing so multiple
times a day. Of the 32 respondents self-identified as
engaging any of these behaviors while working, 25 reported
regularly engaging two or more of the behaviors.
Attitudes about Behaviors

Only 4 respondents identified these behaviors as“wasteful”; the remaining of respondents were evenly split
between “neutral” and “beneficial.” One respondent added
their own descriptor of “fun.”

Early Fidget Widgets
Form Factor: Sifteo Platform

Our two exploratory Fidget Widgets are applications
running on first-gen Sifteo cubes [42]. Sifteo is comprisedof squat blocks at 4.3 cm (1.7 in) on a side and 1.8 cm (0.7in) deep. Each includes a color clickable screen (i.e. theentire screen is a physical button) and sensors to sense
shake, tilt, rotation, flipping, and proximity to one another.
We chose to work with Sifteo, in part, because it affords
interactions similar to the fiddling and playing with objects
common to desk workers. Their limited computing powerhas helpfully restrained scope. Further, Sifteo is a readily
available tangible platform that allowed quick prototyping.
Form Factor: Observations on Smartphones

In the course of our work we have received criticism from
HCI practitioners questioning why we have not simply built
smartphone apps. Our rebuttal is threefold:
1. The weight and size of a smartphone is too great foreffective fiddling in light of the preferred objects (e.g.
pens, paper clips, stress balls).
2. Smartphones carry with them a certain “baggage” of
expectation in use and convention.
3. Especially given feedback received (discussed in a later
section), smartphones provide far too little tactile
experience to achieve our goals.
Infinite Bubble Wrap

Noting the visceral reward in popping physical bubble wrap
and the common desire to pop bubbles repeatedly, in thisinteraction we created a never-ending supply of virtual
bubble wrap. Each Sifteo cube is a single bubble. The
screen shows two states: an inflated or a popped bubble (seeFigure 2 and Figure 3). When a user depresses the screen,
the cube transitions from inflated to popped with an audible
pop. Shaking the cube triggers an inflation sound and resets
the bubble. When cubes are placed together forming a“sheet” of bubble wrap, popping any one bubble begins a
chain reaction popping each of the others in sequence. Note
the key elements of repetition as revealed in our survey.

Patterns in Self-Reported Behaviors

Descriptions of doodling, fiddling, and fidgeting behaviors
varied greatly. However, a commonality emerged. Whether
it was describing doodling, fiddling, or fidgeting,respondents used a language of repetition. Doodles repeateda pattern. Fidgeting was a repeated motion. Descriptions offiddling often included explanations of how objects weremanipulated in the same manner again and again.
Conclusions

If these results are at all representative of the population atlarge, researchers may have missed important behaviorsquite common and integral to modern work. Further, itappears that repetition may be a key component to the“mindlessness” of doodling, fidgeting, and fiddling.

Figure 2: Infinite Bubble Wrap inflated stateFigure 5: Pellets bouncing about their individual worlds. The
leftmost cube is being rocked to impart velocity to its world.

Figure 3: Infinte Bubble Wrap popped state
Rock the Cradle

Newton’s Cradle is a classic physics-based toy (see Figure4). Noting the almost hypnotic effect of Newton’s Cradle,
we created virtual Newtonian worlds with Sifteo cubes.
Depressing a cube screen creates a new “pellet” in thatcube’s world. Tilting (“rocking”) a cube simulates gravity
in that cube’s world and imparts velocity to the pellets withit (see Figure 5). A 2D physics engine manages motion andbouncing. Pellet collisions generate musical tones(overlapping collisions create chords). When cubes arebrought next to one another, the bounds of each cube’s
world disappear allowing pellets to interact within auniverse as large as the touching cubes (see Figure 6).
Removing a single cube from such a universe “traps”
pellets within it, limiting their motion to the bounds of that
cube. The whole of the interaction is similar to theexperience of playing with ball bearings or marbles andalso with wind chimes. Note the rhythmic qualities asrevealed in our survey.

Figure 6: Individual cube worlds combined into one universeby physical proximity. Note that any configuration of touching
cubes is possible. Moving and rotating individual worlds
reorients those worlds within any universe of touching worlds.
Expert Reviews

Given the challenges in design and rigorous study
formulation noted previously, we elected to conduct expert
reviews with the attendees of CHI 2013 to explore ourdesign space and elicit insight and feedback. We conducted
9 reviews using our Infinite Bubble Wrap demonstration[19]. Reviewers included a doctoral student studying new
video applications, an HCI practitioner at Samsung, aformer Sifteo employee, an MIT Media Lab student, anengineering professor, a tangible interface researcher, andusability expert Jakob Nielsen, among others. These
reviews each lasted from five minutes to nearly an hour.
Our expert reviews were comprised of two components:
1. Think-aloud sessions using the existing Infinite Bubble
Wrap Fidget Widget implementation;
2. Semi-structured interviews grounded in these HCI
experts’ own doodling, fidgeting, and fiddling behaviors
as well as their relevant backgrounds.
Overall Reactions

Figure 4: Newton’s Cradle[Image courtesy of Ant Holnes via Creative Commons]Each of our 9 reviewers reacted quite positively and evenenthusiastically to the Fidget Widget concept — even whenpressed beyond any social niceties. Of course, several
reviewers rightfully noted that without working devices in
the hands of real users we cannot know whether the conceptof Fidget Widgets itself is truly sound.
Tactile / Tangible Experience

Reviewers consistently spoke of the tactile and tangible
experience of items in their hands. This dominated all othercommentary. Issues of pliability, softness, satisfying clicks,
squeezes, and overall tactile stimulation arose repeatedly.
While some appreciated the form factor of the Sifteo cubes,
it became clear that even the tangible experience of Sifteo
cubes is insufficient for meaningful use of Fidget Widgets.
This is not to say that the form factor should be abandoned.
Rather, taken collectively, the reviewers’ reactions
indicated that the Sifteo cubes must be supplemented with avariety of other forms. For future incarnations of Fidget
Widgets, we must move beyond the traditional computer
form factor of electronics in a rigid box.

Spectrum: Personal–Social

Many reviewers saw Fidget Widgets as a personaltechnology. Once again similarities to a personal workspacecreated by headphones were identified. Discussion of thepersonal connections workers form to their desk items was
also raised. That is, designing to facilitate such attachments
was important. Reviewers also expressed concern inprotecting others nearby from intrusive noise.
Other reviewers saw Fidget Widgets as a social technology
for fostering intra-office interactions and even encouraging
childlike play patterns for sake of creativity and problem
solving in group settings.

Sound

The audio experience of Fidget Widgets also garneredconsiderable feedback. Some reviewers were very
interested in possible audio experiences, noting the creative
personal music space due to headphones that facilitates
their work. Others were quite concerned about annoyance.
Interaction Spectra

An envelope of an interaction design space emerged fromour expert reviews. Apart from the preeminence of thetactile / tangible experience, feedback and reactions filteredinto three broad spectra: Active Engagement–Passive
Experience, Audio–Visual, and Personal–Social.
Spectrum: Active Engagement–Passive Experience

On the passive experience end of this spectrum, reviewers
spoke about ritual, a desire for distraction from work tasks,
and repetitive experiences. Note the desire for something“mindless” here (see discussion of survey results).
On the other end of this spectrum, reviewers spoke about adesire to support daydreaming, create stimulus to overcome
mental blocks, and encounter new, ever-varied experiences.
Spectrum: Audio–Visual

Those reviewers on the audio end of this spectrum
expressed a desire for no screens in interactions as anantidote to the screen(s) at which they stared while doing
their work. Several spoke of the significance of music totheir work process and to the personal workspace that
headphones afforded. One reviewer referenced researchdone by Cliff Nass on the connection of music to creativity— specifically that new music is distracting while familiarmusic has been shown to aid creative work. Several
reviewers spoke of the percussive nature of music and its
connection to physically embodying a beat.
Those reviewers who gravitated to the visual end of thisspectrum talked of animated GIFs and their fascination withcreating flipbooks from stacks of paper. A reviewer
suggested incorporating research on culturally significant
shapes and colors to activate visual centers in the brain.
Note the rhythmic aspects in these descriptions of audio andvideo-based interactions. This echoes the descriptions ofrepetitive behaviors in the survey discussed previously.

Expert Review Conclusions

From these expert reviews we draw significant conclusions:• The concept of Fidget Widgets is compelling.
• Our previously unknown design envelope now has a setof boundaries in the interrelated active–passive, audio–
visual, and personal–social spectra.
• A highly tactile experience is key. A development
direction might entail embedding sensors in fiddleworthy items of highly tactile materials. Data from thesesensors collected wirelessly could drive interactions.
• Personality traits and learning styles may be connected topreferences situated along the identified design spectra.
CONTINUING AND FUTURE WORK AND CHALLENGES

We plan to continue iterating variations of Fidget Widgets
in materials and form factors; in attributes selected fromamong our identified design spectra; and in permutations ofreward, distraction, anxiety, disgust, motion, and audio andvisual stimulation. With these variations we hope toselectively create mild positive and negative affect; develop
and alleviate low levels of stress; temporarily consume
attention or operate in parallel to a user’s locus of attention;and engage the default network of the brain.
Material and Interaction Design Research

Our work has revealed the central importance of tactile andtangible experience in our concept. Our challenge is toarrive at configurations of materials and interactivity thatyield satisfying in-hand stimulation and experiences.
To give us insight into these issues, we have made available
online a data collection instrument1 inviting public
participation in our design process. We crafted our
instrument to be shared via social media (with the hope of acertain viral effect) and to invite simple free-form photo,
video, and text submissions as to items, fiddlingmanipulations, and sensations experienced in these acts.
Though this is not rigorous scientific study, we expect to1

http://fidgetwidgets.tumblr.com

identify meaningful patterns in material preferences,
choices of objects / shapes, and behaviors employed.

Factors in Computing Systems © ACM,
http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2468356.2468561

Research Study Design: Experience-Sampling Method

REFERENCES

Perhaps the most challenging work before us is toeventually structure studies able to establish modulation ofaffect and cognition toward measurably impacting
creativity and productivity. As already noted, theintentionally tangential and incidental nature of theseinteractions compounded by their indirect inducement ofuser state change complicates any study design.

1.

At present, our research design strategy is rooted in theExperience-Sampling Method (ESM) [33]. ESM is alongitudinal, field study approach that randomly samples
study participants throughout the study period. Software isusually employed to generate user prompts (e.g. text
messages / pages, emails, desktop notices, etc.) throughout
the day at randomly selected times [7]. At each prompt a
study participant completes a short instrument that captures
activity and user state at the moment of sampling.
ESM is unique in that its random sampling yields goodinternal validity to the design while the in-the-wild natureof the approach simultaneously yields good external
validity [9]. The obvious limitation is in the reliance on
self-report compounded by the necessity for brevity of theself-report instrument. ESM has been enhanced with
momentary video recording [13]; such an approach may
work in our case and may successfully supplement selfreport. A further challenge exists in selecting appropriate
self-report instruments for each effect to be measured.
Selecting study participants poses the standard challenges,
but ESM affords us the opportunity to study the use of
Fidget Widgets by real users in real work settings.
CONCLUSION

We introduced the concept of a physical margin spacesurrounding digital workspaces in which users often
physically perform elements of their thinking in the form of
doodling, fiddling, and fidgeting. We also introduced theconcept of Fidget Widgets to be used in that margin as
playful, tangible interactions. Fidget Widgets are intended
to selectively modulate affect and shape cognitive state tosupport a user’s productivity and creativity in their primarytasks. Work to create further Fidget Widgets in a variety oftactile forms and to study their effects on users is ongoing.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported in part by the NSF (under grant0966187). The views and conclusions contained in thisdocument are those of the authors and should not beinterpreted as necessarily representing the official policies,
either expressed or implied, of any of the sponsors.
This work is based on an earlier work: Fidget widgets:secondary playful interactions in support of primary
serious tasks in CHI ’13 Extended Abstracts on Human2013.

Alonso, M.B. Relax! Inherent Feedback During
Product Interaction to Reduce Stress. Delft Universityof Technology, 2010.
2. Andrade, J. What does doodling do? Applied Cognitive
Psychology 24, 1 (2010), 100–106.
3. Ashby, F.G., Valentin, V.V., and Turken, A.U. The
effects of positive affect and arousal on working
memory and executive attention. ADVANCES INCONSCIOUSNESS RESEARCH 44, (2002), 245–288.
4. Bounds, G. How Handwriting Boosts the Brain:
Forming Letters Is Key to Learning, Memory, Ideas.
Wall Street Journal Online.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870463
1504575531932754922518.html.
5. Bødker, S. When Second Wave HCI Meets Third
Wave Challenges. NordiCHI '06: Proceedings of the
4th Nordic conference on Human-computerinteraction: changing roles, (2006).
6. Carney, D.R., Cuddy, A.J.C., and Yap, A.J. Power
Posing: Brief Nonverbal Displays Affect
Neuroendocrine Levels and Risk Tolerance.
Psychological Science 21, 10 (2010), 1363–1368.
7. Christensen, T.C., Barrett, L.F., Bliss-Moreau, E.,
Lebo, K., and Kaschub, C. A practical guide toexperience-sampling procedures. Journal of HappinessStudies 4, 1 (2003), 53–78.
8. Cloud, J. Better Learning Through Fidgeting. Time173, 2009, 61.
9. Csikszentmihalyi, M. and Larson, R. Validity andreliability of the experience-sampling method. The
Journal of nervous and mental disease 175, 9 (1987),
526–536.
10. Dourish, P. Where the Actions Is: The Foundations of
Embodied Interaction. MIT Press, Cambridge, 2004.
11. Garger, S. Is there a link between learning style andneurophysiology. Educational Leadership 48, 2 (1990),
63–65.
12. Goldberg, J., Hagman, J., and Sazawal, V. Doodlingour way to better authentication. CHI'02 Extended
Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems,(2002).
13. Intille, S., Kukla, C., and Ma, X. Eliciting user
preferences using image-based experience sampling
and reflection. CHI '02 Extended Abstracts on Human
Factors in Computing Systems, (2002).
14. Isbister, K. and Höök, K. On being supple: in search of
rigor without rigidity in meeting new design andevaluation challenges for HCI practitioners. CHI '09:
Proceedings of the 27th international conference on
Human factors in computing systems, (2009), 2233–
2242.

15. Isbister, K., Karlesky, M., Frye, J., and Rao, R. Scoop!:a movement-based math game designed to reduce mathanxiety. CHI'12 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors
in Computing Systems, (2012), 1075–1078.
16. Isbister, K., Schwekendiek, U., and Frye, J. Wriggle:
An Exploration of Emotional and Social Effects ofMovement. CHI'11: Extended abstracts on Human
factors in computing systems, (2011).
17. Isen, A.M. Positive affect as a source of humanstrength. In L.G. Aspinwall and U.M. Staudinger, eds.,
A psychology of human strengths: Fundamental
questions and future directions for a positive
psychology. American Psychological Association,
Washington, D.C., 2003, 179–195.
18. Karlesky, M. On Doodling: Software with Margins?
notethesmile.org, 2011.
http://notethesmile.org/blog/on-doodling-softwarewith-margins.html.
19. Karlesky, M. and Isbister, K. Fidget widgets:secondary playful interactions in support of primary
serious tasks. CHI'13 Extended Abstracts on Human
Factors in Computing Systems, (2013), 1149–1154.
20. Karlesky, M., Melcer, E., and Isbister, K. Opensesame: re-envisioning the design of a gesture-based
access control system. CHI'13 Extended Abstracts on
Human Factors in Computing Systems, (2013), 1167–
1172.
21. Kruglanski, A.W. and Higgins, E.T. Social
Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles. The
Guilford, 2007.
22. Levin, G. and Yarin, P. Bringing sketching tools tokeychain computers with an acceleration-based
interface. CHI'99 Extended abstracts on Human factors
in computing systems, (1999), 268–269.
23. Mangen, A. and Velay, J.-L. Digitizing literacy:
reflections on the haptics of writing. In M.H. Zadeh,ed., Advances in Haptics. InTech, Rijeka, Croatia,
2010, 385–402.
24. Mason, M.F., Norton, M.I., Van Horn, J.D., Wegner,
D.M., Grafton, S.T., and Macrae, C.N. Wandering
minds: the default network and stimulus-independent
thought. Science 315, 5810 (2007), 393–395.
25. Matheson, K. Teachers ditch student desk chairs foryoga balls. Associated Press, 2013.
http://news.yahoo.com/teachers-ditch-student-deskchairs-152403408.html.
26. Mehta, R., Zhu, R.J., and Cheema, A. Is Noise Always
Bad? Exploring the Effects of Ambient Noise on
Creative Cognition. Journal of Consumer Research 39,
4 (2012), 784–799.
27. Niedenthal, P.M. Embodying Emotion. Science 316,
5827 (2007), 1002–1005.

28. Park, A. The Two Faces of Anxiety. Time Online,2011.
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,2100106,00.html.
29. Philips. Mind Spheres. design.philips.com.
http://www.design.philips.com/about/design/designportfolio/design_futures/mind_spheres.page.
30. Sae-Bae, N., Ahmed, K., Isbister, K., and Memon, N.
Biometric-rich gestures: a novel approach toauthentication on multi-touch devices. CHI '12:
Proceedings of the 2012 ACM annual conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems, (2012), 977–
986.
31. Saracho, O.N. and Spodek, B. A Historical Overview
of Theories of Play. In O.N. Saracho and B. Spodek,
eds., Multiple Perspectives on Play in Early Childhood
Education. State University of New York Press,
Albany, 1998, 1–10.
32. Schott, G.D. Doodling and the default network of thebrain. The Lancet 378, 9797 (2011), 1133–1134.
33. Scollon, C.N., Kim-Prieto, C., and Diener, E.
Experience sampling: Promises and pitfalls, strengths
and weaknesses. Journal of Happiness Studies 4, 1
(2003), 5–34.
34. Seo, M.G., Barrett, L.F., and Bartunek, J.M. The Roleof Affective Experience in Work Motivation. Academyof Management Review 29, 3 (2004), 423–439.
35. Tobias, S.P. Wichita fifth-graders stand up for learning.
The Wichita Eagle Online, 2012.
http://www.kansas.com/2012/11/27/2582854/wichitafifth-graders-can-stand.html.
36. Varenhorst, C. Passdoodles: A lightweightauthentication method. Research Science Institute,(2004).
37. Wilson, F. The Hand: How Its Use Shapes the Brain,
Language, and Human Culture. Vintage, New York,1999.
38. Zhang, Y., Risen, J.L., and Hosey, C. Reversing One’s
Fortune by Pushing Away Bad Luck. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: General, (2013).
39. Zhong, Y., Li, X., Fan, M., and Shi, Y. Doodle space:
painting on a public display by cam-phone.
Proceedings of the 2009 workshop on Ambient media
computing, (2009), 13–20.
40. Writing better than typing for learning. NHS Choices,2011.
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2011/01January/Pages/writing-versus-typing-for-learning.aspx.
41. Coffitivity - Increase Your Creativity! coffitivity.com.
http://coffitivity.com/.
42. Sifteo. sifteo.com. https://www.sifteo.com/.