Body As Starting Point 4: Inbodied Interaction Design for Health
Ownership.
m.c. schraefel, Josh Andres, Aaron Tabor, Scott Bateman, Abby Wanyu Liu, Mike Jones, Kai Kunze,
Elizabeth Murnane, Steeven Villa
U of Southampton, IBM Research, University of New Brunswick, IRCAM-CNRS Sorbonne Univerité, Bringham Young
University, Dartmouth College, LMU.

ABSTRACTThis Fourth Body as a Starting Point workshop investigates how
to design interactive health technologies that assist users in developing insourcing abilities and then assist users in letting go of
the same technology—in other words, supporting a transition fromhealth technology dependence to independence. By making explicit
two inbodied design continua of (1) ownership, from “outsourcing”
to “insourcing” and (2) engagement period, from “single”, to” cycle”,
to “permanent”, to prototype and reflect on interactive technologythat takes the body as a starting point.

CCS CONCEPTS• Human-Centered Computing - Human Computer Interaction (HCI);KEYWORDS
Inbodied Interaction, Wellbeing, Human Performance, Motor Learning
ACM Reference Format:
m.c. schraefel, Josh Andres, Aaron Tabor, Scott Bateman, Abby Wanyu Liu,
Mike Jones, Kai Kunze, Elizabeth Murnane, Steeven Villa. 2021. Body As
Starting Point 4: Inbodied Interaction Design for Health Ownership.. In CHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstracts (CHI
’21 Extended Abstracts), May 08–13, 2021, Yokohama, Japan. ACM, New York,NY, USA, 5 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411763.3441335

1

INTRODUCTION

What is an interactive health technology supposed to do? Does it
maintain ownership of the process, and manage all aspects of ahealth practice for a user, for all time, or does it over time build
skills/ownership? In a similar vein, how long is the engagementwith the technology supposed to last? Is it a single bolus, a series ofcycles, perpetual? These questions about ownership and engagement
period are often left ambiguous in interactive health tech design.
In this Fourth Body as a Starting Point Workshop, we propose
to make these attributes explicit; that by doing so, we can thenuse those properties with intent in our designs, and that use will
open up the interactive health tech design space with more options
to better support more people. To facilitate this exploration, thePermission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal orclassroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributedfor profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citationon the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored.
For all other uses, contact the owner/author(s).
CHI ’21 Extended Abstracts, May 08–13, 2021, Yokohama, Japan© 2021 Copyright held by the owner/author(s).
ACM ISBN 978-1-4503-8095-9/21/05.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3411763.3441335

Workshop invites participants to contribute working papers andprototypes that incorporate explicit consideration of these twocontinua of Ownership and Engagement Period in the context of
Inbodied Interaction. The goal of the workshop is that throughthese shared explorations, we will have evidence for the broader
community of how and where these continua can add value forhealth tech design.

2

CONTEXT AND MOTIVATIONThe This workshop is the fourth in the Body as a Starting Point
series. The series approaches interactive Health Tech design froman Inbodied Interaction perspective, with the goal of deepeningthat approach. Inbodied Interaction focuses on aligning how wefunction physiologically in order to inform design that supports
human health, wellbeing, performance, quality of life - what we
elsewhere have called “wellth” [9]. It brings together both the Inbodied Process - our internal physiological states and processes - withwhat it frames as the Circumbodied - those physical, environmental
processes that affect each of our Inbodied processes.
Over the past three workshops, several key themes have emerged
to underpin this approach [21]. One of these is the interactions
between what we call Inbodied Continua that focus on our engagement with the volitional ways we can interact with our internal
operation from its physiology to neurology. These are the “inbodied5” (Move Eat Engage Cogitate Sleep) [16] and the “cicumbodied4”(Air, Light, Microbiome, Gravity) [14, 17] . For example, a continua
in Movement is between stillness and action; in Eating, between
fasted and sated; or in Engaging, between aloneness and being withothers. We talk about wellth as a process of “tuning” [18] thesecontinua: how much we eat and when, relates to continual interactions with the other in5; and is supported by interaction with
the C4. With each of these continua and their interactions, there
are therefore also associated knowledge, skills and practice that
support how to tune any parameter relative to current context anddesired state.
Arguably, one of the most powerful processes of human physiology is to maintain homeostasis across health challenging contexts[10]. Our bodies exhibit strong, clear signals when this homeostaticbalance becomes disrupted, but those responses can be far more subtle – potentially imperceptible – without building self-knowledge
around these nuanced signal changes. Therefore, Inbodied Interaction proposes designs that support our innate ability to feel throughbodily interoception [6, 8] and help us learn to respond appropriately to attain wellbeing and perform as we desire.
A fundamental approach in Inbodied Interaction has been that
health designs should help users develop inbodied literacy by supporting informed decision making. These decisions may optimally

CHI ’21 Extended Abstracts, May 08–13, 2021, Yokohama, Japanbe based on self-knowledge about personal performance, rather
than only or predominantly encouraging prescriptive uptake ofgeneric “healthy” habits or behaviors. Walking 10,000 steps may
be a useful habit, but it often builds a reliance on external devices
or rote habit, rather than usable awareness and knowledge of internal state. That missing internal awareness might help a person
understand if they have moved sufficiently for wellbeing; knowledge may provide options when weather prohibits the habituatedwalking. Inbodied Interaction fundamentally focuses on building
both knowledge of the body as a whole and its surrounding context,
and the skills and practice necessary to build health, wellbeing, andperformance awareness.
Our aspiration in the Inbodied Interaction community is
to design tools that support tuning. The previous three workshops [5, 19, 21] and ACM SIGCHI Inbodied Interaction summer
school [25] have focused on developing expertise in the in5 and C4
attributes. Last year’s workshop leveraged associated themes suchas designing for the whole body, adaptation as a constant, context
as a dependent variable for tuning [21]. Select papers submitted tothat workshop are part of a forthcoming special issue in Interacting with Computers. For this workshop, selected papers will be
invited for full submission to a special issue of Frontiers in
Computer Science.

3

OPENING THE DESIGN SPACE:INSOURCING TO OUTSOURCING; SINGLETO CYCLES TO PERMANENTIn this fourth workshop, rather than foregrounding only how todesign to support the physiological continua of the in5/c4, we propose to more deliberately consider the two meta-continua proposed
above for ownership and temporality, in terms of making explicit
the relationship of the tool with the person, and the time of use of
the tool with the person to support inbodied interaction knowledge
skills and practice.
META-CONTINUA for Inbodied Interaction Design - Explicit thinking about the Imagined Engagement with theTool.
To help participants think through their contributions for theworkshop, we will offer some example cases below, but first, we
detail a little more about the core terms and focus for the workshop.
First, by Meta-Continua, we frame insourcing and cycles forexample as Meta, because they are about the assumptions in or theaspirations for the design itself rather than what the specific intervention is about. With these continua, we are asking ourselves tomake these always implicit parameters explicit both for our design
questions, and our evaluations of those designs. In the ownership
meta-continua, we are asking multiple questions around knowledge,
skills and practice ownership. In the engagement period continua
we are asking about the length of the engagement for effect. Let’s
unpack these terms a little further.

3.1

Ownership Continua - Insourcing —Outsourcing.

Outsourcing as a term is familiar in work contexts, where we outsource some requirement outside ourselves to a third party. Most of
us outsource vegetable gathering to grocery stores, who themselvesm.c. schraefel et al.

Figure 1: The intersection of the "ownership continua, insourcing to outsourcing" with the "engagement duration
continua, single, cyclic, permanent", which offers a design
space to further develop inbodied practices that support thedesign of technology

work with outsourced produce production. We may also outsource
meals to restaurants and delivery services.
In many health trackers and associated apps, the default design
seems to be outsourcing. We outsource our fitness plans to a third
party, to tell us what to do when, whether this is to walk 10k steps
a day, or spin on a stationary bike for 30minutes with a remote
instructor and fellow sufferers. Within HCI research, many designs
in health also regularly gravitate to outsourcing (Hong’s stuff forexample?? REF - Sean’s the workout plans )Recently, we proposed the term “insourcing” [20] - where theinteraction focuses on fostering an internal awareness and the associated knowledge, skills and practice, to cultivate a self-sustainable
health practice. In other words, to design a technology that builds
a person’s self-sufficiency and ability to eventually leave the technology behind.

3.2

Engagement Period - Single – Cycle –Permanent

A related meta-continua is Engagement. The goal here is to use thecontinua to make explicit where we are situating the intervention. It
seems for many tools, that quality is not really considered: how long
does one attend a virtual yoga class? Wear a health watch? Withan early wearable step counter, use lasted until it went throughthe wash, having been forgotten in a pocket. In many physicalcontexts, there are cycles in training and skills development, including periods of recovery/change. There are also interventions
that may be single use, like a pregnancy test or getting a cast. Our
goal in this workshop is to see how designs may sharpen efficacy
by considering duration and frequency of engagement, explicitly.

3.3

Value Judgement

There may be a tendency towards value judgements in these continua. For example, there may be an inclination to suggestion Insourcing is Good or Better than outsourcing - but as one of lastyear’s workshop themes stressed, there is very little that is either
Good or Bad related to the inbodied/circumbodied; efficacy is infinding the optimal balance or ratios among these ranges. This

Body As Starting Point 4: Inbodied Interaction Design for Health Ownership.

unwinding from value judgements is another motivation for framing these dimensions or parameters as continua, rather than as
dichotomies, or oppositional forces. Similarly, the thesis this workshop seeks to test is that: by making these continua explicit, we canbetter situate our designs to evaluate both our intentions for theireffects and whether or not they have achieved those outcomes.
Given the dominant paradigm currently leans towards OUTSOURCING, in this workshop we would like to encourage contributions that explore INSOURCING in particular, that use the in5/c4,
and that have some sense of an explicit Exit Strategy (e.g., to designin a state for Phase Complete or Cycle complete). Again, this is
not to say these are optimal continua, but that we wish to push onthese as design challenges, as exploratory constraints.

3.4

Related Theory: Motor Learning

There may be a significant opportunity for Inbodied Interaction
Designs to draw on principles of motor learning for insourcing
how Movement affects wellbeing. For example, designs to build
proprioceptive awareness or skills (i.e., becoming aware of selfmovement and body position in space), is a foundation of motor
learning for performance. There are well-developed theories ofengagement period in motor learning of explicit performance skills.
For example when to offer what type of feedback, such as visual,auditory, haptic or multimodal augmentation [11] [26], where tofocus attention - internally or externally [24]and in what context .
Motor Learning also offers guides for framing what kinds of information to provide as part of an insourcing process and when in acycle to provide it, such as, knowledge-of-results (KR), knowledgeof-performance (KP) [23]. Whether or not skills work is singularor stacked is also part of motor learning consideration as per random to blocked [7]. An opportunity for a contribution would be to
draw on motor learning strategies to underpin the INSOURCING
of a MOVEMENT INSOURCING progression that could be realized across a set of phases, and where completion/success of thatinsourcing could be self-assessed. Such approaches also may also
open the door to new kinds of evaluation, like development andsustainability of neural plasticity in practice [1, 11, 17, 23].

4MOTIVATING SCENARIOS FORCONTRIBUTIONS

We invite workshop participants to consider 2 types of contribution. The first option is to propose, pilot, or prototype either a novel
design featuring an in5 or C4 attribute or combination (stack) thatleverages the INSOURCING end of the ownership continua andthe CYCLE part of the engagement period continua. A second approach is to re-imagine how an existing tool or concept might bere-contextualised again within an INSOURCING/CYCLE framing.
We offer a few examples, below:
Example ONE: Re-imagining EATING SUPPORT - How do we
use the principles of ownership and engagement period in designinginteractive technology that helps us better understand how we eat
now, relative to how we feel, and where food may help us feeland perform better, rather than only keeping track of our energy
consumption? Examples of guiding questions could include: whatknowledge is associated with healthy eating, and how can thatknowledge be contextualized and conveyed, when? How do we feel

CHI ’21 Extended Abstracts, May 08–13, 2021, Yokohama, Japan

when we have this amount of food vs. that amount of food? What
feedback types, timing, and persistence would be helpful to build
better awareness and understanding about links between what we
eat and how we feel, and for how long? All these questions could
bring new insights into designing inbodied interaction with anemphasis on constructing better self knowledge [18]. In terms ofcycles, a key query would be: what is the goal state that would
enable an exit strategy? While building awareness, what skills do
we build, in what phases? How long are these phases? When do weno longer require the tool’s support?
EXAMPLE 2: HOW MOVE FROM TRACKING IT TO FEELINGIT? An ameteur runner trains 5-6 days a week by running on
trails in the local community. With current technology, during
every run, the runner faithfully tracks distance, heart rate andpace. Several wearables (eg Garmin’s ForeRunner series) and apps
(Training Peaks) feature telling the runner how much recovery
they need, or when they may be overreaching in their workouts.
An INSOURCING & CYCLE target may be to help the athlete more
explicitly correlate what they feel with these notifications fromthe algorithm. But what is the combination of data and qualitative
responses that helps to build resilient awareness of state? In termsof an Engagement Period, might there be both a Success phasethat builds a level of insourced, independence from the tools
awarenes, and perhaps an Interrogation/watching phase, that steps
in from time to time when at perception of under or over doing
recovery or action? What inbodied knowledge would a designer
draw on to help support such designs? How confirm that theapproach builds interoception? BONUS: C4-STACK. In running
outdoors in natural light, integrating light, elevation (musculareffort changes due to gravity), air quality and (urban) enviroment
viz potentially microbiomic diversity may also play a role in theefficacy of insourcing approaches, and attentional foci in a cycle.
EXAMPLE 3: Insourcing SOCIAL INTERACTION skills. Inbodied interaction frames ENGAGEMENT with each other as one of
the in5 for which we are physiologically wired. In the time of
COVID in person interaction is challenging and precious - we arenegotiating new obstacles, on top of coping with personal challenges of interoversion or extravesion as gross-level markers. We
may have a highly tuned sense of what social situations make us
uncomfortable, but have far less experience or opportunity to (1)understand these responses (2) have skills to address them so that
we can thrive in social encounters. How do we design tools to INSOURCE what skills? How create phases of practice to build thoseskills? What is success? BONUS : in5+C4 STACK - Is insourcingof skills enhanced by cylces of walking with another, or having a
coffee outdoors, in daylight?

5

WORKSHOP OVERVIEW

Overview The workshop has been designed from the outset
to facilitate online engagement for constructive collaborative sharing of ideas and work sessions to advance state of the art understanding. We will be taking full advantage of Zoom’s capabilities
to have both plenary and breakout group sessions. We are also
ensuring that we have significant breaks – with suggested activities for refreshing – to respect multiple timezones and qualities
of sustained attention when online. Towards these qualities weCHI ’21 Extended Abstracts, May 08–13, 2021, Yokohama, Japan

will be engaging in preliminary work as well as work on the day,described below. We have piloted these strategies throughout fall2020 in various 90minute morning/90 minute afternoon seminars
using this online approach to insure workability.

5.1

Pre-Workshop Plan

We will leverage the Inbodied Interaction community built overthe last three years. Our organizing team is distributed across fourcontinents; as such, we can reach out to local universities, SIGs, andvarious SIGCHI conferences. We have co-developed this proposal
with that community. We have also been doing pre-work meetings
with design and engineering graduate communities to help build up
new members for our workshop engagement. Demand is high: theprevious workshops and summer school resulted in waiting lists,
which highlight not only interest in the approach but also a people
who are keen to engage in this workshop, and grow the community.
All accepted position papers will be posted on our website prior to
the workshop.

5.2

Workshop Structure

The workshop will be a one-day event totaling 3 hours, divided
in three 50-minute blocks with 15 minutes in between blocks rest;
each block will consist of 15 minutes theory, 10 minutes guided
exercises and 25 minutes discussion and ideation.
5.2.1 Block One, 10-10:50 - Situating the inbodied continua in relation to participants’ work. Attendees will be pre-organised in groupsof four, based on the focus of their contributions for the workshop.
They work towards presenting a point of view on the inbodied
continua that will be explored in this workshop; this exercise will
also serve to introduce the participants to each other. It will be followed by 10 minutes of inbodied activities guided by our certified
movement, neurology and nutrition workshop member relating
to the continua and conclude with open discussion and ideation.
For example – the rhythm and sync exercise – where we have aguided movement and listening break where participants can testout how “remote syncing together” feels when then listening topresentations and when collaborating together.
15 minute break
5.2.2 Block Two, 11:05 – 11:55: Exploring the intersection between"ownership continua, insourcing to outsourcing" with the "engagement
duration continua, single, cyclic, permanent" as a design space. In
the first 25 minutes in teams, participants will discuss and draw
how they imagine health sensing technologies that consider thedifferent quadrants of the continua intersection (Figure 1). We will
particularly consider the transition from outsourcing to insourcing
to design ’build and support’ and ’exit strategies’. In the subsequent
15 minutes, teams will share their drawings and reflections. The
session will conclude with 10 minutes of guided exercises, such as
peripheral attention for checking fatigue and attention in order toexplore attention quality during sessions.
15 minute break
5.2.3 Block Three, 12:10 – 13:00 - Knowledge gathering and summarisation towards a publication plan. In the first 15 minutes, wewill co-summarise insights in a shared document with video andimages from the day. This will be followed with a design thinking
exercise towards deriving preliminary themes for inclusion in them.c. schraefel et al.

upcoming publication. The last 10 minutes of the session will focus
on outlining a publication plan and ensuring everyone has accessto the tools.
Post-Workshop Plans - Underway
After the workshop, beyond the Special Issue for Frontiers in
Computer Science, we will release the workshop artefacts via our
website and social media, sharing short videos taken during theworkshop, overviews and brief video reflections in a similar format
to that of a podcast interview with participants. The collaboration
between attendees will continue and focus on fulfilling the publication plan to advance the insights from the workshop and make alasting contribution to our broader community.
Call for Participation
Inbodied Interaction focuses on devising interactive design approaches that recognize the body’s internal operation as physiological and neurological systems, in order to make tools more
effective at supporting human performance and wellbeing. For this
4th Inbodied Interaction workshop at CHI 2021, we invite participants to express their interest by submitting either: a position
paper, pictorial, or poster in relation to the Inbodied Interaction
continua presented in this proposal and on our website wellthlab.ac.uk/inbodied4
The main goals of this workshop are to:
1. introduce participants to the design continua (ownershipand engagement period) as a UX paradigm where we design
to build insourcing abilities and support users in eventuallyletting go of technology.
2. explore the potential design space that the continua offer
to prototype technology focused on workshop participants’research topics and further our community’s understandingof applying inbodied thinking to timely use cases.
3. have fun while advancing inbodied knowledge towards apublication outcome and continued momentum for this important HCI research topic.
Inbodied interaction is an emerging area in HCI that offers participants the opportunity to break new ground, with the support
of a growing community of HCI and adjacent domain experts, todesign interactive interventions that take the body as a starting
point to facilitate human performance aspirations.
To upload your contribution, go to: wellthlab.ac.uk/inbodied4
Thank you, from: m.c., Josh, Abby, Scott, Kai, Liz, Mike, Steeven,
Aaron.
Organizers – a cast of thousands
m.c. schraefel - m.c. is a professor of computer science and human performance, and leads the WellthLab at the University ofSouthampton. The lab focuses on human-systems interaction withthe mission to “#makeNormalBetter @scale 4all”[15]. m.c. is also
an NSCA certified strength and conditioning coach, nutritionist
and functional neurology coach.
Josh Andres has co-led various Inbodied Interaction workshops
and the Summer School. Josh’s work at IBM Research Australia
investigates intelligent like systems as human partners to support
human potential[3, 4] .
Aaron Tabor is a PhD student in the HCI Lab at the Universityof New Brunswick and works to apply the Inbodied Interaction
approach to our breath, exploring how it can be used as a tool toBody As Starting Point 4: Inbodied Interaction Design for Health Ownership.

support health, wellness, and performance goals. He has been a coorganizer of Inbodied Interaction workshops and Summer Schools
to date, and plays an active role in exploring how physiology can
inform HCI design and research practices.
Kai Kunze. Kai works as a Professor at the Graduate School ofMedia Design, Keio University, Yokohama, Japan. He is a pioneer
researcher in the emerging Eyewear Computing field [2]. His current research includes augmenting humans, quantifying cognitive
states and amplifying human senses [22] He is a founding memberof the Superhuman Sports Academy Society, Japan [12]Abby Wanyu Liu is a CNRS (The French National Centre for
Scientific Research) research scientist at IRCAM Paris. Her maininterests include computational, music and movement sonificationinteractive systems.
Michael Jones is an Associate Professor of Computer Science at
Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah. He and his students investigate HCI in the outdoors and sensor-based systems for training
in sports.
Steeven Villa Salazar is a PhD researcher at the Human-CenteredUbiquitous Media lab of LMU Munich. His current research involves
Self-Awareness and Sensory/Motor augmentation. He has beenworking in a closed-loop control approach to support individuals
to achieve long-term goals using the Inbodied framework.
Elizabeth Murnane is an Assistant Professor of Engineering at
Dartmouth College. She specializes in the human-centered designof interactive technologies for biopsychosocial assessment, informatics, and intervention, with a focus on exploring creative newstrategies to study and shape well-being.
Scott Bateman is an Associate Professor in Computer Scienceand directs the Human-Computer Interaction Lab, at the Universityof New Brunswick, in Fredericton, Canada. Scott’s research focuseson enabling people to work and play together in new ways, sothat we can learn from each other and lead healthier, happier lives.
His group’s work has included research into mixed reality, gamedesign, computer supported cooperative work, novel interactions,visualization, and serious games for learning and health.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We acknowledge support from EPSRC Health Resilience Interactive Technology, ReFresh and GetAMoveOn (EP/T007656/1,
EP/K021907/1, EP/N027299/1).

REFERENCES[1] Ali Amad, Jade Seidman, Stephen B. Draper, Muriel M. K. Bruchhage, Ruth G.
Lowry, James Wheeler, Andrew Robertson, Steven C. R. Williams, and Marcus S.
Smith. 2017. Motor Learning Induces Plasticity in the Resting Brain-Drumming
Up a Connection. Cereb. Cortex 27, 3 (01 2017), 2010–2021. DOI:https://doi.org/
10.1093/cercor/bhw048[2] Oliver Amft, Florian Wahl, Shoya Ishimaru, and Kai Kunze. 2015. Making Regular
Eyeglasses Smart. IEEE Pervasive Computing 14, 3 (July 2015), 32–43. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/MPRV.2015.60[3] Josh Andres, Tuomas Kari, Juerg von Kaenel, and Florian “Floyd” Mueller. 2019.
Co-riding With My eBike to Get Green Lights. In Proceedings of the 2019 on
Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS ’19), Association for Computing
Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1251–1263. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3322276.
3322307[4] Josh Andres, m.c. schraefel, Nathan Semertzidis, Brahmi Dwivedi, Yutika C.
Kulwe, Juerg von Kaenel, and Florian Floyd Mueller. 2020. Introducing Peripheral Awareness as a Neurological State for Human-computer Integration. In
Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

CHI ’21 Extended Abstracts, May 08–13, 2021, Yokohama, Japan(CHI ’20), Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–13.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376128[5] Josh Andres, m.c. schraefel, Aaron Tabor, and Eric B. Hekler. 2019. The Body
As Starting Point: Applying Inside Body Knowledge for Inbodied Design. In
Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems (CHI EA ’19), ACM, New York, NY, USA, W32:1–W32:8. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3290607.3299023[6] Andrew J. Arnold, Piotr Winkielman, and Karen Dobkins. 2019. Interoception
and Social Connection. Front Psychol 10, (2019), 2589. DOI:https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2019.02589[7] Christine E. Carter and Jessica A. Grahn. 2016. Optimizing Music Learning:
Exploring How Blocked and Interleaved Practice Schedules Affect Advanced
Performance. Front. Psychol. 7, (2016). DOI:https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.
01251[8] Erik Ceunen, Johan W. S. Vlaeyen, and Ilse Van Diest. 2016. On the Origin ofInteroception. Front Psychol 7, (May 2016). DOI:https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.
2016.00743[9] Elizabeth F. Churchill and m.c. schraefel. 2015. mHealth + Proactive Well-being= Wellth Creation. interactions 22, 1 (January 2015), 60–63. DOI:https://doi.org/
10.1145/2690853[10] Kelvin J. A. Davies. 2016. Adaptive homeostasis. Molecular Aspects of Medicine
49, (June 2016), 1–7. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mam.2016.04.007[11] Julien Doyon and Habib Benali. 2005. Reorganization and plasticity in the adultbrain during learning of motor skills. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 15, 2 (April 2005),
161–167. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2005.03.004[12] Kai Kunze, Kouta Minamizawa, Stephan Lukosch, Masahiko Inami, and Jun
Rekimoto. 2017. Superhuman Sports: Applying Human Augmentation to PhysicalExercise. IEEE Pervasive Computing 16, 2 (April 2017), 14–17. DOI:https://doi.org/
10.1109/MPRV.2017.35[13] Ian Li, Jon Froehlich, Jakob E Larsen, Catherine Grevet, and Ernesto Ramirez.
Personal informatics in the wild: hacking habits for health & happiness. 4.
[14] Elizabeth Murnane. 2020. Inbodied interaction design example: chronobiologyfriendly technology. interactions 27, 2 (February 2020), 54–55. DOI:https://doi.
org/10.1145/3380938[15] m.c. schraefel. 2017. #MakeNormalBetter. interactions 24, 5 (August 2017), 24–26.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3125393[16] m.c. schraefel. 2019. In5: A Model for Inbodied Interaction. In Extended Abstractsof the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’19),
ACM, New York, NY, USA, LBW1818:1–LBW1818:6. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/
3290607.3312977[17] m.c. schraefel. 2020. Introduction. interactions 27, 2 (February 2020), 32–37.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3380811[18] m.c. schraefel and Eric Hekler. 2020. Tuning: an approach for supporting healthfuladaptation. interactions 27, 2 (February 2020), 48–53. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/
3381897[19] m.c. schraefel, Elise van den Hoven, and Josh Andres. 2018. The Body As Starting
Point: Exploring Inside and Around Body Boundaries for Body-Centric Computing Design. In Extended Abstracts of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors
in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’18), ACM, New York, NY, USA, W02:1–W02:7.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3170427.3170638[20] m.c. schraefel, Aaron Tabor, and Josh Andres. 2020. Toward insourcingmeasurement in inbodied interaction design. interactions 27, 2 (February 2020),
56–60. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3381340[21] Aaron Tabor, Ian C. J. Smith, Scott Bateman, Josh Andres, Andrés Mejía Figueroa,
and m.c. schraefel. 2020. 3rd Body As Starting Point Workshop: Exploring Themes
for Inbodied Interaction Research and Design. In Extended Abstracts of the 2020
CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’20), Association
for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–8. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/
3334480.3375170[22] Benjamin Tag, Andrew W. Vargo, Aman Gupta, George Chernyshov, Kai Kunze,
and Tilman Dingler. 2019. Continuous Alertness Assessments: Using EOG Glasses
to Unobtrusively Monitor Fatigue Levels In-The-Wild. In Proceedings of the 2019
CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’19), Association
for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–12. DOI:https://doi.org/10.
1145/3290605.3300694[23] Ingram Tgj, Solomon Jp, Westwood Da, and Boe Sg. 2019. Movement related sensory feedback is not necessary for learning to execute a motor skill. Behaviouralbrain research 359. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2018.10.030[24] Gabriele Wulf. 2013. Attentional focus and motor learning: A review of 15 years.
International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology (2013). DOI:https://doi.org/
10.1080/1750984X.2012.723728[25] 2019 SUMMER SCHOOL on Inbodied Interaction – Wellthlab. Retrieved October
15, 2019 from https://wellthlab.soton.ac.uk/in5-2019/[26] Augmented visual, auditory, haptic, and multimodal feedback in motor learning:a review - PubMed. Retrieved October 14, 2020 from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.
nih.gov/23132605/