PneuMa: Designing Pneumatic Bodily Extensions for Supporting
Movement in Everyday Life
Aryan Saini

Rakesh Patibanda

Nathalie Overdevest

aryan@exertiongameslab.org
Exertion Games Lab, Department of
Human-Centred Computing
Monash University
Melbourne, Australia

rakesh.patibanda@monash.edu
Exertion Games Lab, Department of
Human-Centred Computing
Monash University
Melbourne, Australia

nathalie.overdevest@monash.edu
Exertion Games Lab, Department of
Human-Centred Computing
Monash University
Melbourne, Australia

Elise van den Hoven

Florian ‘Floyd’ Mueller

elise.vandenhoven@uts.edu.au
University of Technology Sydney
Sydney, Australia
Eindhoven University of Technology
Eindhoven, Netherlands

floyd@exertiongameslab.org
Exertion Games Lab, Department of
Human-Centred Computing
Monash University
Melbourne, Australia

Figure 1: PneuMa Bodily Extensions: A) “Pardon”, B) “Greetings”, and C) "Take a break".

ABSTRACT
Prior research around the design of interactive systems has highlighted the benefits of supporting embodiment in everyday life.
This resulted in the creation of body-centric systems that leverage movement. However, these advances supporting movementin everyday life, aligning with the embodiment theory, so far focused on sensing movement as opposed to facilitating movement.
We present PneuMa, a novel wearable system that can facilitate
movement in everyday life through pneumatic-based bodily extensions. We showcase the system through three examples: "Pardon?",moving the ear forward; "Greetings", moving a hand towards the"Bye-bye" gesture; "Take a break", moving the hands away from the
keyboard, enabling the bodily extensions that support movementin everyday life. From the thematic analysis of a field study with
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part 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 components of this work owned by others than theauthor(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or
republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission
and/or a fee. Request permissions from permissions@acm.org.
TEI ’24, February 11–14, 2024, Cork, Ireland© 2024 Copyright held by the owner/author(s). Publication rights licensed to ACM.
ACM ISBN 979-8-4007-0402-4/24/02. . . $15.00
https://doi.org/10.1145/3623509.3633349

12 participants, we identified three themes: bodily awareness, Perception of the scenarios, and anticipating movement. We discuss
our findings in relation to prior research around bodily extensions
and embodied interaction to provide strategies to design bodily
extensions that support movement in everyday life. Ultimately, we
hope that our work helps more people profit from the benefits ofeveryday movement support.

CCS CONCEPTS• Human-centered computing → Human computer interaction(HCI); Interaction paradigms;

KEYWORDS
bodily extensions, pneumatics, embodied interactions, embodied
experiences
ACM Reference Format:
Aryan Saini, Rakesh Patibanda, Nathalie Overdevest, Elise van den Hoven,and Florian ‘Floyd’ Mueller. 2024. PneuMa: Designing Pneumatic Bodily
Extensions for Supporting Movement in Everyday Life. In Eighteenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (TEI
’24), February 11–14, 2024, Cork, Ireland. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 16 pages.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3623509.3633349

TEI ’24, February 11–14, 2024, Cork, Ireland

1

INTRODUCTION

The theory of embodied interaction has been explored extensively
by several researchers to offer a wide range of applications [21,37, 76]. Supporting embodiment in everyday life has been credited with tangible benefits for its users, such as speech production,
memory recall, and temporal perception [17, 18, 20, 59]. Owing tothese associated contributions, wearables that sense movements
for users in everyday life have become prevalent in HCI research[36, 69, 77]. Although these advancements have been primarily
focused towards sensing and feedback, there have been some explorations that function as an addition to the human body to facilitate
novel experiences [10, 40]. The additions to the human body thatphysically alter or extend the structure of the body have been called"Bodily Extensions" [13, 49]. Bodily extensions offer a myriad ofsolutions ranging from accessibility [83], targeted feedback [63],motor functionality [78], or allowing super-normal capability [66].
Along with supporting embodiment, prior work has exploredbodily extensions through a variety of lenses. Buruk et al. presented
a series of bodily extensions through a phenomenological lens to
explore the experiential aspects of using them [13]. Research efforts
around both wearables and bodily extensions have been focused
towards sensing movements [34, 57, 79]. However, both wearables
and bodily extensions that induce movement while also extending
the body have been sparingly explored.
Shape-changing wearables and bodily extensions have been proposed in several contexts, including novel interactions [35], virtual
reality [71], accessibility [83], and games [70]. However, these systems have been focused on delivering assistance during specifictasks or delivering contextual feedback to the user engaged in adigital experience. Taken together, they miss the opportunity tofacilitate an experience where the user moves the body as the eventual interaction, as learned from the embodiment theory. While
there has been a recent interest in HCI to create applications thatfacilitate bodily movement (actuation), the means have been intrusive or have possessed an uncomfortable amount of weight tobe wearable (bulky) [38]. Bodily actuation applications, primarily
manifested through VR [71], force feedback [43, 44], and games[41, 51, 55, 56, 58] miss out on the opportunity to facilitate anembodied experience which in turn has the potential to increaseawareness [37] and various other cognitive abilities [16–18, 54]. As
a result, the roles of these technologies have been limited in thescope of everyday life and majorly reduced to short novel interactions owing to their issues with wearability, comfort and bodyconformity.
As highlighted by prior research, facilitating bodily movementin everyday life scenarios promotes embodiment [23]. Supporting
embodiment through movement further leads to improvement incognitive abilities as it associates sensorimotor feedback with themind [37, 54]. Therefore, we present PneuMa, a novel wearable system for pneumatic-based bodily extensions to support movementin everyday life. We showcase the system through three examples:"Pardon?", moving the ear forward; "Greetings", moving a hand
towards the "Bye-bye" gesture; "Take a break", moving the hands

Saini et al.

away from the keyboard. As we want to support "everyday life", i.e.
enable users to wear the bodily extensions comfortably on theirbody while not restricting other movements [62], we leverage thesoft material feel of silicone to create bodily extensions that support
movement in everyday life. We borrow the term "bodily extensions"from Buruk et al.’s work [13], as our wearables, while facilitating
bodily movement, also physically alter or extend the structure of thehuman body. In this paper, we demonstrate our system through two
different inputs, speech and an automated timer (user configurable),to support bodily movement. We implemented three unique bodily
extensions aiming to support the following scenarios in everyday
life:• Pardon?: Promoting a good-bye gesture by moving the user’s
hand towards such a gesture if the system senses the words“good-bye” (through a smartphone’s microphone).
• Greetings: Moving a user’s ear forward and enlarging it
whenever the system senses the words “Beg your pardon?”• Take a break: Moving the user’s hands away from the keyboard in order to encourage a break from typing.
We present the design and implementation of the PneuMa systemalong with the three example bodily extensions. We also present theuser experiences associated with using the bodily extensions in theform of themes emerging from a thematic analysis of data captured
from 12 participants who used the bodily extensions over 7 days.
We discovered three user experience themes: bodily awareness, Perception of the scenarios, and anticipating movement. Based on theknowledge of having designed the system and conducted the study,
we also present actionable design implications for designers whowant to create future bodily extensions for supporting movementin everyday life.

1.1

Contributions

Our paper makes the following contributions:• First, system contribution in the form of the PneuMa systemalong with three example bodily extensions. The implementation knowledge could be beneficial for designers interested
in creating bodily extensions based on different inputs acrossa variety of scenarios and product developers seeking inspiration on what bodily extensions can be created to support
bodily movement.
• Second, the results from a field study with the PneuMa system with 12 participants consolidated into three user experience themes. These can be useful for user experience
researchers aiming to understand how people experienceemerging bodily extension systems.
• Third, we present three actionable design strategies emerging from our themes and reflect on similar prior work in
HCI. These strategies can help practitioners seeking to design bodily extensions to support movement in everyday
life.
Finally, we hope that our work contributes to the theoreticalunderstanding of embodiment facilitated through bodily movement
by engaging users in a provocative manner rather than presentinga specific technology solution to support movement in everyday
life.

PneuMa: Designing Pneumatic Bodily Extensions for Supporting Movement in Everyday Life

2

RELATED WORKAs our work touches upon embodiment as a result of extending
the human body by facilitating movement through a pneumatic
system, we now discuss prior work on embodied interaction, bodily
extensions, and Pneumatic systems, from which we learned.

2.1

Embodied Interaction

Due to the tangible benefits associated with embodiment in everyday life, embodied interaction has been explored by a plethora ofresearchers [33, 37, 65]. For example, Kirsh, in his work on embodied cognition, talks about how humans use their bodies to preempt
and perceive their actions and the world around them [37], speaking nicely to our approach of conducting a field study that leverages
contextual through in the world around our participants to support
bodily movements in everyday life. Prior research also suggested
how motor movement aids in improving articulation in conversation, aligning with our approach to facilitate movement in “Pardon"and “Greetings" during conversations [16, 18]. Interaction designers
have suggested frameworks to understand the implications of building body-centric systems and playful technological augmentationsof the human body [24, 48].
The theory of embodied interaction has been adopted for thedesign of an extensive set of research systems and guidelines by
HCI researchers [21, 37, 75]. While previous research indicates that
there are various lenses on the application of embodied theory,in our work, we aim to explore the role of promoting movement
through technology in an attempt to facilitate embodied experiencesof everyday actions. As a result, we talk about interventions andcreations primarily centred around leveraging or eliciting bodily
movement [8, 77]. Several interactions and systems have been explored in Extended Reality (XR) research that use bodily movement
to deliver novel experiences [1, 73, 81]. One such system, "YouMove",offers movement training in augmented reality by providing feedback for the user’s movement on a mirror [4]. "Slide2Remember"proposed an interactive photo frame that enables users to view
their photos in a multi-modal experience by combining auditory
and visual stimulation [36]. Slide2Remember invoked the physicalaction of sliding a traditional photo frame to view a new photo,
thereby eliciting movement within its users. Similarly, the researcharound tangible interfaces, which has been prevalent in HCI, sharescommon themes of interaction by invoking physical movement
amongst its users [75].
Furthermore, researchers have also proposed a rendition of thistheory to create systems that facilitate bodily movement, i.e., employed bodily actuation [15, 56, 64]. However, most of these advancements have been primarily leveraged technologies such as
electrical muscle stimulation [44, 71] and exoskeletons [52, 80]. Bodily actuation through electrical muscle stimulation, specifically, hasserved as a keen interest of HCI researchers in enabling proprioceptive interaction [43], playful experiences [56], user authentication[14] as well as providing force feedback for mobile applications[44]. Bodily augmentation through exoskeletons has also been explored majorly for their assistive applications [64, 78] as well as
their ability to facilitate movement [25, 62]. Hence, we also utilize
actuation technology (pneumatics) to facilitate bodily movement.
However, we find the prior approaches usually focus on specific

TEI ’24, February 11–14, 2024, Cork, Irelanduse cases, situations, or expert tasks, probably due to the natureof the technologies used being considered not very body-conform.
Prior work defined body-conform as technology that adapts or
conforms to the morphology of the body and informed us thattechnologies that are more body-conforming are more likely toyield an engaging user experience, especially when the users mightwant to wear them for extended periods of time [49]. As EMS has
been previously described as uncomfortable and sometimes painful[38] along with exoskeletons being criticized for being too heavy
to wear outside expert use cases [31], we looked for alternative
approaches to facilitate bodily movement. We were guided by priorwork on bodily extensions as well as pneumatics, which we further
explain in the sections below.

2.2

Bodily Extensions in HCIIn HCI, bodily extensions have been explored in the form of wearables prosthetics [15], and interactive textiles [74] to shape-changing
interfaces [28]. Advancements in this area are largely centred aroundsensing [6, 52] and feedback [9] mechanisms that often leverage
the location and movement of the body part to deliver contextualinteraction and information. For the scope of our work, we focus
on prior work around wearable bodily extensions that are catered
towards facilitating novel experiences. We, hence, learned fromprior work that alters the perception of one’s body (body image),
under the influence of a bodily extension that relates to our workand contribution [13].
In particular, researchers have created wearables that leverage
physiological input to offer contextualized information to the user
[3, 49, 69]. One system, "Wigglears", is a system that wiggles a user’s
ears based on galvanic skin response to promote playful situations
in everyday life [60]. We learned that supporting everyday life
using bodily extensions is possible and that not all application
scenarios need to be serious. However, as their system used a motor
to wiggle the ears, feedback was that the system was not the most
comfortable to wear. In response, there seems to be still limited
knowledge about how to design body-conform systems that extend
our bodies.
Svanæs learned from Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology [45, 67]of the lived body when he created a mechanical tail and ears [66, 68].
Through the design process of creating these prototypes, Svanæs
was able to articulate the challenges of creating bodily extensions
that serve as a part of the user’s body such that they can takeadvantage of the “bodily-kinesthetic intelligence”. We believe thatthese challenges arrived, at least in part, due to the fact that theauthor used mechanical actuators that are not very body-conform.
In response, we explore the use of pneumatics to create more bodyconform wearables that might be able to better take advantage of
the “bodily-kinesthetic intelligence”.
Umezawa et al. investigated bodily ownership and representation through the addition of an artificial mechanical finger on auser’s hand [72]. Their study showed that it is possible to perceive
a sense of ownership over bodily extensions that affect a user’s
self-representation, forming a cognitive association with the mind.
However, ownership of an independent artificial limb is difficultfrom a motor-sensory point-of-view as it requires a prolonged experience with such bodily extensions. As a result, we decided toTEI ’24, February 11–14, 2024, Cork, Ireland

allow the participants in our study to experience the system forseven days in a row.

2.3

Pneumatic Systems

Pneumatic systems have been increasingly explored due to theirsoft nature, occupying less space, and being lightweight, in applications such as VR [71], accessibility [83] and supporting haptic
feedback [29], however, not in regards to bodily extensions (with afew exceptions [28, 69]).There have been several advances in lowering the threshold for the design and fabrication of pneumaticinterfaces by creating rapid prototyping techniques [26], toolkits[82] and frameworks [22]. We discuss the learnings from thesesystems below.
"Menarche Bits" aims to motivate body movement through ashape-changing pneumatic interface [69]. Their work was directed
towards facilitating body movements through intimate wearable
technology, using physiological input, for young adolescents. We
learned that designing shape-changing wearables can help a userreflect on their changing bodies by facilitating movement. While
this work focuses on promoting the movement for a specific use
case, knowledge about creating pneumatic-based bodily extensions
that facilitate bodily movement in everyday life is still limited.
With “OmniFiber”, the authors presented a fluidic artificial muscle
that changes its shape in response to an external stimulus [35].
OmniFiber supported an eclectic set of scenarios; hence we learned
that pneumatic systems can be leveraged in everyday life. However,their pneumatic system primarily employed haptic feedback as a
response to external input instead of initiating a movement, which
we add with our work. Silveira et al. [2] explored a pneumatic
system to guide lower limb movement for dancers. Their work
helped by informing us how a system that could guide the users
to perform specific movements would promote bodily engagement
through embodied experiences. While their research investigatedthe creation of pneumatic wearables for prompting movement in
the lower limb, there is limited knowledge on designing pneumatic
bodily extensions to support movement of different parts of the
body and also outside expert settings such as choreographed dance
practice.

Saini et al.

a user perceives its use and how they perceive themselves using
the system in a social setting. Hence, we began by having the firsttwo authors wear each design iteration in the prototyping stages,
which included observing each other to document as well as reflect
upon the social (onlooker’s) understanding and acceptability ofthe designs. We now describe the design process, including ourrationale and decisions behind the material, location across thebody, and input modalities.

3.1

Choice of Material

We wanted a material with soft qualities that is not too heavy andbody-conform. We chose silicone instead of polythene [32] as itprovides greater rigidity, feels better on the skin, and we believed
would be less prone to burst in case of accidental overinflation.
Furthermore, we believed that it would lend itself to support finemotor, not just gross-motor movements, allowing it to cover a larger
range of applications in the future.

3.2

Locations across the body

Our design process involved identifying suitable areas for possible
movements across the body. We found that in order to facilitate
any movement with bodily extensions, it is paramount that thelocation is accessible for the extension to be inserted or attached
in a deflated form and can support enough space for the intended
movement when inflated. The location must be enclosed between
two surfaces for the inflatable extension to draw a reaction fromand result in the intended movement. As the bodily extensions
are targeted towards enabling finer bodily movement, the choice
relating to the part of the body is critical as well. Only the parts ofthe body which have at least one degree of freedom for movement
can be chosen. Furthermore, as PneuMa leverages the air pressure
through a pneumatic system inside silicone-based bodily extensions
to facilitate movement, the size of the inflatable bodily extension
should be proportional to the part of the body and the extent of theintended movement.

3.3

Input modalities

Prior research has designed systems to support bodily movement
through indirect means for invoking movement in daily scenarios. However, there appears to be limited knowledge on designingpneumatic-based bodily extensions that can directly support bodily
movement in everyday life. Hence, in this paper, we begin answering the research question: how do we design pneumatic-based
bodily extensions to support movement in everyday life?

While ideating over the interaction modalities for the bodily extensions, we decided to create embodied experiences in everyday life
without the user’s explicit physical input to manifest the movement.
We believed that the context of the environment could be a key factor in determining and facilitating the embodied experiences for theuser; hence, we employed a keyword-triggered speech-based input
along with an assistant app as we aimed to leverage a more natural
input, such as speech, instead of relying on typing or touch-based
inputs.

3

3.4

2.4

Gap and research question

DESIGNING PNEUMA

We primarily leveraged our own past experiences from designing
wearables and sought inspiration from the existing literature on
pneumatics design (which comes dominantly from the engineering
disciplines [27, 50, 53]). We employed research-through-design [84]and iterative prototyping [8, 30, 42] to understand and improveupon the user experience after each iteration. Since PneuMa aims
to move a user’s body, we thought it was critical to evaluate how

Fabrication Process

We employed a fabrication process that allows us to personalize
inflatable bodily extensions based on the appearance, shape, size,and structure of a user’s body part. To create silicone-based bodily
extensions, we took inspiration from Moradi et al.’s [46] PVA-lessmolding technique to fabricate our bodily extensions. This technique involves sandwiching a layer of PVA between two layersof silicone during the fabrication process. Once both the siliconePneuMa: Designing Pneumatic Bodily Extensions for Supporting Movement in Everyday Life

TEI ’24, February 11–14, 2024, Cork, IrelandA

B

Figure 2: A) The PneuMa System: the pneumatic controller in a waist bag along with the three example bodily extensions; andB) A participant wearing the PneuMa system.
layers are cured, hot water is injected through the air shaft of the extension to dissolve the PVA and create a pocket of space connected
to a hole to insert the tubing required to fill the inflatable extension
with air. The fabrication process, as such, employs a three-stepprocess.
In the first step, after identifying the area or body part of possible
movement, we measured the area to create a mold in OnShape1(a collaborative online 3D CAD software). The mold is primarily
used to proffer the shape and size of the inflatable that the user
will wear on their bodies. Moreover, although silicone is a soft andstretchable material that can be extended to fit multiple sizes, we
added a strap to the design of the inflatable to support different sizesof body parts and maintain the intended functionality, wearability,
and comfort. We then proceeded to design the layer of PVA, whichis to be sandwiched between the silicone, called the separator. The
design of the separator determines the size and shape of the pocketof space inside the inflatable and hence is essential for preserving
the intended functionality. We iterated over multiple sizes andshapes of the separator to eventually settle for a size and shapethat preserves the structural integrity of the inflatable as well as
offers the ability to move. The separator, generally, was in a 2.25mm
offset from the inner boundaries of the mold to ensure a strong
connection between the two layers of silicone when cured so thatit does not burst even when inflated over a set limit.
In the second step, once the mold and separator were 3D printed,
a silicone mixture was prepared for an extended working time (30minutes) that ensured the silicone remained viable throughout theprocess. However, we used a faster-curing silicone during our iteration process as it resulted in faster prototyping but had a relatively
higher chance of defects. After preparing the molds along with thesilicone mixture, we deposited an initial layer of silicone halfway
into the mold. Once the first layer was cured, we used a pair of
1 https://www.onshape.com/en/

tweezers to place the separator in the mold and pour more silicone
over it till the brim of the mold. The mold containing the silicone,
along with the separator, was then cured inside an oven at 57 °C
for 15 minutes.
In the third step, once the silicone was cured and the inflatable
was de-molded, an empty syringe was used to inject air into the
inflatable through the shaft. Then, warm water was injected todissolve the PVA-based separator faster along with a binder clipon the shaft to let the PVA dissolve completely. Once the PVA wasvisibly dissolved, the binder clip was removed, and the water inside
was drained.

3.5

Three Scenarios

We identified three example scenarios as we believe they represent
key aspects of a user’s everyday life in the context of social andprivate interactions. In order to facilitate the interaction between
our system and the study participants, we wanted to ensure that the
selected scenarios presented opportunities considering temporalfactors, convenience, technical feasibility, cultural considerations,demographic factors, and ambidexterity. We offer a rationale foreach of the factors:• Temporal factor - We selected the scenarios based on the time
taken to complete them. By having rather short scenarios,
we hoped our participants would interact with them multiple
times during the study, giving us more data to analyse.
• Convenience - We selected "everyday" scenarios that we
believed could be considered convenient as we wanted toensure that the participants would engage with them during the study phase without the need for excessive explicit
prompting.
• Technical feasibility - We selected our scenarios based on thetechnical constraints imposed by the design of our system.
We had scenarios in mind that our system would not be

TEI ’24, February 11–14, 2024, Cork, Ireland

Saini et al.

A

D

B

C

E
F

G

H

I

Figure 3: Fabrication kit for creating silicone-based bodily extensions. A) Liquid silicone; B) Weighing scale and a beaker for
mixing silicone; C) Silicone tape for sealing the bodily extensions post fabrication; D) Silicone tube to connect the bodily
extension to the pneumatic controller; E) Silicone dye; F) Piston for injecting water during fabrication; G) A 3D printed moldand PVA-based separator for the "Greetings" bodily extension; H) Tweezers to add the separator to the silicone layer; I) safety
glovesable to handle easily as they might break; for example, grossmovement or movement during sporting activities. These
scenarios might have involved the use of excessive amountsof air pressure and force that would break our prototypicaldesign.
• Cultural consideration - As our past studies taught us [7, 10,
39, 55, 58], study participants in our neighbourhood often
come from different cultures and backgrounds. Hence, we
selected scenarios we believed could potentially transcend
different cultures and backgrounds.
• Demographic factor - We selected the scenarios that we believed would be indifferent to people across different ages,
genders, and occupations. Our study participants, irrespective of their demography, would be potentially able to interact with the system across these scenarios.
• Ambidexterity - We selected scenarios that would be applicable to both right and left-handed people and could be worn
however the participants preferred during the study phase.

scenarios is a good starting point. However, of course, we acknowledge that future work can investigate additional scenarios. We hope
our work can serve as a scaffold to structure such efforts. Finally,
we present the factors above with respect to each scenario that we
considered in the form of a table.
We now present the three scenarios: “Greetings”, “Pardon?”, and“Take a break”.

We identified these scenarios as we wanted to show that ourapproach transcends beyond one scenario and, hence, is more generally applicable. We also chose not more than three scenarios toscope our work and reserve the effort for our study participants
to a reasonable level. Taken together, we believe our selection of

3.5.2 Pardon? “Pardon?” features a bodily extension attached tothe back of the user’s ear. If the mobile phone application detects
the keywords “Pardon?”, “Sorry, what was that?” and “Can you
repeat?” the PneuMa bodily extension is inflated in a way that
not only points the ear forward but also enlarges it through the

3.5.1 Greetings. “Greetings” features a bodily extension worn inside the user’s palm. If the user or a person they are speaking withsays either “bye-bye” or “goodbye”, it is sensed by a custom-madeapplication running on the user’s mobile phone. This smartphoneissues a wireless command to the controller to inflate the bodily
extension in a way so that it moves the hand from a closed fist
position to a straight position, initiating a goodbye gesture. The
PneuMa extension consists of two chambers that, when inflated,push against each other as well as the user’s palm and fingers tofacilitate the opening movement of the hand to initiate the goodbye
gesture.

PneuMa: Designing Pneumatic Bodily Extensions for Supporting Movement in Everyday Life

TEI ’24, February 11–14, 2024, Cork, Ireland

Greetings
PardonTake a break
Way finder Alcohol Limiter
Situation
Social (remote)Social (in-person)
PrivatePrivateSocial (in-person)
Prompted movement Fingers plus hand
Ear
Wrist plus hand Feet plus legs
Arms
Temporal feasibility
✓
✓
✓
✗
✓
Convenience
✓
✓
✓
✗
✗
Technical feasibility
✓
✓
✓
✗
✓
Cultural consideration
✓
✓
✓
✓
✗
Demographic factor
✓
✓
✓
✗
✓
Ambidexterity
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
Table 1: The list of scenarios we considered in our study with their feasibility.

PneuMa extension’s shape. This serves multiple purposes: the forward movement might enhance the hearing abilities by directing
the ear toward the sound source, while the enlargement might also
help with this by funnelling additional sound waves [47]. Furthermore, it also works to inform the speaker that the user is engaged
in the conversation by enlarging the size of their ear. Together, theymight make any conversation partners more aware that the user islistening but maybe not fully hearing.

data, allowing the participants to engage with the bodily extensions
as per their choice and in an environment they are comfortablein. Moreover, as they are conducted without a researcher being
present, the chances of researcher-induced biases are minimised[61]. Therefore, we decided to conduct a field study with 12 participants.

3.5.3 Take a break. “Take a break” features a bodily extension
attached to the user’s palms, similar to “Greetings”. The systemaims to encourage taking more breaks from prolonged keyboard
typing. The use case was inspired by the Pomodoro technique,which promotes focusing on key tasks through breaks and is known
to increase productivity [19]. After having worked for 25 minutes(the user can customise the timer in the mobile phone application),
the wearable is inflated to push the hands away from the keyboard,
encouraging the user to take a break in a bodily way.

The onboarding process was structured to gauge the participant’s
demography and experience with pneumatic-based wearables (ifany) and to elicit their initial thoughts about the design of the bodily
extensions. The process included - 1. a researcher asking questions
such as their age, identifying gender, and their experiences withpneumatic bladders; 2. the participants were instructed about theuse case and body location the bodily extensions were intended
for along with smartphone application. After the second step of instructing the participants about the usage of our bodily extensions,they were asked to test the bodily extensions functionally alongwith the smartphone application to gain familiarity. The pre-study
ended with the participants trying out each of the bodily extensions at least twice and asking questions about their working to
the researcher present with them. Each pre-study lasted around
32 minutes (mean = 32.3 mins, SD = 4.2 mins), followed by theparticipants being asked to take the three bodily extensions alongwith the PneuMa kit and use them in their own preferred orderwhenever it was convenient and appropriate.
The participants were 18-35 years of age, with a mean of 24 anda standard deviation of 5.5. Out of the 12 participants, 5 of them
identified as female, 7 as male, and none as non-binary. 2 of theparticipants had some experience with using exoskeletons, while
none of them had encountered pneumatic-based wearables.

3.6

PneuMa Pneumatic Controller andSmartphone Application

The PneuMa system uses a programmable air2 as the pneumatic
controller, which is controlled via Bluetooth and connects to a Unitybased smartphone application through Bluetooth. The PneuMa
system operates at a maximum of 50kPa powered by three 3.7 V
Li-ion batteries connected in series and weighs 1.5 kg, including thewaist bag. Only one of the bodily extensions can be connected to thepneumatic controller through the air pipe at the time. However, auser can easily swap one extension for the other. For the “Greetings”
and “Pardon?” bodily extensions, the smartphone application (Fig: 4)
uses the microphone to detect the keywords to trigger the inflation.
In “Take a break”, the smartphone application allows changing thetimer duration.

4

STUDY DESIGN AND ANALYSIS

To gain preliminary knowledge and insights about the user experience associated with the PneuMa bodily extensions, we conducteda pilot study with three participants. The findings from the pilot
study were then used to refine the design. As our bodily extensions
are designed to support the user across everyday life scenarios, it
was crucial to capture their interactions with the bodily extensions
in a natural setting. We believed that field studies could yield rich
2 https://www.programmableair.com/

4.1

4.2

Onboarding

Field Study

Once the participants completed their onboarding, they were asked
to use the bodily extensions over a period of 7 days. The participants were informed that they could use only one bodily extension
at a time and could easily swap out by plugging them into the air
pipe connected to the PneuMa system. Both to serve as a reminder
and to encourage the participants to use the bodily extensions anda researcher was tasked to set up Zoom calls every two days asallowed by their schedules. Each Zoom session lasted about 20 mins
(mean = 19.2 mins, SD = 2.38 mins), during which the participant
interacted with each of the bodily extensions for about 5 minutes.

TEI ’24, February 11–14, 2024, Cork, Ireland

PneuMaA

Saini et al.

Greetings

PardonB

C

Take a breakD

Greetings

PardonTake a break

Figure 4: Screenshots from the companion application for the PneuMa system. From left to right, the screenshots are A) The
landing screen for the application, B) the "Greetings" tab for voice input containing the activation phrases, C) the "Pardon?" tabfor voice input containing the activation phrases, and D) the "Take a break" tab for setting up a custom timer.
These interactions over Zoom were audio and video recorded togauge the progress of participants’ ability to set up the bodily extensions and their interaction with them. Furthermore, the participants
were also asked to video-record themselves while interacting withthe bodily extensions outside of the Zoom sessions, with a Go-pro
given to them in the kit along with the bodily extensions.

4.3

Post-study

In this phase, the participants were interviewed individually forabout 53 minutes (mean = 52.68 mins, SD = 6.24 mins) in a semistructured interview [11] to understand their experience with the
PneuMa system and the bodily extensions with the primary researcher. The researcher employed laddering techniques while conducting the interviews to allow participants to express their experiences with the study with minimal bias. Each interview wasthen transcribed, followed by an inductive thematic analysis by
two coders separately using NVivo Software [12]. In our analysis, a“unit” of data represented a single coded quote, as evident in priorresearch [5], it offered a means of understanding the frequency andprevalence of codes relating to the given theme occurring throughout interviews. The resulting codes were then examined by the
research team along with cross-referencing to identify common
themes across participants.

5

RESULTSIn this section, we present the findings and discuss them in theform of quantitative results and three overarching user experience

themes: bodily awareness, Perception of the scenarios, and anticipating movement.

5.1

Quantitative Results: Analysing the Usage
Patterns of PneuMa bodily extensions

To assess the utility and appeal of our bodily extensions, we conducted an in-depth quantitative analysis of their usage patterns(Fig: 5).
Looking first at the mean (average) usage, "Take a break" ledthe way, used approximately six times per participant. Meanwhile,"Greetings" and "Pardon" saw slightly less use, with respectivemeans of 3.75 and 3.67. This suggests that "Take a break" wasthe most frequently used prototype. Furthermore, exploring the
distribution of usage, we considered the mode and median values.
The mode, the most frequently occurring usage count, was 2 for"Greetings", 3 for "Pardon", and 6 for "Take a break", while themedian values were 3.5, 3, and 6, respectively. The alignment of themean, median, and mode for "Take a break" suggests a symmetric
distribution, potentially indicating consistent appeal among theparticipants.
The measure of variability also provided important insights.
The standard deviation was the lowest for "Take a break" (1.809),
implying that the usage of this prototype was relatively consistentamong participants. The standard error of the mean was also lowest
for "Take a break" (0.522), suggesting that the sample mean is likely
to be a reliable estimate of the actual population mean. Overall, ouranalysis reveals that the "Take a break" prototype appears to havethe most consistent usage patterns. Nevertheless, the variance ofPneuMa: Designing Pneumatic Bodily Extensions for Supporting Movement in Everyday Life

TEI ’24, February 11–14, 2024, Cork, Ireland

Figure 5: Usage patterns of the bodily extensions across the 12 participants from a field study with the PneuMa system.
usage times for "Greetings" and "Pardon" indicates a wider range
of engagement levels, offering the potential for further exploration.
Table 2: Descriptive statistics from the PneuMa field study
with 12 participants

ModeMedianMean
Std. Error of Mean
Std. Deviation
Variance
Minimum
Maximum

5.2

Greetings

Pardon?

Take a break

2.000
3.500
3.750
0.698
2.417
5.841
0.000
8.000

3.000
3.000
3.667
0.595
2.060
4.242
1.000
7.000

6.000
6.000
6.000
0.522
1.809
3.273
2.000
8.000

Theme 1: Bodily awareness

The theme of bodily awareness emerged from 83 units of data anddescribed the participants’ experiences in regard to the awareness of
their bodies. In particular, this theme uncovers how the participants’experiences evolved over time with the bodily extensions and theirreflections regarding the perception of their own bodies.
5.2.1 Appropriation of the system. Eight participants reported noticing the bodily extensions even when deflated mostly due to theirweight and body location, as indicated by statements such as: “I
could definitely notice the (bodily) extensions as they were worn ona part which is usually empty” (P5), and “wearing these prototypes
felt a bit unnatural as they were not something I would wear often”(P9). These quotes indicate that the participants were aware of theplacements of the bodily extensions across their bodies, primarily

citing the weight of the bodily extensions as the reason. A participant compared the bodily extensions to a second skin, stating, “It’ssimilar to wearing a second skin, I think mostly because of how they
feel to touch.” (P6).
5.2.2 Perceived utility of the bodily extensions. Four participants
perceived the extensions as an augmentation that would lend an
extra ability, “the extension felt as if it was there to help me somehow
because I would not often wear anything around my hands or ears”(P8). One of them commented, “I did not really bother on how they
feel to be worn as I just knew they were on my body, and would dosomething”
5.2.3 Change in perception of the bodily extensions over time. (P1),suggesting that wearing the bodily extensions instilled curiosity
among the participants owing to their functionality. The participants also described their experience with PneuMa as somethingthat brought the different parts of their body and its physiology
to their notice, “while using the system, I could notice how my hand
actually moves, which is something I wouldn’t usually do” (P10) and“although the interactions seemed unnatural at first, once I got used
to them, my attention shifted towards how my body was pulled intoa scenario” (P12).
5.2.4 Fusion between bodily extensions and participants’ bodies.
Participants noted that over time using the system became easier,“Wearing the extensions sort of seemed natural to me over time, it was
similar to wearing an accessory around my body every day” (P5) and“At first seemed tricky to navigate, but by the end of the study, I felt
way more comfortable with the extensions and was able to get around
it quickly around my body” (P10).
5.2.5 Changes in perception of self over time. Participants’ perception of the bodily extension also changed over the period of the

TEI ’24, February 11–14, 2024, Cork, Ireland

study, as two of them noted, “I can feel I have two hands (talking
about the "Greetings" bodily extension) because of the shape, andthat made me feel I have two hands attached together like a part of
my body” (P6) and “ I could feel my ears bigger than usual which
made me feel wise.” (P1, while talking about the "Pardon" extension).
These results suggest that using bodily extensions altered how theparticipants perceived their own bodies while navigating scenarios
in everyday life augmented by the bodily extensions. Participantsalso mentioned that they became more aware of the morphology of
their body, “I had not observed my hands and the joints this closely
before” (P3) and “When I reflected upon the design of the extensions,
I could understand how my body is constructed” (P8). These results
suggest that although our bodily extensions felt “unnatural” and“weird” at first, over the duration of the study, the participants’bodily awareness changed.

5.3

Theme 2: Perception of the scenarios

In this theme, we discuss how the participants understood and reflected upon the scenarios supported by the system while navigating
everyday life. This theme comprises 67 data units and describes
participants’ experiences in relation to the scenarios supported byour bodily extensions and their intended functionality.
5.3.1 Learning curve with the bodily extensions within context. Initially, participants reported experiences of curiosity, surprise, andconfusion associated with our bodily extensions. Participants notedthat “even though I knew the extensions would help me navigate dayto-day situations by promoting me to move, I was surprised when the
inflations occurred” (P7) and “I actually got distracted by the inflations and stopped what I was doing just to look at them” (P2). Threeparticipants also mentioned a feeling of apprehension towards thebodily extensions, with P8, “I was concerned how the extensions
looked on me while I was talking to other people” while P4 said “I
was not really sure if they would work well; they felt a bit strange”.
5.3.2 Presence of the bodily extensions serving as a reminder. However, once getting used to the bodily extensions, the participants’user experience was driven towards reflecting on the utility of bodily extensions. P3 expressed that “Even though the phone application
was sometimes unable to catch my words, just wearing the extensions
served as a reminder that I probably need to move”, P1 stating, “Itkind of seems obvious when the extensions prompt you towards thosemovements, for example for taking a break, you would usually lift up
your hands to get away from wherever you are”.
5.3.3 Utility of bodily extensions in the scenarios supported by
PneuMa. Participants described the experience as “wholesome” and“entertaining”. The participants also explained how they perceived
the bodily extensions in the specific scenarios, stating, “I think werereally accurate, direct and helpful.” (P7) and “It’s something kind of
magical in a way on how they keep your body in sync”.
5.3.4 Contextual movements facilitated by PneuMa. Participants
described their experiences with each of the bodily extensionsindividually. For "Greetings", P6 commented, “Although I am notused to waving to other people, more of a handshake or a hug person,
the inflation served as feedback for me to go in for a hug.” along

Saini et al.

with P2 stating, “I don’t usually realize when my hands move whilewaving, the extension helped me kind of kickstart the motion”.
5.3.5 The bodily extensions as a social organ. For the pardon extension, P9, initially bemused by the scenario, commented, “It felt
strange at first as to why should I wear something that helps otherpeople speak better; however, as the other person could see the extension inflate, it served as a reminder for the other person that I
had some difficulty in either hearing or understanding them”. P12, inarticulating their experience with the pardon extension, describedthat “I wasn’t sure if I could feel my ear move from the inflation, buthearing the inflation, I improvised by turning my ear towards the
speaker hoping they could see the extension.” These comments suggest that although the bodily extensions were designed to prompt
movement, the participants sometimes did not explicitly rely on or
wait for the extension to facilitate the movement and improvisedas they saw convenient. Additionally, four participants felt thatwearing these bodily extensions served as a conversation starter,with P1 describing, “When I was on a video call with my parents, thiswas the first thing they asked about rather than their usual questionof my whereabouts”. These results suggest that participants’ social
experiences profited from the presence of the PneuMa system.
5.3.6 PneuMa facilitated bodily feedback. While describing theirexperience with the "Take a break" extension, seven participants(who were familiar with the Pomodoro technique) said: “Unlike thetimer on my phone, this [bodily extension] did not feel distracting at
all. I felt as if I had reached the limits of my body” (P3). Participantsalso appreciated the explicit nature of the interaction facilitated bythe "Take a break" extension; P11 stated, “I forgot about the extension
when I started working, although it was in mind somewhere I did not
pay attention to the extension; however, when the inflation occurred,
to my surprise, I felt I could not work anymore as my hands were
giving me instructions.” These experiences suggest that while "Takea break" leveraged a different modality (prompting movement as
opposed to auditory feedback) to alert the user about the time totake a break, the extension made it explicit to the participants due tothe induced movement. Additionally, two participants commented
about their altered perception of time when using the "Take a break"bodily extension - P8 stated, “I never realised 10 minutes were solong.” while P9 added, “I thought my time awareness was top notch,
but I kept checking the clock as to when the timer would expire in
anticipation of the movement”.
Taken together, these experiences show how participants perceived the situation facilitated through the PneuMa system, alongwith their understanding of our bodily extensions’ functionality tosupport movement in these situations.

5.4

Theme 3: Anticipating movement

This theme describes 79 data units and describes how the bodily
extensions facilitated participants’ anticipation and understandingof the movements being facilitated in everyday life.
5.4.1 Movements facilitated situational awareness. Participants mentioned that the movements helped them understand the context
of their situation as they experienced the movement both in an
embodied and visual manner. P2 stated, “I felt more aware of thesituation I was in and knew what movements to make in case thePneuMa: Designing Pneumatic Bodily Extensions for Supporting Movement in Everyday Life

TEI ’24, February 11–14, 2024, Cork, Ireland

Figure 6: A participant is using the "Take a break" extension.
system failed.” with P10 adding, “I thought the extensions were sortof helping to relearn movements based on context.”
5.4.2 The nature of movement supported by pneumatics was appreciated. While describing their experience in the moment of inflation,
P3 commented, “The inflations were really relaxing to look at because
the air filled the bodily extensions slowly and gave it a soothing effect”.
Additionally, P1 added, “I really enjoyed the prompted movementsfrom the system as it was not too forceful but subtle enough”. Participants also stated how they felt touching the bodily extensions andappreciated pneumatics’ ability to support subtle movements, with
P2 adding, “The extensions, when inflated, felt comforting to me as if
they were inviting me to press on them”. These results indicate thesoft and body-conform nature of the bodily extensions served as afavourable material to promote bodily movements.
5.4.3 Building a relationship with the system owing to the facilitatedmovements. The participants talked about how they engaged with
their bodies to support the system. P5 stated, “I felt the need to relax
and let my body loose so that it could be moved by the extension”. Additionally, P1 described, “The movements prompted were really easy;
I never felt that the system was overpowering”. These results indicatethat the bodily extensions, while facilitating movement, preserved
the sense of control over the movement among the participants.
5.4.4 Perceived control over the movements. Participants also pointed
out the factors that might have resulted in a control-preserving
experience; five participants attributed it to the choice of material,with P2 commenting, “I think it was because of the non-restricting
and soft material, I could just choose to press on the extension to deny
the movement”. In comparison, P4 stated, “I knew since the system
was external, I could just reject the movements with just a little bit offorce”. P9 similarly described their experience of control, “As controls were dependent on me, I could just choose not to use the specific(key)words or use the same words in a different language”. These
results suggest that while the PneuMa system was successful in facilitating movement, participants sometimes chose to either ignore
or override the movements whenever they did not feel appropriate.

5.4.5 Ability to choose when to activate the movements helped withreliability. P6, articulating their experience in regard to choice andcontrol, said, “The choice to ignore or just not initiate the movement
through the bodily extensions felt reassuring”.
This suggests that the design (especially the soft material andnon-rigidity of the silicone-based bodily extension, along with theability to regain control over the movement owing to pneumatics)
supported participants’ movement in a way that suited the varietyof the different contexts they find themselves in everyday life.

6

DISCUSSION

We now discuss these results in relation to previous literature to
improve our knowledge about designing our bodily extensions to
support movement in everyday life.

6.1

Designing for embodied-being in everyday
life

The themes extend prior theory around embodiment in everyday
life as proposed by the design framework for the embodied-beingin-the-world by van Dijk et al. [75]. We notice that our first twothemes describe experiences that confirm the insights put forward
by van Dijk et al. in their framework. Specifically, the participants’experiences with bodily extensions described in the first two themes
confirm designing for "Transforming the lifeworld" in the framework that relates to an intervention that alters the perception andaction in the world.
The first two themes describe the participants’ altered awarenessof their bodies as well as the perception of the scenarios with respect to movements while engaged in an experience with our bodily
extensions, as evident from quotes such as, "I think because of theextensions, I felt some parts of my body were more active in these situations than others". Furthermore, participants mentioned that theyfelt the bodily extensions served as an augmentation to navigate
scenarios in everyday life. These experiences speak to the insightabout transforming the lifeworld generated in van Dijk et al.’s work.
As the PneuMa system works towards supporting embodiment ineveryday life, it helps the users gain more awareness about their

TEI ’24, February 11–14, 2024, Cork, Ireland

Saini et al.

Figure 7: A participant is using the "Pardon?" extension.
bodies by allowing them to try out, improvise, and decide whento activate the bodily extensions. Our work also confirms van Dijk
et al.’s insight about designing for embodiment to reflect in- andon-action. The participants reported that they gained familiarity
with their movements as a result of being prompted by the bodily
extensions and often found themselves observing the movements
more closely than before. We believe that van Dijk et al. wouldrefer to this insight by describing an intervention that promotes
rational thought based on the context, i.e., thinking, taking appropriate action, and reflection. This reflective practice was observed
amongst our participants as they learned to navigate daily scenarioswith our bodily extensions. Taken together, as the case studies fordeveloping the framework by van Dijk et al. were in the area ofaccessibility, our work extends this prior theory by expanding it to
the design of bodily extensions in everyday life.

6.2

Perceived control over bodily extensions

The themes emerging from our study closely speak to the design
implications offered by Buruk et al. in their exploration of playful
bodily extensions [13]. Buruk et al. focus towards exploring thedesign of bodily extensions from a playful lens [48]. Specifically,
their proposed design implications around creating bodily extensions suggest instilling “user control over the extensions as a criticalelement in incorporating them into the body". Considering the resultsof our study, our bodily extensions appeared to have facilitated a
relatively high level of control over the interactions. According
to the participants, this was achieved majorly due to two factors:
first, the choice of activation and second, the fabrication material.
As the bodily extensions were designed to be activated on explicit
user input, such as voice (Greetings and Pardon) and timer (Take abreak), users had a temporal choice (when to activate) of interactingwith the bodily extensions. Additionally, as the voice interactions

were activated using phrases in the English language, users could
either choose different phrases or navigate the scenario using asecond language. This appeared to instil a sense of control amongst
the participants, as evident from their quotes such as, "I felt I had
a choice to use or ignore the extension whenever I wanted to". These
results extend the design implication proposed by Buruk et al. (who
investigated mostly bodily extensions with limited control, suchas afforded by physiological sensors) by highlighting the opportunity to design bodily extensions with a relatively higher levelof control by the user. We propose that this can be facilitated bygiving users more choice about what activates the bodily extensions, but also through the choice of material, which we further
discuss. Since our bodily extensions were created using silicone as
fabrication material, the participants credited the ability to exercise
control to the soft structure of the bodily extensions. The materialof the bodily extensions, along with the pneumatic system, allowed
the participants to suppress the inflations whenever their support
was inappropriate, thereby presenting them with a choice, which
ultimately aided in inducing confidence among participants thatthe support was well-intended and helpful in their everyday lives.
Taken together, our work extends prior theory by proposing thatbodily extensions could benefit from offering a relatively high senseof control through utilizing explicit input and choice of material,
thereby extending the existing design knowledge around the fieldof bodily extensions.

6.3

Design Strategies

Considering the analysis of our results in lieu of prior work, andthe design and fabrication knowledge gained through the creationof the PneuMa system and our bodily extensions, we now present a

PneuMa: Designing Pneumatic Bodily Extensions for Supporting Movement in Everyday Lifeset of design strategies to help designers of bodily extensions that
aim to support movement in everyday life.
Consider soft materials for designing bodily extensions. Prior research around bodily extensions has primarily leveraged mechanical sensors and actuators to facilitate embodied experiences [3, 62].
The results of our field study with bodily extensions indicated thatparticipants found the silicone-based designs comfortable and expressed that their stretchable and shape-changing nature allowed
them to exercise more control over the intended movements ineveryday life. With this considered, we recommend designers consider silicone-based pneumatic bodily extensions to allow the users
a more body conform user experience. Silicone as a base material
allowed us to create bodily extensions that were lighter in weight
as compared to other systems that promote movement. The processof creating the bodily extensions also supported us to customise thedesign of the bodily extensions, which can ultimately be leveraged
to design for a specific part of the human body. Finally, designers
can also consider pneumatic systems in order to facilitate the movements across everyday life as the participants in our study foundthe prompted movements, although explicit, were not immediate,
which allowed them enough time to exercise control over their
movements.
Consider augmenting explicit movements for increased awareness.
The results of our study indicated that the participants appreciatedthe explicit movements promoted by the PneuMa extensions. As
the bodily extensions initiated movements that were easily understood in regard to the part of the body as well as the range of the
movement, participants felt more aware of their body and could perceive the everyday life scenario as an embodied experience. Owing
to these results, we suggest designers hoping to create interfacesthat engage a user in an embodied experience, consider designingto elicit movements that involve a lower cognitive load to understand in order to facilitate higher awareness of the user’s bodyalong with the existence of their body in the embodied scenario.
Augmenting embodied scenarios with implicit input may lead to ahigher cognitive effort from the user, which might lead their focus
towards understanding the movement rather than the position andmovement of their bodies.
Consider explicit input and modular design for higher bodily control. Learning from the analysis of our study, the design of the
PneuMa system resulted in the participants feeling in control ofboth their bodies and the everyday scenario they were engaged in.
Prior research centred around supporting embodiment through initiated movement has relied upon physiological sensors, which elicit
a lower sense of bodily control among their users [30, 60]. Theseexperiences have been credited to the implicit nature of physiological input that is difficult to be influenced or altered in the moment
directly by the user. Hence, designers and researchers hoping tosupport the embodiment of everyday life scenarios through prompting movement can learn from our work by considering initiating
movements through explicit input directly accessible to the user.
In the PneuMa system, as the movements were initiated throughspeech-based cues, the participants in our study reported having
a higher sense of control over the movements and the everyday
life scenarios they encountered. Furthermore, designers can also

TEI ’24, February 11–14, 2024, Cork, Irelandconsider a modular design similar to PneuMa that involves initiating movement through a variety of inputs (keywords and a custom
timer, in our case) in order to facilitate a higher sense of control
among the users.

7

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE WORK

Our work had some limitations, which we acknowledge in thissection. To begin with, the fabrication of the pneumatic extensions
in our work could be improved as the strategy employed, although
it enabled custom designs, had a mediocre success rate. In particular, the PVA-less technique resulted in air bubbles being trapped
inside the silicone, which eventually resulted in defective bodily
extensions. Although we identified two key techniques to improve
the success rate during the fabrication of the bodily extensions:creating a silicone press to squeeze out the bubbles before curing
each layer, and pouring extra silicone over the holes and curing
it again, this process could benefit from automated fabrication to
reduce human intervention errors.
We had 12 participants in the study, which resulted in novel
findings; however, some participants noted that prolonged use of
the PneuMa system might have resulted in enhanced engagementwith the bodily extensions. Hence, a longitudinal study would offer an improved understanding for designers hoping to utilize theimplications of our work. Furthermore, during the field study, participants commented on the wearability of the system as they experienced some situations with the pneumatic pipe obstructing
their movement in general. This issue primarily resulted from using the programmable air pneumatic controller repurposed intoa wearable form to fit inside a waist bag. These issues could be
mitigated by building a customised printed circuit board to housea wearable pneumatic system to create a smaller system. The participants also noted that while using the phone companion for the"Greetings" and "Pardon" bodily extensions, the voice recognition
did not always detect their cues to initiate the embodiment. This
limitation largely stemmed from using a speech recognition librarywith limited training data and compatibility with different English
accents across the participants. As a result, future work could include speech recognition libraries that support a wider range ofauditory cues.
Furthermore, our bodily extensions were majorly designed tosupport smaller movements across the body. Future work could investigate the effect of bodily extensions on gross-motor movements
across the body owing to the promising results of the current bodily
extensions. Finally, the context of using the bodily extensions canbe designed around specific social or private activities by leveraging
interaction nuances on offer in everyday life.

8

CONCLUSION

In this paper, we presented PneuMa, a pneumatic-based wearable
system for silicone-based bodily extensions to support movementin everyday life. We presented our fabrication pipelines for creating
three bodily extensions, showing the versatility of our approach.
We also presented the associated user experience of using our bodily
extensions through a field study with 12 participants. We identified
three themes: bodily awareness, perception of the scenarios, andanticipating movement. These themes suggest that our system

TEI ’24, February 11–14, 2024, Cork, Ireland

appeared to support movement in everyday life while preserving
participants’ perceived sense of control in moving their bodies
owing to the pneumatic-based approach. Furthermore, using oursystem helped the users become more aware of their bodies andhighlighted for them the importance of bodily movement in certain
scenarios. We also discussed the implications of our design in lightof prior research. Finally, we presented a set of design strategies
that researchers can utilize to create bodily extensions. We hopethat our work extends and creates knowledge for exploring thearea of bodily extensions for embodiment. We hope that our work
helps people profit from the benefits of embodiment support.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Aryan Saini, Rakesh Patibanda, Nathalie Overdevest, Elise vanden Hoven and Florian ‘Floyd’ Mueller thank the Australian Research Council (Discovery Project Grant - DP190102068). Florian‘Floyd’ Mueller also thanks the Australian Research Council for
DP200102612 and LP210200656. We would also like to thank Yuzheng
Chen for his help with the project, along with the participants who
volunteered for our study.

REFERENCES[1] Saliha Akbas, Asim Evren Yantac, Terry Eskenazi, Kemal Kuscu, Sinem Semsioglu,
Onur Topal Sumer, and Asli Ozturk. 2022. Virtual Dance Mirror: A Functional
Approach to Avatar Representation through Movement in Immersive VR. In
Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Movement and Computing(Chicago, IL, USA) (MOCO ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New
York, NY, USA, Article 25, 4 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3537972.3538003[2] Catarina Allen d’Ávila Silveira, Ozgun Kilic Afsar, and Sarah Fdili Alaoui. 2022.
Wearable Choreographer: Designing Soft-Robotics for Dance Practice. In Designing Interactive Systems Conference. ACM, Virtual Event Australia, 1581–1596.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3532106.3533499[3] Christoph Amma, Thomas Krings, Jonas Böer, and Tanja Schultz. 2015. Advancing Muscle-Computer Interfaces with High-Density Electromyography. In
Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems (CHI ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA,
929–938. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702501[4] Fraser Anderson, Tovi Grossman, Justin Matejka, and George Fitzmaurice. 2013.
YouMove: enhancing movement training with an augmented reality mirror. In
Proceedings of the 26th annual ACM symposium on User interface software andtechnology (UIST ’13). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA,
311–320. https://doi.org/10.1145/2501988.2502045[5] 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(Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York,NY, USA, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376128[6] Jumpei Arata, Masashi Hattori, Shohei Ichikawa, and Masamichi Sakaguchi. 2014.
Robotically Enhanced Rubber Hand Illusion. IEEE Transactions on Haptics 7, 4
(Oct. 2014), 526–532. https://doi.org/10.1109/TOH.2014.2304722 Conference
Name: IEEE Transactions on Haptics.
[7] Jatin Arora, Kartik Mathur, Aryan Saini, and Aman Parnami. 2019. Gehna:
Exploring the Design Space of Jewelry as an Input Modality. In Proceedingsof the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’19).
Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–12. https://doi.
org/10.1145/3290605.3300751[8] Saskia Bakker, Alissa N. Antle, and Elise Van Den Hoven. 2012. Embodied
metaphors in tangible interaction design. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 16,
4 (April 2012), 433–449. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-011-0410-4[9] Arpit Bhatia, Dhruv Kundu, Suyash Agarwal, Varnika Kairon, and Aman Parnami.
2021. Soma-noti: Delivering Notifications Through Under-clothing Wearables. In
Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445123[10] Arpit Bhatia, Aryan Saini, Isha Kalra, Manideepa Mukherjee, and Aman Parnami.
2023. DUMask: A Discrete and Unobtrusive Mask-Based Interface for Facial
Gestures. In Proceedings of the Augmented Humans International Conference 2023

Saini et al.

(Glasgow, United Kingdom) (AHs ’23). Association for Computing Machinery,
New York, NY, USA, 255–266. https://doi.org/10.1145/3582700.3582726[11] Ann Blandford, Dominic Furniss, and Stephann Makri. 2016. Qualitative Hci
Research: Going Behind the Scenes. Morgan & Claypool Publishers.
Using thematic analysis in[12] Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006.
psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3, 2 (Jan. 2006), 77–101.
https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Publisher: Routledge _eprint:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
[13] Oğuz ’Oz’ Buruk, Louise Petersen Matjeka, and Florian ‘Floyd’ Mueller. 2023.
Towards Designing Playful Bodily Extensions: Learning from Expert Interviews.
In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
ACM, Hamburg Germany, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3581165[14] Yuxin Chen, Zhuolin Yang, Ruben Abbou, Pedro Lopes, Ben Y. Zhao, and Haitao
Zheng. 2021. User Authentication via Electrical Muscle Stimulation. In Proceedingsof the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’21).
Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–15. https://doi.
org/10.1145/3411764.3445441[15] Azzurra Chiri, Nicola Vitiello, Francesco Giovacchini, Stefano Roccella, Fabrizio
Vecchi, and Maria Chiara Carrozza. 2012. Mechatronic Design and Characterization of the Index Finger Module of a Hand Exoskeleton for Post-Stroke
Rehabilitation. IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics 17, 5 (Oct. 2012), 884–894.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TMECH.2011.2144614 Conference Name: IEEE/ASME
Transactions on Mechatronics.
[16] Michael Cicone, Wendy Wapner, Nancy Foldi, Edgar Zurif, and Howard Gardner.
1979. The relation between gesture and language in aphasic communication.
Brain and Language 8, 3 (Nov. 1979), 324–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/0093934X(79)90060-9[17] Sharice Clough and Melissa C. Duff. 2020. The Role of Gesture in Communication and Cognition: Implications for Understanding and Treating Neurogenic
Communication Disorders. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 14 (Aug. 2020), 323.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2020.00323[18] Susan Wagner Cook, Terina KuangYi Yip, and Susan Goldin-Meadow. 2010.
Gesturing makes memories that last. Journal of Memory and Language 63, 4(2010), 465–475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2010.07.002[19] Jefferson Costales, Janice Abellana, Joel Gracia, and Madhavi Devaraj. 2022. A
Learning Assessment Applying Pomodoro Technique as A Productivity Tool for
Online Learning. In 2021 13th International Conference on Education Technology
and Computers (ICETC 2021). Association for Computing Machinery, New York,NY, USA, 164–167. https://doi.org/10.1145/3498765.3498844[20] Katinka Dijkstra, Michael P. Kaschak, and Rolf A. Zwaan. 2007. Body posturefacilitates retrieval of autobiographical memories. Cognition 102, 1 (Jan. 2007),
139–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2005.12.009[21] Paul Dourish. 2001. Where the Action Is: The Foundations of Embodied Interaction. –256.
[22] Shreyosi Endow, Hedieh Moradi, Anvay Srivastava, Esau G Noya, and Cesar Torres. 2021. Compressables: A Haptic Prototyping Toolkit for Wearable
Compression-based Interfaces. In Designing Interactive Systems Conference 2021
(DIS ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1101–1114.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3461778.3462057[23] Cumhur Erkut and Sofia Dahl. 2017. Embodied Interaction through Movement
in a Course Work. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Movement
Computing (London, United Kingdom) (MOCO ’17). Association for Computing
Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 23, 8 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/
3077981.3078026[24] Sarah Fdili Alaoui, Thecla Schiphorst, Shannon Cuykendall, Kristin Carlson,
Karen Studd, and Karen Bradley. 2015. Strategies for Embodied Design: The
Value and Challenges of Observing Movement. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM
SIGCHI Conference on Creativity and Cognition (C&amp;C ’15). Association for
Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 121–130. https://doi.org/10.1145/
2757226.2757238[25] M. Fontana, A. Dettori, F. Salsedo, and M. Bergamasco. 2009. Mechanical design ofa novel Hand Exoskeleton for accurate force displaying. In 2009 IEEE International
Conference on Robotics and Automation. 1704–1709. https://doi.org/10.1109/
ROBOT.2009.5152591 ISSN: 1050-4729.
[26] Radhika Ghosal, Bhavika Rana, Ishan Kapur, and Aman Parnami. 2019. Rapid Prototyping of Pneumatically Actuated Inflatable Structures. In Adjunct Proceedingsof the 32nd Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology(UIST ’19 Adjunct). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA,78–80. https://doi.org/10.1145/3332167.3357121[27] Kristian Gohlke, Wolfgang Sattler, and Eva Hornecker. 2022. AirPinch &#x2013;
An Inflatable Touch Fader with Pneumatic Tactile Feedback. In Sixteenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (TEI’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1145/3490149.3505568[28] Sebastian Günther, Mohit Makhija, Florian Müller, Dominik Schön, Max
Mühlhäuser, and Markus Funk. 2019. PneumAct: Pneumatic Kinesthetic Actuation of Body Joints in Virtual Reality Environments. In Proceedings of the 2019 onPneuMa: Designing Pneumatic Bodily Extensions for Supporting Movement in Everyday Life

Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 227–240. https://doi.org/10.1145/3322276.3322302[29] Sebastian Günther, Dominik Schön, Florian Müller, Max Mühlhäuser, and Martin
Schmitz. 2020. PneumoVolley: Pressure-based Haptic Feedback on the Headthrough Pneumatic Actuation. In Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conferenceon Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’20). Association for Computing
Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1145/3334480.3382916[30] Kate Hartman, Boris Kourtoukov, Izzie Colpitts-Campbell, and Erin Lewis. 2020.
Monarch V2: An Iterative Design Approach to Prototyping a Wearable Electronics
Project. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference(Eindhoven, Netherlands) (DIS ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New
York, NY, USA, 2215–2227. https://doi.org/10.1145/3357236.3395573[31] Pilwon Heo, Gwang Min Gu, Soo-jin Lee, Kyehan Rhee, and Jung Kim. 2012. Current hand exoskeleton technologies for rehabilitation and assistive engineering.
International Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing 13, 5 (May 2012),
807–824. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12541-012-0107-2[32] Sheng-Pei Hu and June-Hao Hou. 2019. Pneu-Multi-Tools: Auto-Folding andMulti-Shapes Interface by Pneumatics in Virtual Reality. In Adjunct Proceedings ofthe 32nd Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (New
Orleans, LA, USA) (UIST ’19 Adjunct). Association for Computing Machinery,
New York, NY, USA, 36–38. https://doi.org/10.1145/3332167.3357107[33] Francesco Ianì. 2019. Embodied memories: Reviewing the role of the body inmemory processes. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 26, 6 (Dec. 2019), 1747–1766.
https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-019-01674-x[34] Jakob Karolus, Felix Bachmann, Thomas Kosch, Albrecht Schmidt, and Paweł W.
Woźniak. 2021. Facilitating Bodily Insights Using Electromyography-Based
Biofeedback during Physical Activity. In Proceedings of the 23rd International
Conference on Mobile Human-Computer Interaction (MobileHCI ’21). Association
for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1145/
3447526.3472027[35] Ozgun Kilic Afsar, Ali Shtarbanov, Hila Mor, Ken Nakagaki, Jack Forman, Karen
Modrei, Seung Hee Jeong, Klas Hjort, Kristina Höök, and Hiroshi Ishii. 2021.
OmniFiber: Integrated Fluidic Fiber Actuators for Weaving Movement based Interactions into the ‘Fabric of Everyday Life’. In The 34th Annual ACM Symposium
on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST ’21). Association for Computing
Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1010–1026. https://doi.org/10.1145/3472749.
3474802[36] Subin Kim, Sangsu Jang, Jin-young Moon, Minjoo Han, and Young-Woo Park.
2022. Slide2Remember: an Interactive Wall Frame Enriching Reminiscence Experiences by Providing Re-encounters of Taken Photos and Heard Music in a
Similar Period. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Designing Interactive Systems
Conference (DIS ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA,
288–300. https://doi.org/10.1145/3532106.3533456[37] KirshDavid. 2013. Embodied cognition and the magical future of interaction
design. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) (April 2013).
https://doi.org/10.1145/2442106.2442109 Publisher: ACM PUB27 New York, NY,USA.
[38] J. Knibbe, A. Alsmith, and K. Hornbæk. 2018. Experiencing Electrical Muscle Stimulation. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and UbiquitousTechnologies 2, 3 (Sept. 2018), 118:1–118:14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3264928[39] Joseph La Delfa, Mehmet Aydin Baytas, Rakesh Patibanda, Hazel Ngari, Rohit Ashok Khot, and Florian ’Floyd’ Mueller. 2020. Drone Chi: Somaesthetic
Human-Drone Interaction. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’20). Association for Computing Machinery,
New York, NY, USA, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376786[40] Richard Li, Jason Wu, and Thad Starner. 2019. TongueBoard: An Oral Interface for
Subtle Input. In Proceedings of the 10th Augmented Human International Conference
2019 (Reims, France) (AH2019). Association for Computing Machinery, New York,NY, USA, Article 1, 9 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3311823.3311831[41] Zhuying Li, Tianze Huang, Rakesh Patibanda, and Florian Mueller. 2023. AI in
the Shell: Towards an Understanding of Integrated Embodiment. In Extended
Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI EA ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–7.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3544549.3585867[42] Shu-Yang Lin, Chao-Huai Su, Kai-Yin Cheng, Rong-Hao Liang, Tzu-Hao Kuo, andBing-Yu Chen. 2011. Pub - point upon body: exploring eyes-free interaction andmethods on an arm. In Proceedings of the 24th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology (UIST ’11). Association for Computing Machinery,
New York, NY, USA, 481–488. https://doi.org/10.1145/2047196.2047259[43] Pedro Lopes, Alexandra Ion, Willi Mueller, Daniel Hoffmann, Patrik Jonell,and Patrick Baudisch. 2015. Proprioceptive Interaction. In Proceedings of the
33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI
’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 939–948.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702461[44] Pedro Lopes, Sijing You, Alexandra Ion, and Patrick Baudisch. 2018. Adding
Force Feedback to Mixed Reality Experiences and Games using Electrical Muscle
Stimulation. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems (CHI ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York,TEI ’24, February 11–14, 2024, Cork, Ireland

NY, USA, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174020[45] Maurice Merleau-Ponty. 1962. Phenomenology of Perception. Atlantic Highlands,
New Jersey: The Humanities Press.
[46] Hedieh Moradi and César Torres. 2020. Siloseam: A Morphogenetic Workflow for
the Design and Fabrication of Inflatable Silicone Bladders. In Proceedings of the2020 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference. Association for Computing
Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1995–2006. https://doi.org/10.1145/3357236.
3395473[47] Kristian Mortensen. 2016. The Body as a Resource for Other-Initiation of Repair: Cupping the Hand Behind the Ear. Research on Language and Social Interaction 49, 1 (2016), 34–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2016.1126450
arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2016.1126450[48] Florian ’Floyd’ Mueller, Tuomas Kari, Zhuying Li, Yan Wang, Yash Dhanpal
Mehta, Josh Andres, Jonathan Marquez, and Rakesh Patibanda. 2020. Towards
Designing Bodily Integrated Play. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth International
Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (TEI ’20). Association
for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 207–218. https://doi.org/10.
1145/3374920.3374931[49] Florian Floyd Mueller, Pedro Lopes, Paul Strohmeier, Wendy Ju, Caitlyn Seim,
Martin Weigel, Suranga Nanayakkara, Marianna Obrist, Zhuying Li, Joseph
Delfa, Jun Nishida, Elizabeth M. Gerber, Dag Svanaes, Jonathan Grudin, Stefan
Greuter, Kai Kunze, Thomas Erickson, Steven Greenspan, Masahiko Inami, Joe
Marshall, Harald Reiterer, Katrin Wolf, Jochen Meyer, Thecla Schiphorst, Dakuo
Wang, and Pattie Maes. 2020. Next Steps for Human-Computer Integration. In
Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–15.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376242[50] Prabhakar Naik, Jayant Unde, Bhushan Darekar, and S. S. Ohol. 2019. Pneumatic
Artificial Muscle Powered Exoskeleton. In Proceedings of the Advances in Robotics
2019. ACM, Chennai India, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1145/3352593.3352627[51] Shreyas Nisal, Rakesh Patibanda, Aryan Saini, Elise Van Den Hoven, and Florian ’Floyd’ Mueller. 2022. TouchMate: Understanding the Design of Body
Actuating Games using Physical Touch. In Extended Abstracts of the 2022 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (CHI PLAY ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 153–158. https://doi.org/10.1145/3505270.3558332[52] Jun Nishida, Soichiro Matsuda, Hiroshi Matsui, Shan-Yuan Teng, Ziwei Liu, Kenji
Suzuki, and Pedro Lopes. 2020. HandMorph: a Passive Exoskeleton that Miniaturizes Grasp. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface
Software and Technology (UIST ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New
York, NY, USA, 565–578. https://doi.org/10.1145/3379337.3415875[53] Victoria Oguntosin and Ademola Abdulkareem. 2020. Design of a pneumatic
soft actuator controlled via eye tracking and detection. Heliyon 6, 7 (July 2020),
e04388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04388[54] Nathalie Overdevest, Rakesh Patibanda, Aryan Saini, Elise Van Den Hoven,and Florian ‘Floyd’ Mueller. 2023. Towards Designing for Everyday Embodied
Remembering: Findings from a Diary Study. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM
Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS ’23). Association for Computing
Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2611–2624. https://doi.org/10.1145/3563657.
3595999[55] Rakesh Patibanda, Chris Hill, Aryan Saini, Xiang Li, Yuzheng Chen, Andrii
Matviienko, Jarrod Knibbe, Elise van den Hoven, and Florian ‘Floyd’ Mueller.
2023. Auto-Paizo Games: Towards Understanding the Design of Games That
Aim to Unify a Player’s Physical Body and the Virtual World. Proceedings of the
ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 7, CHI PLAY (Oct. 2023), 408:893–408:918.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3611054[56] Rakesh Patibanda, Xiang Li, Yuzheng Chen, Aryan Saini, Christian N Hill, Elisevan den Hoven, and Florian Floyd Mueller. 2021. Actuating Myself: Designing
Hand-Games Incorporating Electrical Muscle Stimulation. In Extended Abstractsof the 2021 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (CHI
PLAY ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 228–235.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3450337.3483464[57] Rakesh Patibanda, Florian “Floyd” Mueller, Matevz Leskovsek, and Jonathan
Duckworth. 2017. Life Tree: Understanding the Design of Breathing Exercise
Games. In Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interactionin Play (CHI PLAY ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY,
USA, 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1145/3116595.3116621[58] Rakesh Patibanda, Aryan Saini, Nathalie Overdevest, Maria F. Montoya, Xiang
Li, Yuzheng Chen, Shreyas Nisal, Josh Andres, Jarrod Knibbe, Elise van den
Hoven, and Florian ‘Floyd’ Mueller. 2023. Fused Spectatorship: Designing Bodily
Experiences Where Spectators Become Players. Proceedings of the ACM on
Human-Computer Interaction 7, CHI PLAY (Oct. 2023), 403:769–403:802. https://doi.org/10.1145/3611049[59] Rakesh Patibanda, Nathan Arthur Semertzidis, Michaela Scary, Joseph Nathan
La Delfa, Josh Andres, Mehmet Aydin Baytaş, Anna Lisa Martin-Niedecken,
Paul Strohmeier, Bruno Fruchard, Sang-won Leigh, Elisa D. Mekler, Suranga
Nanayakkara, Josef Wiemeyer, Nadia Berthouze, Kai Kunze, Thanassis Rikakis,
Aisling Kelliher, Kevin Warwick, Elise van den Hoven, Florian Floyd Mueller, andTEI ’24, February 11–14, 2024, Cork, Ireland

Steve Mann. 2020. Motor Memory in HCI. 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. https://doi.org/10.1145/
3334480.3375163[60] Victoria Peng. 2021. Wigglears: Wiggle Your Ears With Your Emotions. In
Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems (CHI EA ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA,
1–5. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411763.3451846[61] Champika Ranasinghe, Max Pfeiffer, Sven Heitmann, and Christian Kray. 2019.
Evaluating User Experience under Location Quality Variations: A Framework
for in-the-wild Studies. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on
Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (MobileHCI ’19).
Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–6. https://doi.
org/10.1145/3338286.3344392[62] Emanuele Lindo Secco and Andualem Maereg Tadesse. 2020. A Wearable Exoskeleton for Hand Kinesthetic Feedback in Virtual Reality. In Wireless Mobile
Communication and Healthcare, Gregory M.P. O’Hare, Michael J. O’Grady, John
O’Donoghue, and Patrick Henn (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham,
186–200.
[63] Nathan Arthur Semertzidis, Annaelle Li Pin Hiung, Michaela Jayne Vranic-Peters,
and Florian ‘Floyd’ Mueller. 2023. Dozer: Towards understanding the designof closed-loop wearables for sleep. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conferenceon Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’23). Association for Computing
Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3581044[64] Tanmay Shankar and Santosh K. Dwivedy. 2015. A Hybrid Assistive WheelchairExoskeleton. In Proceedings of the international Convention on Rehabilitation
Engineering & Assistive Technology (i-CREATe 2015). Singapore Therapeutic, Assistive & Rehabilitative Technologies (START) Centre, Midview City, SGP, 1–4.
[65] Lawrence Shapiro and Shannon Spaulding. 2021. Embodied Cognition. In The
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (winter 2021 ed.), Edward N. Zalta (Ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/
win2021/entries/embodied-cognition/[66] Dag Svanaes and Martin Solheim. 2016. Wag Your Tail and Flap Your Ears: The
Kinesthetic User Experience of Extending Your Body. In Proceedings of the 2016
CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI
EA ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 3778–3779.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2851581.2890268[67] Dag Svanæs. 2013. Interaction design for and with the lived body: Some implications of merleau-ponty’s phenomenology. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human
Interaction 20, 1 (April 2013), 8:1–8:30. https://doi.org/10.1145/2442106.2442114[68] Dag Svanæs and Louise Barkhuus. 2020. The Designer’s Body as Resource in
Design: Exploring Combinations of Point-of-view and Tense. In Proceedings ofthe 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Honolulu
HI USA, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376430[69] Marie Louise Juul Søndergaard, Ozgun Kilic Afsar, Marianela Ciolfi Felice, Nadia
Campo Woytuk, and Madeline Balaam. 2020. Designing with Intimate Materials and Movements: Making "Menarche Bits". In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM
Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 587–600. https://doi.org/10.1145/3357236.3395592[70] Shan-Yuan Teng, Tzu-Sheng Kuo, Chi Wang, Chi-huan Chiang, Da-Yuan Huang,
Liwei Chan, and Bing-Yu Chen. 2018. PuPoP: Pop-up Prop on Palm for Virtual
Reality. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface
Software and Technology. ACM, Berlin Germany, 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1145/
3242587.3242628[71] Shan-Yuan Teng, K. D. Wu, Jacqueline Chen, and Pedro Lopes. 2022. Prolonging
VR Haptic Experiences by Harvesting Kinetic Energy from the User. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology(UIST ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–18.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3526113.3545635[72] Kohei Umezawa, Yuta Suzuki, Gowrishankar Ganesh, and Yoichi Miyawaki. 2022.
Bodily ownership of an independent supernumerary limb: an exploratory study.
Scientific Reports 12, 1 (Feb. 2022), 2339. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-02206040-x Number: 1 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group.
[73] Keigo Ushiyama, Satoshi Tanaka, Masahiro Miyakami, and Hiroyuki Kajimoto.
2020. ViBaR: VR Platform Using Kinesthetic Illusions to Enhance Movement
Experience. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2020 Emerging Technologies (Virtual Event, USA)(SIGGRAPH ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA,
Article 9, 2 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3388534.3407304[74] Daniela Ghanbari Vahid, Lee Jones, Audrey Girouard, and Lois Frankel. 2021.
Shape Changing Fabric Samples for Interactive Fashion Design. In Proceedingsof the Fifteenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied
Interaction. ACM, Salzburg Austria, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1145/3430524.3440633[75] Jelle van Dijk and Caroline Hummels. 2017. Designing for Embodied Beingin-the-World: Two Cases, Seven Principles and One Framework. In Proceedingsof the Eleventh International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied
Interaction (TEI ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA,
47–56. https://doi.org/10.1145/3024969.3025007

Saini et al.

[76] Jelle van Dijk, Remko van der Lugt, and Caroline Hummels. 2014. Beyond distributed representation: embodied cognition design supporting sociosensorimotor couplings. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on
Tangible, Embedded and Embodied Interaction (TEI ’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 181–188. https://doi.org/10.1145/2540930.
2540934[77] Dirk van Erve, Gerrit-Willem Vos, Elise van den Hoven, and David Frohlich. 2011.
Cueing the past: designing embodied interaction for everyday remembering.
In Procedings of the Second Conference on Creativity and Innovation in Design(DESIRE ’11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 335–345.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2079216.2079264[78] Gurvinder Singh Virk, Stephen Cameron, Ratna Sambhav, Moumita Paul, Roshan
Kumar, Arvind Dixit, and Richa Pandey. 2020. Towards realising wearable exoskeletons for elderly people. In Proceedings of the Advances in Robotics 2019(AIR 2019). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–6.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3352593.3352614[79] Paweł W. Woźniak, Ashley Colley, and Jonna Häkkilä. 2018. Towards Increasing
Bodily Awareness During Sports with Wearable Displays. In Proceedings of the2018 ACM International Joint Conference and 2018 International Symposium on
Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing and Wearable Computers (UbiComp ’18).
Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 738–741. https://doi.org/10.1145/3267305.3267703[80] Michele Xiloyannis, Ryan Alicea, Anna-Maria Georgarakis, Florian L. Haufe,
Peter Wolf, Lorenzo Masia, and Robert Riener. 2022. Soft Robotic Suits: Stateof the Art, Core Technologies, and Open Challenges. IEEE Transactions on
Robotics 38, 3 (June 2022), 1343–1362. https://doi.org/10.1109/TRO.2021.3084466
Conference Name: IEEE Transactions on Robotics.
[81] Momona Yamagami, Sasa Junuzovic, Mar Gonzalez-Franco, Eyal Ofek, Edward
Cutrell, John R. Porter, Andrew D. Wilson, and Martez E. Mott. 2022. Two-In-One:
A Design Space for Mapping Unimanual Input into Bimanual Interactions in VR
for Users with Limited Movement. ACM Trans. Access. Comput. 15, 3, Article 23(jul 2022), 25 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3510463[82] Lining Yao, Ryuma Niiyama, Jifei Ou, Sean Follmer, Clark Della Silva, and Hiroshi Ishii. 2013. PneUI: pneumatically actuated soft composite materials forshape changing interfaces. In Proceedings of the 26th annual ACM symposium
on User interface software and technology (UIST ’13). Association for Computing
Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 13–22. https://doi.org/10.1145/2501988.2502037[83] Xinlei Zhang, Ali Shtarbanov, Jiani Zeng, Valerie K. Chen, V. Michael Bove,
Pattie Maes, and Jun Rekimoto. 2019. Bubble: Wearable Assistive Grasping
Augmentation Based on Soft Inflatables. In Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Glasgow Scotland Uk,
1–6. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290607.3312868[84] John Zimmerman, Jodi Forlizzi, and Shelley Evenson. 2007. Research throughdesign as a method for interaction design research in HCI. In Proceedings of the
SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’07). Association
for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 493–502. https://doi.org/10.
1145/1240624.1240704