GazeAway: Designing for Gaze Aversion Experiences
Nathalie Overdevest

Rakesh Patibanda

Aryan Saini

Exertion Games Lab, Department of
Human-Centred Computing, Monash
University, Melbourne, VIC,
Australia,Materialising Memories,
Faculty of Engineering Technology,
University of Technology Sydney,
Ultimo, NSW, Australia
nathalie.overdevest@monash.edu

Exertion Games Lab, Department of
Human-Centred Computing, Monash
University, Melbourne, VIC,
Australia,Materialising Memories,
Faculty of Engineering andInformation Technology, Universityof Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW,
Australia
rakesh.patibanda@monash.edu

Exertion Games Lab, Department of
Human-Centred Computing, Monash
University, Melbourne,
Victoria,Australia, Materialising
Memories, Faculty of Engineering andInformation Technology, Universityof Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW,
Australia
aryan@exertiongameslab.org

Elise van den Hoven

Florian ‘Floyd’ Mueller

Materialising Memories, Faculty ofEngineering and Information
Technology, University of Technology
Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia,
elise.vandenhoven@uts.edu.auDepartment of Industrial Design, Eindhoven
University of Technology, Eindhoven,
Noord Brabant, Netherlands
e.v.d.hoven@tue.nl

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

Figure 1: Left shows two people using GazeAway, one of our six augmented gaze aversion design explorations. Right shows anannotated sketch of the prototype as used in the preliminary evaluation, showing the individual components.

ABSTRACT
Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal orclassroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributedfor profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citationon the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored.
For all other uses, contact the owner/author(s).
CHI EA ’24, May 11–16, 2024, Honolulu, HI, USA© 2024 Copyright held by the owner/author(s).
ACM ISBN 979-8-4007-0331-7/24/05
https://doi.org/10.1145/3613905.3650771

Gaze aversion is embedded in our behaviour: we look at a blankarea to support remembering and creative thinking, and as a social cue that we are thinking. We hypothesise that a person’s
gaze aversion experience can be mediated through technology, inturn supporting embodied cognition. In this design exploration
we present six ideas for interactive technologies that mediate thegaze aversion experience. One of these ideas we developed into
“GazeAway”: a prototype that swings a screen into the wearer’s

CHI EA ’24, May 11–16, 2024, Honolulu, HI, USA

field of vision when they perform gaze aversion. Six participants
experienced the prototype and based on their interviews, we foundthat GazeAway changed their gaze aversion experience threefold:increased awareness of gaze aversion behaviour, novel cross-modal
perception of gaze aversion behaviour, and changing gaze aversion
behaviour to suit social interaction. We hope that ultimately, ourdesign exploration offers a starting point for the design of gazeaversion experiences.

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

KEYWORDS
Embodied interaction, gaze aversion
ACM Reference Format:
Nathalie Overdevest, Rakesh Patibanda, Aryan Saini, Elise van den Hoven,and Florian ‘Floyd’ Mueller. 2024. GazeAway: Designing for Gaze Aversion
Experiences. In Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors
in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’24), May 11–16, 2024, Honolulu, HI, USA.
ACM, New York, NY, USA, 6 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3613905.3650771

1

INTRODUCTION

Gaze aversion is a form of embodied cognition: it is a way in which
we use our bodies to make sense in the world [6]. As part of thisembodied sensemaking, we commonly perform gaze aversion: we
direct our gaze away from what we are focussing on, usually looking
at a visually less stimulating area in the environment [1, 15, 23, 26].
Gaze aversion can support cognitive processes in multiple ways: tohelp manage visual clutter [8, 23] or cognitive load [1, 18], to help
with visualising an object [23], and to help with remembering bycopying the remembered gaze [23]. We use gaze aversion when weare alone [1, 23, 26], but also in social interaction, for instance, toindicate to the interaction partner that we are thinking [1].
Within HCI, designers have been increasingly developing technologies that enable embodied interactions (e.g. [5, 6, 14]) to support and alter sensemaking practices. However, sensemaking is
not always consciously done [14], as is the case with gaze aversion.
Due to this subconscious nature, we believe that technology has
the potential to alter a person’s gaze aversion experience, with thepotential of supporting embodied cognition, as has been demonstrated with, for example, subtle gaze direction techniques that
supports later recall [2, 10, 20], and using gaze aversion as a gamemechanic [19].
In this work, we present six design ideas for gaze aversion, of
which we developed one, GazeAway (Figure 1), into a Wizard-of-Oz
prototype that was used by six participants. The ideas along withthe participant interviews resulted in a preliminary understandingof ways in which interactive technologies can change our experience of gaze aversion, which are translated into preliminary design
strategies that designers can use as starting point when aiming
to design novel gaze aversion experiences. Ultimately, we hopethat our work can serve as a starting point towards understanding how to design interactive technologies aimed at mediating ourgaze aversion experience and aid designers in creating novel gazeaversion experiences.

Nathalie Overdevest et al.

2

RELATED WORK

Gaze in general has been of interest in the HCI community, as
demonstrated in work on “subtle gaze direction” [2, 10, 20], a technique that uses either a computer screen [2], AR [20], or VR [10],to show subtle changes in saturation in a small area of an image tocatch the attention of the viewer [2]. This technique makes use ofhuman peripheral vision and its sensitivity to changes in saturationand movement, while the foveal vision is specialised in viewing
colour [3]. The viewer will notice the cue, but the cue will be gone
as soon as the viewer turns their gaze to that area [2]. “GazeRecall”
shows that subtle gaze direction can be used in support of futurerecall: Rothe et al. [20] applied this technique to direct the gaze ofthe person experiencing this cinematic piece, and support the user
in paying attention to aspects of the experience that required recall
at a later stage. Though the work on subtle gaze direction looks atgazing and not gaze aversion specifically, it shows that interactive
technology can mediate gazing experiences and that this mediation
can support a cognitive process like recall.
Art has also shown interest in gaze. Hölling et al. [11] applied
subtle gaze direction in audio-visual art installations, guiding the
onlooker’s gaze through the artwork. The art piece shows thatgaze can be the topic of the work, or gaze can be used as a tool
to guide the user’s experience of the work. Work by Dikker et
al. [27] visualised mutual gaze in the form of visually represented
synchronised brainwaves: artist Marina Abramović [16] looks into
the eyes of the gallery visitors that sit across her, with the additionof brain wave measurements using EEG being visualised next tothe seated pair. This performance art piece made the implicit effectsof gaze explicit by means of visualising the EEG signals, thereforechanging the gaze experience of the gallery visitors. From theseart pieces we see that gaze can be directed and explicitly visualisedin order to change the visitor’s experience of the art piece.
Apart from using vision to guide gaze, we can use the “movingbody” [17], as, for example, in Tanaka et al.’s [28] work: the authors
used electrical muscle stimulation (EMS) to rotate the neck and thus
the gaze of the wearer towards a fire extinguisher [28]. Suggesting bodily movements has also been done in context of everyday
activities, as demonstrated by “SomaFlatables” [22], a system thatsuggests embodied behaviours like pushing an ear forward when
the user indicates they can not hear their interaction partner. EMS
and inflatable wearables, are two examples of how we can create
suggestions of bodily movement that mediate the gaze aversion
experience.
In videogames we found an example of how gaze aversion canbe used to facilitate a new experience. The game “SuperVision” [19]is entirely played through gaze: the player can only successfully
play the game by not looking directly at the items they are trying tocontrol on the screen. Instead, the interactions rely on the player’s
peripheral vision. It juxtaposes itself with “subtle gaze direction”:
where “subtle gaze direction” encourages a person to look at a
specific area, “SuperVision” tries to achieve the opposite – notlooking at a specific area. The game is an example where a person
is made aware of their gaze aversion behaviour through a game,
resulting in a new playful gaze aversion experience.

GazeAway: Designing for Gaze Aversion Experiences

CHI EA ’24, May 11–16, 2024, Honolulu, HI, USA

Taken together, we find that prior work has engaged with gazeaversion, but mainly as an input for different interaction technologies, rather than explored as a technologically-mediated experience,
which we believe deserves investigation because prior work has
shown that technologies have the ability to mediate gazing experiences, even offering embodied support for cognitive processes likerecall. This leaves us with a gap in knowledge on how to design
the gaze aversion experience. In order to begin filling this gap, we
aim to start answering the RQ: How should we design interactive
technology that mediates gaze aversion experiences?

3

gaze aversion experience, as it emphasises an area in thefield of view to be specifically used for gaze aversion.
• Gaze aversion hot-spots: (Figure 2d). Once again inspiration came from subtle gaze direction [2], though this version opts to provide a stimulus in the physical environment,
rather than on the screen the user is already engaged with.
The digital picture frame is placed in the peripheral view of
the user and shows a familiar picture. When the device’s
built-in eye tracker detects eye movements (e.g., blinking
more quickly or starting gaze aversion [8, 23]), it initiates
a gentle, progressive blurring of the picture in the frame.
When the user fixes their gaze on the device, the blurring
animation stops, offering a spot to gaze at. Similar to thecrawling critters, this idea aims to change the gaze aversion experience by offering subtle gaze direction and, subsequently, a place to avert the gaze to.
• Fishing for thoughts: (Figure 2e). The user wears a rig on
their back with a small screen that shows a slow animation.
When not in use, it is positioned to the side. When thecamera detects gaze aversion, a motor rotates the rig into
view, giving the user a dedicated spot to avert their gaze to.
The gaze aversion experience changes here through movinga screen with limited visual information into the line of sightof the user whenever they engage in gaze aversion. Like Idea
1, “Nudging the head”, this idea uses the detection of anotherembodied cognition behaviour as a means of encouraging
gaze aversion.
• The turn-around: (Figure 2f). This body-based gaze direction system involves a revolving chair with a servo motor
and touch sensors on the arm pads. The chair rotates slowly
when it detects fidgeting behaviour on the arm pads, encouraging the user to avert their gaze by rotating the chair. Thisidea differs from the others because it moves the entire body,
but it does not suggest where to direct the gaze at, like Ideas
2, 4 and 5.

IDEATION

In order to ideate gaze aversion mediating technologies, three members of the research team used the 6-3-5 method for brainwriting
to generate 24 ideas [24]. Three questions guided us through thebrainwriting session: 1) “How can we guide the user to look at
something ‘boring’?”, 2) “How can we detect when a person would
benefit from looking up?”; and 3) “How can we guide the user tolook away?” This resulted in 33 ideas, of which we present six. Eachidea represents a different way in which interactive technologies
can mediate the gaze aversion experience, based on where the technology is in relation to the user’s body, and how the technology
interacts with the user.
• Nudging the head: (Figure 2a). The user wears a device
around their neck, resting on their shoulder. The device’s
microphone detects when the user is using filled pauses like“uhm”, which can be used to support recall [7]. When detected, the device inflates pockets that push the head upward
into a gaze aversion position, for example looking up andto the side. This work takes on Saini et al.’s [22] approach,providing a gentle nudge for the head movement, allowing
the user to override it. This idea creates the embodied nudge
to perform gaze aversion as a result of the user performing
other forms of embodied cognition.
• Crawling critters: (Figure 2b). The user fits a regularly
used item in their environment with a “critter extension”(inspired by [13]), which gives any object little legs to movearound on. A camera is used to detect fidgeting behaviour inthe person. Fidgeting behaviour is used for self-regulation[12]. Once fidgeting is detected, the object with the “critter
extension” starts to move away from the user. This motion isdesigned to gently grabs the user’s attention and direct gazeaversion through subtle gaze direction. When the person
looks at the “critter”, the object stops moving, offering a spot
for gaze aversion. The “critters” are a physical representationof subtle gaze direction cues, and suggest gaze aversion whena person is fidgeting.
• Augmented view: (Figure 2c). Inspired by “GazeRecall”[20], the user wears an AR headset and a skin conductivity sensor. When the device notices that the user is in ademanding cognitive process such as remembering or creative thinking, expressed through a higher skin conductivity[4, 25], a white area starts to appear in the peripheral fieldof vision. This spot stops growing when the gaze is directed
towards the white area. This augmented view changes the

We decided to go with Idea 5, “Fishing for thoughts”, because of
the way that it can encourage gaze aversion when performing another embodied cognition behaviour, as well as promote awarenesswhen performing gaze aversion behaviour. Additionally, this idea
addresses both the visual (offering a screen with low visual stimulation) and the physical aspects (placing the screen in the peripheralview) of gaze direction. Ideas 1, “Nudging the head”, and 6, “Theturn-around”, address only the physical aspect of gaze aversion
by creating or suggesting bodily movement, while Ideas 2 and 4,“Crawling critters” and “Gaze aversion hotspots” respectively, solely
address the visual aspect by using subtle gaze direction and creatinga place to avert the gaze to. Though Idea 3, “Augmented view”, isworn on the body and provides visual cues, we did not select thisidea as we were most interested in a physical prototype to support
sense-making in the physical world, rather than an actuation thatexists merely in the digital world.

4

PROTOTYPING GAZEAWAY

We created a prototype where we simulate the mediation of gazeaversion (Figure 1) in order to perform an early evaluation of thedeveloped concept with the help of participants (Figure 1). We

CHI EA ’24, May 11–16, 2024, Honolulu, HI, USA

Nathalie Overdevest et al.

Figure 2: The six ideas. 2a: Nudging the body; 2b: Crawling critters; 2c: Augmented view; 2d: Gaze aversion hot-spots; 2e:Fishing for memories. 2f: The turn-around.
decided to use eye-tracking glasses, Tobii Pro Glasses 2 [29], overother detection methods mentioned in the ideas, since eye-tracking
appears to be one of the more effective ways to detect when a person is in a cognitively demanding thinking process [8, 23, 30, 31].
Though the detection of gaze aversion can be done automatically,
we opted for a Wizard-of-Oz setup as we wanted to perform apreliminary evaluation without the investment in these automatic
detection methods to test our concept at an early stage of the design process. The prototype consists of a PVC-pipe rig attached
to a motorcycle back protector, with a Lego MINDSTORMS [32]
microprocessor and servo motor rotating the rig. A smartphone
mounted on the end of the rig displays a video of slowly moving
clouds, chosen to support low cognitive load, inspired by prior work
using the same scenery [1, 3, 9]. The height of the screen could be
adjusted by placing it higher or lower on the rig to account for theparticipant’s height. The rotation is activated in a Wizard-of-Oz
way [21] through a button connected to the microprocessor held by
the researcher positioned behind the user, who wears the prototype
and eye tracker. The researcher viewed the real-time eye tracking
data and pushes the button when the user looks away from theirfocus of action, that being their interaction partner, or the paper
they are writing on. Pushing the button actuates the servo motor
to swing the rig into a “gaze aversion position” slightly to the sideof the user. The button is pushed again when the user returns theirgaze, returning the rig to the starting position.

5

PRELIMINARY EVALUATION

We performed a preliminary evaluation to gain an initial understanding of how users might respond to GazeAway. Six participants(three males and three females) were recruited and formed threeduos: one male/male, one male/female, and one female/female duo.
All participants were affiliated with the researcher’s institution as
a student (n=1), researcher (n=3) or PhD candidate (n=2). Twoduos were colleagues, one set (male/female duo) consisted of intimate partners. Each participant took part in all mentioned roles(solo, as the user in the duo scenario, and as the interviewer in thesolo scenario), in order to investigate the changes in gaze aversion
experiences in solo and social settings. Participants were counterbalanced in the order in which they experienced the different rolesin the scenarios.
In the solo scenario, the participant was seated at a table. The
researcher was seated behind the participant and watched the eye
tracker data. The user had three minutes to write down an answer
to the prompt: “Describe what you did during the last Christmas
break”. The researcher pressed the button when the user appeared
to be in a remembering process, which made GazeAway swing
into closer view for the participant. Once the participant was refocusing on their task, the researcher pushed the button once moreto let the GazeAway return to its original position.
In the duo scenario, one participant (the user) wore the prototype
and the eye tracker. The other participant (the interaction partner)
interviewed the user. Both participants were standing, facing eachGazeAway: Designing for Gaze Aversion Experiences

other. The researcher stood behind the user, holding the actuation button and looking at the eye tracking data. The interaction
partner received a prompt card to interview the user for three minutes, asking to “Describe your last vacation” or “Describe a project
you are proud of”. For our data collection, we video-recorded theparticipants and recorded their eye-tracking data.
After completing both scenarios, the participants completed asemi-structured interview about their experience, which included
questions like “How did GazeAway change your interactions?” and“How did GazeAway change your remembering process?”

6

CHI EA ’24, May 11–16, 2024, Honolulu, HI, USA

on this, we now suggest three different preliminary strategies formediating gaze aversion experiences:• Consider using other senses to mediate gaze aversion
experiences: Our prototype altered the user’s awarenessof their gaze aversion behaviour not only through visuallyswinging to view, but also through proprioception. Therefore, we propose that by utilising other senses, such as proprioception, the experience of gaze aversion can be enriched.
• Consider interactive technologies that mediate gazeaversion experiences in support of social interactions:
From the preliminary findings we learned that even though
GazeAway was not seen as a distraction, wearers did put inan effort to integrate the technology into their social interactions. GazeAway increased the wearer’s awareness of theirgaze aversion behaviour through a less socially acceptablebehaviour: looking at a screen during social interactions.
The wearer limited this behaviour by making their gaze aversion interval shorter. Designers of interactive technologies
for gaze aversion should therefore consider to support rather
than distract from social interactions.
• Consider using a prototype to investigate how a technology changes the perception of gaze aversion: The
findings from the ideation session suggest that the way theuser perceives their own gaze aversion behaviour could bealtered in four different ways: emphasising by moving the
body (Ideas 1 and 6, also see [28]), obscuring gaze aversion
from others (Idea 3, see also [1, 20]), emphasising by transforming the environment (Ideas 2, 3 and 4), and emphasisingthrough user-related cues, e.g., GazeAway swinging into
place (Idea 5). In the preliminary evaluation, these alterations in perception were reflected in the considerations
that participants had in social interactions. Our prototype
did make gaze aversion more apparent to the wearer andinteraction partner, as expected, but we did not expect theconsideration of altering the length of gaze aversion in asocial interaction due to the use of the prototype. Interestingly, our participants did not find GazeAway’s movements
distracting during social interaction, but they did alter their
behaviour in social interactions based on the GazeAway’s
actuations.

PRELIMINARY FINDINGSIn this section, we present our preliminary findings:• Wearing GazeAway increased the user’s awareness of
their gaze aversion behaviour through proprioception:
The participants noticed the weight of the GazeAway prototype, which added a new layer to the interactions. When the
rig moved, several participants mention that they felt theweight shift on their backs and shoulders. These reports suggest that proprioception (sensing the location of the weightof the prototype) influenced the participant’s experience ofgaze aversion through creating more embodied awareness.
• Users altered their behaviour in order to integrate the
GazeAway into social interactions: One participant explained that they tried to not look directly at the screen for
too long, because they “did not want to appear distracted”
while talking with their interaction partner, thus making
their gaze aversion intervals shorter. GazeAway also appeared to influence where the participants looked, since
several participants appeared to prefer to look to the side
where the screen was, but they rarely looked directly at thescreen. Additionally, one participant who reported to often
shift weight while standing and talking with someone, noticed that they moved less while wearing the GazeAway outof concern of accidentally hitting the prototype against awall or a person.
• Personalisation to body and gaze aversion behaviour
supports the use of GazeAway: Since we created only one
prototype, we had to rely on a single back protector withlimited adjustability for the evaluations. In the evaluations,
we observed that participants who fit the prototype better,
were better able to control the movements of the rig due toimproved stability of the structure. Additionally, the participants expressed personal preferences in the video shown on
the screen, the height of the screen and distance of it to theface, as well as the location of the rig in each position. Suchpersonalisations can be used as a way of allowing the user totailor GazeAway to benefit their gaze aversion experience.

7

DISCUSSION

Our initial exploration suggests that interactive technology canmediate gaze aversion in both positive and negative ways. We
described different ideas through which the gaze aversion experience could be altered, and used a prototype of one of these ideas
to gather preliminary experiences from our participants. Based

8

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE WORK

The presented work is based on our preliminary findings with asmall participant group, coming from similar backgrounds, who
had short interactions with a Wizard of Oz prototype only exploring
one of the mentioned ways in which perception of gaze aversion
could be changed. This means that all other mentioned ways havenot been investigated through prototypes. To add, we relied on
Wizard of Oz actuation instead of automatic gaze aversion detection. Therefore, there might be differences in the detection of gazeaversion and latency in actuation of the rig. Hence, future work
could explore the design for gaze aversion by creating more highfidelity prototypes that are used in longer studies with a larger andmore diverse participant group.
Secondly, GazeAway only makes use of eye tracking in order todetect a high cognitive load. We can make the measurement forCHI EA ’24, May 11–16, 2024, Honolulu, HI, USA

cognitive load more robust by combining eye tracking with othermethods, such as brain activity sensors to detect high cognitive
load [1, 23, 26], or skin conductivity to measure stress, as used in
AffectCam [25] and Prospero [4]. Our participants voiced different
preferences for videos, while our prototype only showed slowly
moving clouds. Future work could investigate the effect of different
videos on the screen on gaze aversion experiences, showing, forexample, a blank space [1, 23, 26], or an urban environment [3].

9CONCLUSION

Through the presentation of six design ideas as well as the preliminary findings of participant experiences using our prototype GazeAway, we found that technology can create increased awareness ofgaze aversion behaviour, facilitate novel cross-modal perception ofgaze aversion behaviour, and change gaze aversion behaviour tosuit social interaction. We formulated an initial set of findings alongwith preliminary strategies to mediate gaze aversion experiences.
Ultimately, we hope that our work can serve as a starting point towards understanding how to design technology aimed at mediating
our gaze aversion experience and aid designers in creating novel
gaze aversion experiences.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Nathalie Overdevest, Elise van den Hoven and Florian ‘Floyd’
Mueller thank the Australian Research Council for DP190102068.
Florian ‘Floyd’ Mueller also thanks the Australian Research Council for DP200102612 and LP210200656. We would like to thank
Ryan Wee and Shray Bagga for their prototyping work. We would
also like to thank our participants for their time and sharing theirexperiences with us.

REFERENCES[1] Dekel Abeles and Shlomit Yuval-Greenberg. 2017. Just look away: Gaze aversions
as an overt attentional disengagement mechanism. Cognition 168: 99–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2017.06.021[2] Reynold Bailey, Ann McNamara, Nisha Sudarsanam, and Cindy Grimm. 2009.
Subtle gaze direction. ACM Transactions on Graphics 28, 4: 1–14. https://doi.org/
10.1145/1559755.1559757[3] D. Burtan, K. Joyce, J. F. Burn, T. C. Handy, S. Ho, and U. Leonards. 2021. The natureeffect in motion: visual exposure to environmental scenes impacts cognitive loadand human gait kinematics. Royal Society Open Science 8, 1: 201100. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.201100[4] Samantha W. T. Chan, Haimo Zhang, and Suranga Nanayakkara. 2019. Prospero:
A Personal Wearable Memory Coach. In Proceedings of the 10th Augmented Human International Conference 2019, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1145/3311823.3311870[5] Jelle van Dijk. 2018. Designing for Embodied Being-in-the-World: A Critical
Analysis of the Concept of Embodiment in the Design of Hybrids. Multimodal
Technologies and Interaction 2, 1: 7. https://doi.org/10.3390/mti2010007[6] Paul Dourish. 2001. “Being-in-the-World”: Embodied Interaction. In Where theAction is: The Foundations of Embodied Interaction. MIT Press, 99–126.
[7] Scott H. Fraundorf and Duane G. Watson. 2011. The disfluent discourse: Effectsof filled pauses on recall. Journal of Memory and Language 65, 2: 161–175.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2011.03.004[8] Arthur M. Glenberg, Jennifer L. Schroeder, and David A. Robertson. 1998. Averting the gaze disengages the environment and facilitates remembering. Memory& Cognition 26, 4: 651–658. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211385[9] Simone Grassini, Antti Revonsuo, Serena Castellotti, Irene Petrizzo, Viola
Benedetti, and Mika Koivisto. 2019. Processing of natural scenery is associatedwith lower attentional and cognitive load compared with urban ones. Journal ofEnvironmental Psychology 62: 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.01.007[10] Steve Grogorick, Michael Stengel, Elmar Eisemann, and Marcus Magnor. 2017.
Subtle gaze guidance for immersive environments. In Proceedings of the ACM
Symposium on Applied Perception, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1145/3119881.3119890

Nathalie Overdevest et al.

[11] Josefine Hölling, Maria Svahn, and Sandra Pauletto. 2021. Audio-Visual Interactive
Art: Investigating the effect of gaze-controlled audio on visual attention andshort term memory. In Audio Mostly 2021, 32–39. https://doi.org/10.1145/3478384.
3478421[12] Michael Karlesky and Katherine Isbister. 2014. Designing for the Physical Margins
of Digital Workspaces: Fidget Widgets in Support of Productivity and Creativity.
In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Tangible, Embedded and
Embodied Interaction (TEI ’14), 13–20. https://doi.org/10.1145/2540930.2540978[13] Kikkerland Design and Chico Bicahlo. Kikkerland Critters. Retrieved January 20,
2023 from https://www.critterwindups.com/[14] David Kirsh. 2013. Embodied Cognition and the Magical Future of Interaction Design. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 20, 1. https://doi.org/10.1145/2442106.
2442109[15] Miao Liu and Xingchun Yang. 2020. On the Role of “Muscle Memory” in Interaction Design. In Advances in Industrial Design (Advances in Intelligent Systems
and Computing), 634–640. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51194-4_83[16] MoMA. Marina Abramović: The Artist Is Present | MoMA. The Museum ofModern Art. Retrieved November 1, 2023 from https://www.moma.org/calendar/
exhibitions/964[17] Florian “Floyd” Mueller, Darren Edge, Frank Vetere, Martin R. Gibbs, Stefan
Agamanolis, Bert Bongers, and Jennifer G. Sheridan. 2011. Designing sports: aframework for exertion games. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’11), 2651–2660. https://doi.org/10.
1145/1978942.1979330[18] 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), 2611–2624. https://doi.org/
10.1145/3563657.3595999[19] Argenis Ramirez Gomez and Hans Gellersen. 2019. SuperVision: Playing with
Gaze Aversion and Peripheral Vision. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conferenceon Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.
3300703[20] Sylvia Rothe, Felix Althammer, and Mohamed Khamis. 2018. GazeRecall: Using
Gaze Direction to Increase Recall of Details in Cinematic Virtual Reality. In
Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous
Multimedia, 115–119. https://doi.org/10.1145/3282894.3282903[21] S. Dow, B. MacIntyre, J. Lee, C. Oezbek, J. D. Bolter, and M. Gandy. 2005. Wizardof Oz support throughout an iterative design process. IEEE Pervasive Computing
4, 4: 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1109/MPRV.2005.93[22] Aryan Saini, Haotian Huang, Rakesh Patibanda, Nathalie Overdevest, Elise Van
Den Hoven, and Florian Floyd Mueller. 2022. SomaFlatables: Supporting Embodied Cognition through Pneumatic Bladders. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 35th
Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST ’22
Adjunct). https://doi.org/10.1145/3526114.3558705[23] Carola Salvi and Edward M. Bowden. 2016. Looking for Creativity: Where Do
We Look When We Look for New Ideas? Frontiers in Psychology 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00161[24] Phil Samuel. 2016. A Creativity Technique That’s Better Than Brainstorming: Brainwriting 6-3-5. linkedin.com. Retrieved November 10, 2022
from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/creativity-technique-thats-better-thanbrainstorming-6-3-5-samuel[25] Corina Sas, Tomasz Fratczak, Matthew Rees, Hans Gellersen, Vaiva Kalnikaite,
Alina Coman, and Kristina Höök. 2013. AffectCam: arousal- augmented sensecam
for richer recall of episodic memories. In CHI ’13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1041–1046. https://doi.org/10.1145/2468356.
2468542[26] Anaïs Servais, Noémie Préa, Hurter Christophe, and Emmanuel Barbeau. 2022.
Why and When Do You Look Away When Trying to Remember? Gaze Aversion
as a Marker of the Attentional Switch to the Internal World. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/3tybc[27] Suzanne Dikker, Marina Abramovic, Matthias Oostrik, and Jason Zevin. Measuring the Magic of Mutual Gaze. suzanne dikker. Retrieved November 1, 2023 fromhttp://www.suzannedikker.net/art-science-education[28] Yudai Tanaka, Jun Nishida, and Pedro Lopes. 2022. Electrical Head Actuation:
Enabling Interactive Systems to Directly Manipulate Head Orientation. In CHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.
1145/3491102.3501910[29] Tobii Pro Glasses 2 wearable eye tracker - Discontinued. Retrieved March 12,2024 from https://www.tobii.com/products/discontinued/tobii-pro-glasses-2[30] Tobii Pro Glasses 3 | Latest in wearable eye tracking. Retrieved December 13, 2022
from https://www.tobii.com/products/eye-trackers/wearables/tobii-pro-glasses3[31] Dikablis Glasses 3. English version. Retrieved December 13, 2022 from https://ergoneers.com/en/eye-tracker/dikablis-glasses-3/[32] LEGO®MINDSTORMS®| About | Official LEGO®Shop AU. Retrieved March 12,2024 from https://www.lego.com/en-au/themes/mindstorms/about