Shared Bodily Fusion: Leveraging Inter-Body Electrical Muscle
Stimulation for Social Play
Rakesh Patibanda

Nathalie Overdevest

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

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

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

Don Samitha Elvitigala

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

Elise van den Hoven

Elise.VandenHoven@uts.edu.au
Materialising Memories &Visualisation Institute
University of Technology Sydney
Sydney, Australia
Eindhoven University of Technology
Eindhoven, The Netherlands
Traditional Social Bodily Play

Player's
Body

Another
Player's
Body

Jarrod Knibbejarrod.knibbe@unimelb.edu.au
School of Electrical Engineering andComputer Science Faculty ofEngineering
The University of Queensland
St Lucia, Queensland, Australia

Florian ‘Floyd’ Mueller

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

Digital Social Bodily Play

Shared Bodily Fusion

Another
Player's
Body

Player's
Body

Gameplay

Shreyas Nisal

shreyasnisal@gmail.com
Exertion Games Lab, Department of
Human-Centred Computing
Monash University
Melbourne, Australia

Player's
Body

Another
Player's
Body

Gameplay

Gameplay

Figure 1: Three forms of Inter-Body Interactions (IBIs) in play: (Left) Traditional social bodily play, where players share control
to engage in IBIs intrinsic to gameplay. (Centre) Digital social bodily play, where players use their bodies as input to interact
with a computer to share control over virtual avatars, rendering the occurrence of IBIs during gameplay uncertain. (Right)
Shared bodily fusion, where players fuse their bodies to engage in IBIs through a computer by creating a shared input andoutput system, making the occurrence of IBIs intrinsic during gameplay.

ABSTRACTThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International
4.0 License.
DIS ’24, July 01–05, 2024, IT University of Copenhagen, Denmark© 2024 Copyright held by the owner/author(s).
ACM ISBN 979-8-4007-0583-0/24/07
https://doi.org/10.1145/3643834.3660723

Traditional games like "Tag" rely on shared control via inter-bodyinteractions (IBIs) – touching, pushing, and pulling – that foster
emotional and social connection. Digital games largely limit IBIs,
with players using their bodies as input to control virtual avatars
instead. Our “Shared Bodily Fusion” approach addresses this byfusing players’ bodies through a mediating computer, creating ashared input and output system. We demonstrate this approachwith "Hidden Touch", a game where a novel social electrical muscle

DIS ’24, July 01–05, 2024, IT University of Copenhagen, Denmark

Patibanda et al.

stimulation system transforms touch (input) into muscle actuations(output), facilitating IBIs. Through a study (n=27), we identifed
three player experience themes. Informed by these fndings andour design process, we mapped their trajectories across our threeexperiential spaces – threshold, tolerance, and precision – whichcollectively form our design framework. This framework facilitates the creation of future digital games where IBIs are intrinsic,
ultimately promoting the many benefts of social play.

CCS CONCEPTS• Human-centered computing → Interaction paradigms.

KEYWORDS
social bodily games, movement-based play, wearable interaction,body-actuating play, electrical muscle stimulation (EMS)ACM Reference Format:
Rakesh Patibanda, Nathalie Overdevest, Shreyas Nisal, Aryan Saini, Don
Samitha Elvitigala, Jarrod Knibbe, Elise van den Hoven, and Florian ‘Floyd’
Mueller. 2024. Shared Bodily Fusion: Leveraging Inter-Body Electrical Muscle Stimulation for Social Play. In Designing Interactive Systems Conference(DIS ’24), July 01–05, 2024, IT University of Copenhagen, Denmark. ACM,
New York, NY, USA, 19 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3643834.3660723

1

INTRODUCTION

While sharing control of our bodies might seem unfamiliar, traditional social games often embrace this concept by encouraging players to engage in inter-body interactions (IBIs) that are
intrinsic to the gameplay [128, 152]. Drawing on the concept ofinter-corporeality [7, 77], we defne IBIs as physical interactions
between two or more individuals where players directly infuenceeach other’s actions through shared bodily control, creating a coreelement of the playful experience. In games like “Tag” and "Twister"[86], individual movements become intertwined, demonstrating
how gameplay centres on using the body to engage with others’
bodies. Research suggests IBIs are essential to traditional play, serving as a form of communication [124], facilitating playful gestures[124], developing camaraderie [46], fostering shared experiences[151], advancing leadership skills [62], and promoting social awareness [62].
Inspired by the benefts of IBIs, both the HCI game design community (e.g., [36, 62, 75, 97, 99, 103]) and the games industry [63,143] have embraced movement-sensing technologies [1, 40, 148].
While some systems use players’ bodies as input, these explorations
mostly attempt to emulate IBIs with virtual, screen-based output[76, 103, 119]. Other systems require physical touch and movementof each other’s bodies to infuence on-screen avatars [26, 60]. However, we fnd that merely sensing player movements as input limits
the direct, reciprocal nature of IBIs found in traditional games, potentially reducing the opportunities for players to proft from theaforementioned benefts.
To address this, we propose the “Shared Bodily Fusion” approach,where players fuse their bodies through a mediating computer tocreate a shared input and output system, making IBIs intrinsic togameplay (Figure 1). Our initial focus is on body-actuating technologies (BATs), specifcally electrical muscle stimulation (EMS),
due to its ability to transform the body into both input and output

Figure 2: A group playing Hidden Touch. One Insider (left)
looks under the table and decides where to touch, while theother shares a bonding moment with the Decoder (right)
during gameplay.

of the interaction [81, 123]. This approach presents an opportunity
to explore IBIs within digital games in a way that closely aligns
with the embodied experiences found in traditional play. While
our current work focuses on EMS, our approach could inspire future investigations with other BATs, such as exoskeletons [74] orpneumatics [109, 123, 129–131], to facilitate shared bodily control
within co-located social play [133]. This could include scenarios
like collaborative haptic exploration with exoskeletons, physicalredirection with pneumatic actuators, or even the transformationof classic games like tug-of-war or playground activities throughBAT-enabled playful mediation, introducing elements of sharedcontrol, surprise, and physical collaboration.
We showcase this approach through “Hidden Touch”, a threeplayer game inspired by the traditional “Footsies” game [8, 150]
through a novel social electrical muscle stimulation (EMS) system.
Deviating from prior HCI work that enables only single-user EMS
experiences [64, 81, 82], our game connects two players’ bodies via
a social EMS system. The game comprises a “Decoder” (wearing thereference electrode on their forearm) and two “Insiders” (wearing
active electrodes). An Insider’s stealthy touch on the Decoder’sbarefoot acts as the input, completing the circuit and triggering a
muscle contraction in both players’ arms as the output, demonstrating how IBIs can be intrinsic to digital gameplay.
Hidden Touch was iteratively designed and playtested [69] using
the Research through Design (RtD) [157] approach. The University
Ethics Board approved the study, which was conducted with 27
participants divided into nine groups. Given the intimate natureof our game involving skin-to-skin contact (<0.5 meters) between
people [55], we recruited participants who were already familiar
with each other. We gathered insights through semi-structured
interviews [27, 78]. Through thematic analysis [20–22] of our data,
we identifed three player experience themes. Additionally, weused the trajectories method [16, 17], to map the fndings from ourthemes across three experiential spaces: 1) Threshold, 2) Tolerance,and 3) Precision, which refect the journeys of players’ subjective
experiences. These spaces collectively form the framework of our"Shared Bodily Fusion" approach. Our work makes the following
contributions:Shared Bodily Fusion: Leveraging Inter-Body Electrical Muscle Stimulation for Social Play• A novel game: We introduce “Hidden Touch”, a novel game,to HCI’s growing catalogue of unique systems [155]. Beyond inspiring game developers to utilise body-actuating
technologies [123], such as EMS, for creating social, bodily play experiences, this could also motivate non-gaming
sectors, such as motor rehabilitation, to investigate playful,
immersive EMS applications.
• Reporting player experiences: From the analysis of ourstudy data, we articulate three player experience themes[20–22]. They can serve as a resource for interaction design
researchers to create systems aimed at crafting social bodily
play experiences.
• Presenting a framework & design implications: Basedon our themes and the craft knowledge of designing our
game, we present three experiential spaces that ofer a means
to anticipate and understand the user experiences of IBIs.
Each space is complemented by a design implication, providing concrete guidance for practitioners interested in designing social bodily play experiences.
With our work, we aim to support game designers in creating abroader range of play experiences to facilitate the many benefts oftraditional social play.

2

RELATED WORK

Our research was primarily informed by prior work on humantouch and social interaction, shared control in traditional games,
shared control experiences in HCI, and shared control by using
body-actuating technologies.

2.1

Human Touch and Social Interaction

Human touch, a powerful form of inter-body interaction, is a vital
part of social connection [146]. It can be philosophically understood
through the concept of intercorporeality [7, 77], which involves
the sense-making of oneself and others as active participants increating corporeal interactions that are both visual and tactile [146].
Touch, therefore, holds profound meanings within our social fabric[93], manifesting in various forms [93, 146]. For example, Navarre’s[110] and Gentry’s [50] research on dance illustrates how physicaltouch can build positive relationships, empathy, and mutual understanding. Here, touch acts as a language rich in emotional andconnective nuances, exemplifying its profound impact on social
bonding.
Traditional games like "Footsies" also ofer insights, highlighting the personal and intimate aspects of touch [8, 150]. Beyond its
experiential dimensions, touch also plays a crucial role in physiological well-being, as evidenced by the comforting impact of gentle
physical contact [93]. Informed by the concept of intercorporeality, touch can be understood as a fundamental building block ofshared experiences [45, 116]. This highlights its importance in diverse social contexts, from dance to play, as it facilitates connection,communication, and understanding.

2.2

Shared Control Experiences in Traditional
Games

Games such as “Tag” [2], “Twister” [39], and “Human Knot” [87]exemplify the practical application of IBIs [128, 152]. These games

DIS ’24, July 01–05, 2024, IT University of Copenhagen, Denmark

Verbally instructing
the person to move

Physically touching
the other person

Directly moving
the person

Figure 3: Methods of sharing control for infuencing anotherplayer’s movements, ranging from verbal instruction to direct physical manipulation.
are important because they foster camaraderie, social awareness[53, 104], and lasting emotional impacts [19, 52, 53]. Cherishedacross cultures [25, 61, 132], they impart lessons on teamwork,
trust, and community [12, 152]. While all IBIs involve social interaction, not all social interactions in games involve IBIs (e.g., text chat,social leaderboards) [132]. This makes traditional games particularly interesting, as prior work highlights the centrality of "sharedcontrol" – where players infuence each other’s bodily actions –in their gameplay [46]. This shared control ranges from verbally
instructing another person to move to gently touching to directly
moving another person by pushing or pulling (illustrated througha dimensional diagram in Figure 3). Technological advancements
have digitised similar experiences; Dance Dance Revolution [15]combined traditional movement with digital on-screen prompts.
While such games often focus on individual achievement rather
than IBIs [15, 41], this need not be the case. Sicart [139] suggeststhat digital technology can harness the essence of traditional games
to enrich social play [152], as exemplifed by games like Bounden[3, 114]. These games are known to potentially foster identity cocreation, group creativity [152], and social dynamics that extend
beyond the game itself [137].

2.3

Shared Control Experiences in HCI

Recognising the signifcance of shared control through IBIs [146],
HCI researchers have explored diverse ways to facilitate these experiences beyond traditional games [101]. Systems like "Physical
Telepresence" demonstrate how sharing tactile sensations and video
over distance can enhance feelings of closeness [70]. This multisensory approach aligns with previous HCI work on bridging
traditional and digital gameplay by using movement-sensing technologies [96], aiming to preserve social elements within digitalplatforms [132]. However, some games, like “1-2 Switch” [1], while
encouraging face-to-face interactions, rely on screen-based output, making shared control indirect. In contrast, "Johann Sebastian
Joust" [88, 139] aligns closer with traditional games, using direct
player touch to infuence opponent movements [156] (centre image- Figure 3). Sykownik et al. [142] suggest that this type of sharedcontrol can be categorised under the "Distinct Loci of Manipulation",where players control separate elements that can work together, or
where control shifts dynamically between players.
The potential of designing IBIs to foster a sense of connection isfurther explored in "SocialStools" [57]. This work uses sound, visuals, and physical movement to cultivate togetherness, even between
strangers. This kind of collaborative interaction, as suggested by
Sykownik et al. [142], can be categorised as a “Mutual Locus of
Manipulation” where players simultaneously manipulate shared

DIS ’24, July 01–05, 2024, IT University of Copenhagen, Denmark

Patibanda et al.

elements. While such works facilitate playful physical interaction,
control can sometimes still feel external to the body. This is seen ingames like B.U.T.T.O.N [153], where ambiguity [48, 141] may indirectly encourage some IBIs. A need remains for experiences focusedon prolonged, direct human-to-human interaction [29, 60, 104] andexploration of the “proxemics zones” [97], i.e., “the physical distance between people involved in gameplay”, infuencing gameplay[55].
Prior works like "Musical Embrace" [60], “DubTouch” [24], andtouch-based silent disco experiences [59, 85] illustrate how direct
touch and shared bodily control can create playful, sometimes even"uncomfortable" interactions [18, 54]. "BioTones" [144] suggests that
auditory biofeedback can provide an alternative to the dominantvisual feedback in interactive systems. Our work builds on theseapproaches, employing a face-to-face confguration without screensfor deeper player engagement. Another compelling area in HCI is
the interplay between shared experiences and self-other perception,
as seen in "Morphing Identity" [138], where facial morphing reveals
a spectrum of social experiences within communication. Digital
versions of games like tug-of-war further endorse the concept ofshared control [83] (right image - Figure 3). Similar explorations ofgentle touch control can be seen in multiplayer computer games[59, 85]. However, these often treat inputs as external to the body,
distinct from the inter-body interactions seen in traditional games.
The nuanced shared control intrinsic to traditional games presentsa challenge in HCI, as highlighted by Benford et al. [16, 17]. To address this, we must shift our focus from viewing the body solely
as an input medium towards also considering it as a way to produce output. Body-actuating technologies (BATs) [120, 123], suchas EMS, ofer this unique potential, allowing the body to serve as
both input and output of the interaction.

While EMS has been used to simulate touch in VR [38, 82, 127],
our research, inspired by prior work on “proxemics play” [97],
investigates its potential in human-to-human scenarios.
Prior work also explored using EMS in various bodily play experiences [111, 117, 118, 121], notably in single-player settings wherea player shares control of one hand with an EMS system, engaging
in a physical contest with it [81, 118]. Here, shared bodily control
emerges, but experiences are intra-corporeal, i.e., bodily interactions experienced with one’s own self, as they essentially playagainst a computer attached to their body [117, 121]. While priorwork explored an initial multiplayer concept with EMS [111], it waslimited to a pilot study with two groups of participants. Building
upon the insights from this pilot, we propose the "Shared Bodily Fusion" approach to address the opportunity to create deeper
knowledge about designing digital games where IBIs are intrinsic togameplay. Specifcally, this approach aligns with the middle groundbetween "touch" and "direct player movement" in Figure 3. Ourgame, "Hidden Touch", serves as a vehicle to answer our researchquestion: How do we design digital games where IBIs are intrinsic togameplay?

2.4

3.1

Shared Control by Using Body-Actuating
Technologies

The advancement of BATs has opened new avenues for achieving
shared control through IBIs [123]. Systems like BioSync [112] foster
collaboration over a distance, using bidirectional muscle communication and movement synchronisation. Similarly, the "Linked-Stick"[108] explores how physical mirroring can enhance tool-based skill
learning, while "inTouch" [23] uses touch-based interfaces to facilitate shared experiences remotely. Such designs highlight theunique ability of BATs to foster collaboration and learning throughshared physicality and movement.
These explorations contribute to the broader trend of BodyActuated Play (BAP), where the body itself becomes the core of
the play experience. This promotes IBIs by using the body as both
input and output [123]. For example, in “Haptic Turk” [30], human actuators manually move a player’s body to generate in-game
motion. Other BATs, like exoskeletons, have also been exploredto control the player’s arm and serve as their playmate for playing Pong against a computer [74, 89]. These works demonstratea shift from screen-based outputs to, bodily-centered experiences[102, 106].
In our work, we focus on EMS for both input and output tofacilitate shared bodily control [33, 81, 123]. Unlike movementsensing, EMS keeps the attention on the body itself [117, 121].

3

HIDDEN TOUCH: A GAME SHOWCASINGOUR APPROACH

Inspired by prior work highlighting the need for social perspectives within Body Actuated Play (BAP) [117, 121], Hidden Touchincorporates elements from the traditional game "Footsies" [8, 150].
This inspiration stems from two key insights: prior BAP research
revealed a willingness to share bodily control, while the discreet
touch-based interactions in “Footsies” ofered a model for subtle,
playful IBIs. These insights led to our creation of a novel social
experience.

Insights from the Research through Design
Process

In prior explorations of BAP [117, 121], the hardware setup consisted of only one sensor (accelerometer) and actuator (EMS). This
meant that one person controlled the other’s body without reciprocal interaction, creating a unidirectional, rather than a mutual,shared bodily control experience. As the goal of our “Shared Bodily
Fusion” approach is to facilitate mutual bodily control between two
or more participants to encourage IBIs, we invited colleagues toparticipate in embodied experiments. By drawing inspiration fromprior research on control-sharing patterns in multiplayer games[142], three embodied experimental setups were created (Table 1).
In each experiment, one participant wore both the sensor and actuator (similar to prior work [117, 121]). The person wearing thesensor controlled the arm of another person wearing the actuator,and vice-versa. Table 1 below illustrates these experimental setups
along with the associated learnings.
Through analysis and refection on these experiences, we discovered that sharing bodily control seemed to foster a unique experience of kinesthetic empathy [32], i.e., “the feeling of sharing
another person’s movement” [140]. Unlike mere observation, thisinvolved a direct, embodied experience of another player’s actions
and the resulting sensations, enhancing the ability to anticipate
and respond to their intentions. This insight, along with the desire

Shared Bodily Fusion: Leveraging Inter-Body Electrical Muscle Stimulation for Social PlayDIS ’24, July 01–05, 2024, IT University of Copenhagen, Denmark

Table 1: Embodied Experimental Setups and Learnings
Embodied experimental setup

Learning

Setup 1: Both users in the same location (Figure 11 – Appendix A) - Participants could anticipate each other’s actions, reducing theAn accelerometer on one player’s hand-controlled EMS on the other’s element of surprise. Camaraderie seemed possible due to sharedarm, creating a direct connection between movement and sensation. physical space.
Setup 2: Same location, but no visual contact - The control mechanics
remained the same (accelerometer to EMS), but players were positioned
to prevent them from seeing each other’s bodily actions.

Bodily actions were unseen, introducing an element of surprise.
Communication limitations seemed to lessen the sense of camaraderie.

Setup 3: Diferent locations, with video call (Figure 12 – Appendix A) - Visual contact partially restored a sense of connection. Internet
Players interacted via video conferencing, with one player’s accelerom- lag continued to create an element of surprise. Camaraderie
eter controlling the other’s EMS across the distance.
seemed possible through voice chat.
to enhance the "surprise" and "camaraderie" found in traditionalsocial games, informed the design of "Hidden Touch". The gameaimed to integrate physical touch – a core element of traditional
play – while retaining the unique social dynamics that emerged
from our embodied experiments.

• Calibration: Before starting, an Insider and Decoder adjust the EMS device to set a shared intensity level throughcontinuous touch to achieve involuntary hand movements.
• Game fow and goal: The full game lasts 5 minutes, withtimed rounds (15-30 seconds), managed by the mobile app.
During each round, Insiders subtly touch the Decoder’s footunder an opaque table. The Decoder tries to identify thetoucher by feeling the simultaneous, involuntary muscle
contractions in their own arm, resulting in deception anddetection as the core focus.
• Scoring and progression: The players manage the game’sscoring system on the mobile app. Correct guesses by the
Decoder earn them points, while incorrect guesses beneft
the Insiders.
• Safety: Besides general EMS safety rules (e.g., using electrodes on unbroken, dry skin) [64], our social EMS system
requires specifc guidelines to prevent unintended heart stimulation [6]. Insiders must avoid touching the Decoder on
the side of their body opposite the active electrode, ensuring stimulation remains localised [6]. Additionally, players
should wear full-length trousers to minimise the risk of accidental skin contact.

Figure 4: (A) Circuit schematic for converting a single EMS
channel into multiple channels with a common referenceelectrode. (B) The mobile application for game score tracking.

3.2

Hardware for the Social EMS System

In line with safety considerations from previous studies [4], we
utilised a standard EMS device, comprising two electrodes (active
and reference). In a standard EMS setup, both electrodes from asingle EMS channel are typically attached to one user’s body [64, 79].
This allows the user to calibrate the EMS for muscle contraction
by adjusting parameters such as intensity, pulse rate, and width.
However, for our Hidden Touch social EMS system (Figure 4), we
modifed this standard arrangement. We adapted a single EMS
channel to accommodate two active electrodes and one common
reference electrode [5]. This system requires the attachment of
the electrodes to two separate participants. Consequently, when
one participant touches the other’s bare skin, the electrical circuit
completes, simultaneously contracting both participants’ muscles.

3.3

Gameplay

The core gameplay loop of "Hidden Touch" revolves around deception, strategy, and shared bodily control. Here’s a breakdown of theloop’s central components:• Role Assignment: The game randomly assigns players asa Decoder or Insiders via a mobile app.

3.4

Characteristics of the IBIs Facilitated by
Hidden Touch

In this section, we discuss three key characteristics of IBIs facilitatedby Hidden Touch, which we derived from our design process andinternal playtesting sessions [69]. These characteristics, which describe the input and output aspects of the IBIs, ofer considerations
for game designers exploring options when applying our approach.
We utilise them in Section 7 to discuss participants’ experiences
and their design implications.
3.4.1 Shared Intensity: Extent of mutual comfort with shared control. The “Shared Intensity” characteristic addresses the impact on
mutual comfort (output) based on the shared intensity level (input) of EMS-mediated control. Playtesting revealed that fnding
a universally comfortable intensity is challenging due to individual variations in tolerance. Typically, a middle ground is reachedwith some discomfort accepted. However, as prior work indicates,
minimal discomfort can sometimes enhance the game experience[54, 84, 117].

DIS ’24, July 01–05, 2024, IT University of Copenhagen, Denmark

Patibanda et al.

3.4.2 Control Duration: Extent of bodily awareness with shared control. The “Control Duration” characteristic addresses the impact on
bodily awareness (output) based on the duration of shared control(input). Playtesting revealed that sharing control briefy via the
EMS creates swift, short involuntary movements, while extended
control leads to longer, more exaggerated movements. Playtesting
showed players strategically varied the duration to infuence theirbodily awareness within the game.

techniques and focused breathing when using EMS [117, 118, 121],
and we provided a hands-on introduction to familiarise participants
with the EMS sensations. Participants were then introduced to thesocial EMS setup and the calibration process by connecting two
players’ bodies (section 3). Later, participant groups engaged withHidden Touch. To ensure that the groups understood the game,they played at least seven rounds. This phase lasted 46.5 minutes
on average.

3.4.3 Control Deception: Extent of bodily action visibility with sharedcontrol. The “Control Deception” characteristic addresses the impact on the visibility of bodily actions (output) based on the extent
to which shared control is deceptive (input). Playtesting revealed
players used covert (subtle) or overt (exaggerated) movements tocreate an invisible/stealthy or visible/challenging gameplay experience. Strategies were dynamically adapted based on opponents
and evolving gameplay.
The three characteristics of IBIs facilitated by Hidden Touch,in conjunction with our study fndings (outlined in Section 5), inform the three experiential spaces, which form our "Shared Bodily
Fusion" framework (Section 7).

4.3.2 In-the-field phase: Study. During this phase, groups played
Hidden Touch daily for three days. Participants were asked to record
their gameplay and log scores using a provided action camera andsmartphone application. Excluding the calibration time, our log
data indicated that participants played the game 55 times (average),with each round lasting approximately 30 seconds, totalling an
average playtime of 37 minutes over the three days.

4 STUDY DESIGN AND DATA ANALYSIS
4.1 Methodology
To understand our game’s user experiences, we adopted an inthe-feld study approach [56], aligning with prior game research[75, 117, 131, 134, 135]. This approach enables 1) rich data collection
while minimising researcher biases; 2) participants to engage with
our system in settings and times of their choosing; and 3) participants to adapt the gameplay to their preferences, freeing them fromthe researchers’ preconceived notions [81, 125].

4.2

Participants

Due to the interaction’s intimate nature, we recruited groups ofthree participants who knew each other (such as family or friends).
In total, we recruited 27 participants through social media channels
and mailing lists. Eight participants identifed as female (mean age= 31.7) and 19 as male (mean age = 29.7), with none as non-binary or
self-described. Each participant received an explanatory statement
detailing the gameplay and a consent form, including reassurance
that they could opt-out anytime. Of the 27 participants, nine had
EMS experience.

4.3

Study Procedure

Based on prior HCI research [117, 121], we structured our study
into three phases: pre-study, in-the-feld, and post-study (Figure 9).
When using technologies that enable users to share bodily control,
like EMS [64], this study structure helps build participants’ trustin the system by allowing them to understand its capabilities andlimitations [149].
4.3.1 Pre-study phase. Participants were provided with an explanatory statement and a consent form. They were then screened todetermine their general suitability for using an EMS device [4].
Exclusion criteria included pregnant women, individuals with pacemakers, and those with skin injuries [64]. After the screening, participants were educated on best practices, including muscle relaxation

4.3.3 Post-study phase: Data collection. After completing the inthe-feld phase, participants were interviewed using the semi-structured
interviews method [78]. These interviews, which were recorded
in audio and video [34], enabled participants to share their experiences, opinions, and queries with the researchers. Despite the groupnature of the study, we conducted individual interviews to capture
personal insights and reduce the impact of group dynamics, allowing participants to freely express detailed experiences [51]. The
average interview time was 60 minutes. Interview topics ranged
from participants’ engagement with bodily social games to bodily
awareness and sharing bodily control.

4.4

Data Analysis

We conducted a thematic analysis using a six-step process [20] with
two independent coders working with NVivo software [154]. Eachparticipant’s response was treated as a separate data unit. We created a master NVivo project fle to facilitate two rounds of coding.
The initial coding round resulted in 94 codes from one coder and85 codes from the other. The coders then discussed these codes
and reconciled discrepancies to refne the coding schema in themaster fle. After this, the schema was used for a second round ofcoding. Multiple discussions took place to address discrepancies,
resulting in a refned coding scheme in the master fle with 76 fnal
codes. The coders then crafted six overarching themes after examining and cross-referencing the coded categories with the data units.
Our study focuses on three themes derived from 41 of the 76 fnal
codes and encompassing 396 of the 916 data units. Since this paper
focuses on qualitative analysis, we do not include other themes
related to the quantitative data [9, 90], which might be explored infuture publications. Complementing thematic analysis, we used the
trajectories method [17] to map player experiences within the experiential spaces defned by our "Shared Bodily Fusion" framework,
which consists of Threshold, Tolerance, and Precision. This method,combining interview transcripts, gameplay recordings, and game
logs, allowed us to track how experiences evolved across the threecore shared control dynamics (shared intensity, control duration,
control deception) that directly shape those spaces. While the thematic analysis revealed core aspects of experience, the trajectories
method further illuminated their evolution within our framework.

Shared Bodily Fusion: Leveraging Inter-Body Electrical Muscle Stimulation for Social PlayDIS ’24, July 01–05, 2024, IT University of Copenhagen, Denmark

1 hour (approx)
Search foranotherparticipantgroup(Start) Sign Consent
Form

End ofstudy

Pre-study (Safe onboarding andinforming system's capability)

If notcompatible- EMS introduction.

Participant
screening
to checkcompatibility
with EMS

If
compatible

Analysis- Thematic analysis of interview data.

Participants arescheduled fora pre-study- Explain the do's and don'ts of using
EMS in the study.

1 hour (approx)

3 daysPost-study phase (Data collection)

In-the-field phase (Study)- Individual interviews with 27
participants.

- Play Hidden Touch at home
for three days.

Figure 5: Flowchart of study procedure: Starting with consent acquisition and participant screening for EMS compatibility,
followed by an EMS introduction, the study includes a three-day in-home gaming phase, post-study data collection throughinterviews, and concludes with thematic data analysis.

5

FINDINGS: PLAYER EXPERIENCE THEMESIn this section, we articulate our three themes: 1) embracing thephysicality of IBIs (16 codes and 154 data units); 2) developing groupbonding through IBIs (13 codes and 125 data units); and 3) cultivating bodily awareness through inter-body gameplay strategies (12codes and 117 data units).

5.1

Theme 1: Embracing the physicality of IBIs

In this theme, participants explained their experiences of embracing
the physicality of the inter-body interactions. Three sub-themes
were identifed: 1) exploring the unfamiliar sensations of IBIs (60data units); 2) experiencing an enriched spectrum of emotions (49data units); and 3) actively engaging with the varied levels of controlling the IBIs intrinsic to gameplay (45 data units).
5.1.1 Exploring the unfamiliar sensations of IBIs. In this sub-theme,
participants explained their experiences of exploring the unfamiliar sensations of IBIs. Initially, participants expressed hesitation
about intimate bodily interactions. As P1 said: "I was apprehensive...
I wouldn’t normally do it." Over time, they developed strategies
for engaging with IBIs and said: “In Hidden Touch, we could use
many strategies to try and fool the person.” The shared sensationof electricity through touch was a particularly novel aspect. P6commented: "In Hidden Touch, we are decoding the intention of every
touch... which felt amplifed." P7 added: “It makes you pause andthink about the touch as you have granular control over it.” P25 elaborated on this sense of control: “I changed the duration and locationof touch to infuence the feeling”. These experiences suggest thatthe integration of electrical stimulation created a unique tactile
experience, prompting participants to actively analyse and learn tocontrol touch interactions.

5.1.2 Experiencing an enriched spectrum of emotions. In this subtheme, participants described how touch in Hidden Touch evoked astrong emotional connection. P4 noted, “The touch struck a stronger
connection between us”, while P6 highlighted a shared emotional
state: “Feeling the electricity went beyond physical sensations; weshared psychological emotions from the touch”. This suggests heightened emotional experiences due to shared electrical sensations.
Contrasting game experiences, P5 described touch as a form of
dialogue: “Hidden Touch caused unusual hand sensations, making
each touch feel like a dialogue.” P18 and P10 elaborated on this, with
P18 noting how touch added narrative depth and P10 fnding theunpredictability of shared control enhanced their ability to manipulate expectations: “Unlike Footsies, this provides us with opportunities
to make the opponents’ anticipation harder”.
These refections indicate that while IBIs involved a temporary
loss of individual control, participants saw this as enhancing theiroverall agency and contributing to richer emotional gameplay experiences in contrast to prior work [64, 81].
5.1.3 Actively engaging with the varied levels of controlling the IBIs
intrinsic to gameplay. This sub-theme describes participants’ varying levels of engagement with the IBIs. Some focused purely on the
gameplay aspect: "Oh, I can shock someone, cool!" (P9), while others
were less preoccupied with the physicality: "I didn’t give too muchthought... to the touch aspect" (P14). However, most became more
conscious of the shared touch experience over time: “...the sensationand the dynamics of touching altered, making me more conscious"(P12). P16 emphasised this dynamic nature of the touch: "Each electrical touch needed awareness." P7 elaborated on the complexity andintrigue: "The electrical stimulation kept me hooked and guessing”.
P9 noted their adaptive strategy: “We started with low intensity andcranked it up as we got used to it". These refections show that groupsDIS ’24, July 01–05, 2024, IT University of Copenhagen, Denmark

Patibanda et al.

adjusted the intensity to explore diferent degrees of shared control
during gameplay, demonstrating active engagement with varying
levels of control within IBIs.

5.2

Theme 2: Developing group bonding
through IBIs

In this theme, participants discussed their experiences of developing group bonding through IBIs. The theme has three sub-themes:
1) fostering camaraderie through harnessing the unique nature oftouch (48 data units); 2) enhanced communication due to heightened synchrony of IBIs (41 data units); and 3) exploring culturaldiferences through non-rigid game rules (36 data units).
5.2.1 Fostering camaraderie through harnessing the unique natureof touch. In this sub-theme, participants described their experiencesof how sharing bodily control fostered camaraderie and group cohesion. P2 said, “Playing the game made the atmosphere around us
a lot more comfortable”, and expressed their enjoyment of playing
with close friends: “I was comfortable touching and allowing others
to control my body via EMS because we are very close”. However, participants also expressed their apprehensiveness towards showing
their bare feet. P19 said: “I am not too comfortable and embarrassed
to show, let alone touching with my barefoot. However, repeatedly
doing it decreased this uncomfortableness and led to knowing thegroup better”. Participants also refected on the impact of the gameafter the game session. P21 said: “It improved the feeling of touchlasted beyond the game”.
5.2.2 Enhanced communication due to heightened synchronisationof IBIs. In this sub-theme, participants described how their heightened synchronisation of IBIs brought about enhanced communication. P5 described non-verbal cues in their game roles: “As an
Insider, I communicated using gestures under the table to synchronise
our actions” (Figure 6). P19 linked observation of touch with partner
communication: “It was like someone patting your back... we experimented with the foot pressure”. P27 added: “We (insiders) touched
before touching the decoder to determine how much pressure to apply”.
P12 highlighted the unique language-like quality of the experience:“Subtlety was key... we were speaking a new tactile language...” P3
felt shared control fostered teamwork: “It was about a heightened
sense of synchrony”. P4 and P7 further elaborated on the distinctiveness of the sensation and its potential for connection with others.
P7 said: “...interpreting EMS pulses (duration and intensity) added
another layer of communication”. These experiences suggest thatparticipants found ways to enhance their communication throughthe required heightened synchronisation within IBIs. The positive
experience of this synchronisation might explain their willingness
to share bodily control for further IBI engagement.
5.2.3 Exploring cultural diferences through non-rigid game rules. In
this sub-theme, participants described how Hidden Touch’s fexible
rules allowed players to create their own communication methods,
leading to unexpected insights about cultural diferences. P10’s
confusion over their partner’s gestures highlighted how non-verbal
cues vary across cultures: "...head nods mean diferent things in myculture". P15 emphasised how gameplay blended cultural interpretation with the novel touch sensations: "The gameplay was a blendof recognising cultural cues and technological interpretations”. P13

Figure 6: The Decoder (left) is waiting for an Insider (right) totouch them. Meanwhile, the Insiders (right) employ a strategy of moving their bodies simultaneously to deceive theDecoder.
added how unexpected touch led to playful confusion and learning: “The shocks and tingles... made us laugh and question if there
was a cultural gesture we misinterpreted or if it was just playfulmischief”. These experiences reveal how augmented IBIs withina playful context can expose the complexities of communication
across cultures. The mix of learning, confusion, and amusement
highlights how gameplay itself can become a space for exploring
cultural diferences.

5.3

Theme 3: Cultivating bodily awarenessthrough inter-body gameplay strategies

This theme describes participants’ experiences of cultivating bodily
awareness due to discovering gameplay strategies. It has three subthemes: 1) developing bodily awareness due to the multisensory
nature of IBIs (46 data units); 2) enabling strategic layers by using synchronous and asynchronous shared bodily control (37 data
units); and 3) leveraging bodily characteristics and the physicalenvironment for strategic gameplay (34 data units).
5.3.1 Developing bodily awareness due to the multisensory natureof IBIs. In this sub-theme, participants described developing heightened bodily awareness during gameplay. P12 highlighted how gameplay rules led to analysing touch: "We created a rule of touching...
three times to let decoders experience the touch”. P26 noted how thisrepeated exposure changed perception: “Touching multiple times
made us realise things, such as texture and temperature...”Expanding on this multisensory focus, P13 explained how sensations were amplifed and less localised: “EMS actuations... made it
harder to distinguish foot directions.” P22 elaborated on the alteredsensation: “Insiders tried to touch diferent parts of the foot... changing how shared actuation felt”. This, combined with actuated hand
movements, made developing spatial awareness a challenge. Theseexperiences suggest that participants seemed to balance hiding theextent of their bodily actuations by manipulating the duration oftouch alongside their observations of others.
Adding further complexity, P16 described how multiple factors
became crucial strategies: “...altering the foot’s temperature... concentrating on [its] size... the intensity and rhythm of touch also mattered...”P12 noted the limits of traditional cues: “It was harder to rely on

Shared Bodily Fusion: Leveraging Inter-Body Electrical Muscle Stimulation for Social PlayDIS ’24, July 01–05, 2024, IT University of Copenhagen, Denmark

fostered "somatic awareness" [42] - heightened attention to subtle
bodily cues - which players strategically exploited.

6

Figure 7: Participants play on a shorter table, giving the Decoder (right) the advantage of easily noticing even small
movements.
facial cues because the Insiders were preoccupied...” These insights
suggest that multidimensional input mechanisms facilitated by ourapproach, seemed to enrich communication and also enhance theoverall gameplay experience.
5.3.2 Enabling strategic layers by using synchronous and asynchronous IBIs. In this sub-theme, participants described how they developed strategies by using synchronous and asynchronous IBIs. P18
aimed to mimic their partner’s touch: “My strategy was to twitch
my hand simultaneously...” while P21 used distraction techniques:"I could move my hand a lot to hide who touched..." Coordination
was also key strategy, as P20 noted: "We had gestures to decide whowill touch and who will mirror the outcome of actuated movements".
These experiences suggest that shared control through inter-bodyelectrical muscle stimulations enabled players to engage in parallel gameplay [104]. P9 highlighted the element of deception: "Theability to meaningfully bluf before the actual touch... enhanced gameplay". These experiences suggest that EMS-enabled IBIs introduce
strategic layers of anticipation and misdirection. This highlights
how co-located social gameplay could be expanded through synchronous and asynchronous IBIs, adding a new dimension to such
experiences.
5.3.3 Leveraging bodily characteristics and physical environment for
strategic gameplay. In this sub-theme, participants described how
they strategically utilised bodily characteristics and environmental
details. For example, table height infuenced play, as P4 noted: “Ataller table made reaching harder... a shorter player found this advantageous”. They continued, “The short table was also advantageous
since even the slightest player movement was visible to them” (Figure
7).
Hidden Touch heightened awareness of subtle details, as P13
observed: "I can feel one foot is heavier than the other..." This suggests
how the game made them more aware of the little things about
themselves and each other. Moreover, while initially distracting,environmental elements and accessories became tools for misdirection, as in P11’s example: "That clinking sound of my bracelet when
my hand moved involuntarily...later, I used it to mislead players." Agroup of participants explained that the room they played in gaveaway the Insider’s secrets to the Decoder. P5 pointed out how thespace itself could reveal secrets: "The Decoder caught unintentional
glimpses of our gestures under the table, due to the refections in theplaying area’s windows". These experiences suggest the gameplay

DISCUSSION: A FRAMEWORK FOR OURSHARED BODILY FUSION APPROACH

To address our research question, "How do we design digital games
where IBIs are intrinsic to gameplay?", we delve into participant
experiences using the trajectories method [17] as a narrative framework. This method allowed us to map how shared bodily interactions evolved over time, revealing patterns and shifts across thethree core shared control dynamics (shared intensity, control duration, and control deception) that underpin our experiential spaces.
In our study of "Hidden Touch", these trajectories encompass transitions between varying levels of these dynamics. Additionally, themethod enabled us to analyse how player roles shifted between
Insider and Decoder over the three-day study, ofering insights into
how role changes in the game shape perceptions and engagementwith inter-body interactions.
This mapping spans across three experiential spaces – Threshold,Tolerance, and Precision – that collectively form our overarching“Shared Bodily Fusion” framework. Designed as an analytical tool,
this framework helps us examine the complex nature of IBIs withingame design, emphasising how they can enrich digital bodily gaming experiences. Our framework highlights the delicate interplay
among shared control, emotional consequence, and strategic engagement, all of which are essential to creating compelling andmeaningful digital bodily play experiences. Additionally, we ofer
design implications for each experiential space, providing valuable insights for researchers and designers interested in exploring
the design of social bodily games using our approach. While thetrajectories illustrate general trends, player experiences were notalways strictly sequential. Progression through the experiential
spaces could be fuid, with players occasionally revisiting earlier
stages or demonstrating aspects of multiple spaces simultaneously.
This fuidity refects players adapting to the technology and the
evolving nature of their interactions. By explicating this progression within the spaces, we emphasise the transformative impact of
IBIs on social play.

6.1

Threshold: Experiential Space of
Negotiating Shared Intensity and Bodily
Comfort

The term "Threshold" describes the initial stage of the "Shared Bodily Fusion" experience, marking a transition for players into a spacecharacterised by a focus on the shared intensity of bodily sensations and their negotiation of mutual comfort with involuntary
movements. In this space, players cautiously explore the boundaries of shared bodily control, experimenting with varying levels
of intensity (input) while navigating a sense of bodily comfort (orlack thereof) in response to their involuntary movements (output),as introduced in Section 3.4.1. Importantly, the threshold is not
fxed but rather dynamically negotiated between players. Whatconstitutes the tipping point, the moment where shared intensity
and involuntary movements become the central focus of their experience depends on each player’s sensitivity, risk tolerance, andtheir evolving social dynamic within the game. The purpose of the

DIS ’24, July 01–05, 2024, IT University of Copenhagen, Denmark

Patibanda et al.

(Output)
MutualComfort

Quadrant 3

Harnessing thesensations ofshared control

Quadrant 4Interpersonalbonding

Tactility of
IBIs(Input)

Low Level of
Shared Intensity

Unpredictability ofshared control

Socialfamiliarity

Acclimatisation
Variedperceptions

Adaptation
Quadrant 1

High Level of
Shared Intensity

MutualDiscomfort

Quadrant 2

Figure 8: The trajectory of player experiences in the experiential space of “Threshold”.
Threshold space is to establish the foundation for the "Shared Bodily Fusion" experience. It is where players begin to calibrate theirunderstanding of shared control, explore what is mutually acceptable, and discover how intensity can be strategically manipulated
for gameplay.
In Hidden Touch, this negotiation centres on fnding a balance
between mutually comfortable and uncomfortable sensations in ashared EMS intensity level, often requiring at least one player totolerate some discomfort. The Threshold space is presented along
two axes: the x-axis represents a continuum from “Low to HighLevel of Shared Intensity”, while the y-axis represents a continuum
from “Uncomfortable to Comfortable Mutual Comfort” (Figure 8).
Participants initially found the Shared Intensity experience uncomfortable (Quadrant 1). However, they quickly adapted to thebodily sensations, addressing their initial apprehensions (Theme 1).
This aligns with prior work [64, 81, 123], suggesting that players
gradually adapt to bodily actuations caused by sharing control. In
Hidden Touch, the absence of audio feedback about the timing of
involuntary bodily actuations – a feature present in some priorstudies [121] – did not hinder this adaptation.
As players continued to engage with shared bodily control throughtouch, they began to recognise nuanced emotions evoked by interactions, such as “embarrassment” or “comfort” (Themes 1 and 2).
These fndings highlight the profound nature of amplifed touchbased IBIs, enabled by body-actuating technologies, which can elicit
deeply personal experiences [84, 93, 117]. Furthermore, our study
suggests that thoughtfully introducing discomfort into interactive
experiences [146] can enhance gameplay [54, 84, 117].
As the experience transitions to Quadrant 2, players’ perceptionsof shared control become closely linked with their “familiarity” withco-players (Theme 1). Repeated engagement with the discomfort oftouch (Themes 2 and 3) cultivates “Social Familiarity” [31, 35], leading to greater comfort over time (Quadrant 3). These experiences
support the idea that repeated exposure to initially uncomfortable

IBIs can foster enriching social play experiences by allowing players
to adapt [18]. Through this progression, players suggested that they
develop interpersonal bonds and laughter during gameplay (Theme2). These observations align with Sicart’s insights, highlighting thepotential of mediated computers to amplify play’s social dimensions
and create long-lasting impact beyond the immediate experience[139].
Upon reaching Quadrant 4, players seemed to attain a mutual
level of comfort, having fully adapted to the dynamics of sharedintensity. The IBIs, facilitated by the mediating computer, enable
players to perceive touch as transcending mere bodily interaction,
fostering a “shared psychological position” (Theme 1). This fnding
echoes prior research [50, 58, 72, 73] on technology-augmented
interactions cultivating empathy. However, our “Shared Bodily
Fusion” approach uniquely emphasises the direct experience ofanother player’s bodily sensations, potentially deepening the empathetic connection.

6.1.1 Design implication 1: Consider designing systems that allow
players to control the level of shared intensity. Prior work [50, 117]highlights the value of gradually easing into shared control scenarios rather than abrupt introductions to new sensations and experiences. Our study emphasises the beneft of allowing participants
to control the shared intensity level to calibrate the social EMS
system. Participants could start at a comfortable intensity, warming
up to the simultaneous and involuntary bodily movements. They
gradually increased intensity as they became acclimated to the EMS
system during gameplay. Consequently, when developing systems
that involve shared bodily control for IBIs, we suggest future designers consider creating design features that give players control
over the shared intensity levels. Such functionality not only assists
users in gradually warming up to shared control but also ensures aconsensual and comfortable exploration space.

Shared Bodily Fusion: Leveraging Inter-Body Electrical Muscle Stimulation for Social Play6.1.2 Design implication 2: Consider designing systems that distribute input and output across the body. Prior work suggests that
integrating discomfort in the design of social bodily games [18, 60]
can help foster positive gameplay experiences. Our study supports
these fndings, but it also indicated that distributing discomfort byusing varied input and output locations can also foster deeper interpersonal connections. Specifcally, our social EMS system utilised
touch at one body location (e.g., foot as input) to actuate muscles
at another location (e.g., hand as output), difusing the focal pointof discomfort and engaging the players more holistically. This technique of spreading sensory experiences across the body not only
mitigates localised discomfort but also enhances engagement andenjoyment. Therefore, we recommend that designers of shared control systems explore strategies for distributing input and output
locations across the body to optimise the user experience.

6.2

Tolerance: Experiential Space of Exploring
Control Duration and Bodily Awareness

DIS ’24, July 01–05, 2024, IT University of Copenhagen, Denmark

their gameplay with self-created rules (Theme 3). This behaviour
demonstrates players’ autonomy and creative agency, embodying“self-efacing play” [47] as they actively deviate from establishedgameplay paths in favour of experimentation driven by curiosityand exploration.
By Quadrant 4, players had mastered the tactical use of touch duration, communicating through tactile IBIs and interpreting bodily
responses as elements of a shared narrative (Themes 1 & 2). This
progression aligns with the concept of "Erfahrung" [105], emphasising how active engagement with the diverse sensations of sharedcontrol duration shapes players’ bodily awareness and connection.
This transcends simple gameplay, suggesting narrative potential
for meaningful interactive experiences.
6.2.1 Design implication 1: Consider designing systems that givecontrol over the duration of inter-body interactions. Prior work advocates for control over players’ bodily actions in digital bodily play
[107, 133]. Such control not only fosters "bodily intelligence" [49],but also allows players to explore and understand the nuances of
their interactions, encouraging deep engagement and developmentof personal play strategies [105]. Our fndings reveal that participants leveraged shared control to strategically navigate gameplay,adjusting the duration of shared control via the social EMS system
to tailor their experience. This fexibility enabled a heightened senseof bodily awareness, allowing players to choose between swift or
exaggerated movements as part of their tactical approach. Based onthese experiences, we suggest designers consider designing systems
that allow users to control the duration of IBIs, to encourage a more
personal and immersive gameplay experience.

The term “Tolerance” describes the experiential space where players explore how the duration of shared control (input) and theconsequent bodily awareness (output) becomes pivotal to their experience, as introduced in Section 3.4. Within this space, players
manipulate the length of touch, ranging from brief to extended, toinfuence the intensity and visibility of their bodily responses. They
strategically communicate through these tactile IBIs, developing atolerance for varying degrees of bodily discomfort or awkwardness
induced by shared control. Individual comfort levels with extended
shared control play a signifcant role in how far players venture into
this space. Players collaboratively negotiate the extent to which
6.3 Precision: Experiential Space of Visibility
they are comfortable with prolonged bodily awareness and theand Deception in Shared Bodily Control
strategic benefts it ofers within the game. The purpose of theTolerance space is to allow players to refne their understanding of
The term "Precision" encapsulates the experiential space where
players strategically manage the visibility of their bodily actions
how shared control translates into bodily experiences over time. It(output) through IBIs, emphasising control deception (input) as
fosters a deeper awareness of their own bodily responses and theintroduced in Section 3.4. Within this space, they can choose beability to interpret nuanced cues from co-players, enhancing theirability to communicate strategically through shared bodily control.
tween covert (subtle) and overt (exaggerated) movements to create
In Hidden Touch, players have direct control over the duration
diferent gameplay dynamics. This ability to manipulate the percepof their shared interactions. The Tolerance space is visualised along
tibility of their bodily actions fosters a nuanced understanding andtwo axes: the x-axis represents a continuum from “Brief to Extended
tactical execution of shared bodily control. How far players venture
Shared Control”, while the y-axis represents a continuum from “Lowinto the Precision space depends on their ability to deceive andto High Level of Bodily Awareness” (Figure 9).
read the bodily cues of their opponents. Players continuously assess
Initially (Quadrant 1), players discovered a unique form of technology- their opponent’s skill level and adjust their deception strategies,
enhanced bonding through shared bodily control, marked by laughaccordingly, creating a dynamic interplay. The purpose of the Preter and close strategising (Theme 2). As they progressed (Quadrant
cision space is for players to develop a sophisticated understanding2), they became attuned to variations in the intensity (Theme 2)of how to exploit their bodily responses for tactical advantage. It
associated with diferent durations of shared control. This fnding
encourages deception, social deduction, and the ability to adapt
on becoming aware of the varied sensations caused by the diferent
strategies based on their opponent’s skill.
durations of shared control echoes previous research that suggests
In Hidden Touch, players can strategically choose between subtle
engaging in bodily play enhances bodily awareness [95, 105]. Thisand exaggerated bodily actions, directly infuencing the visibility
increased awareness facilitated strategic communication amongof their movements to their opponents. The Precision space isplayers (Theme 2), highlighting the concept of “bodily intelligence”
visualised along two axes: the x-axis represents a continuum from[49], where an individual is aware of their bodily actions but also
“Covert to Overt Shared Control”, while the y-axis represents aknows what to do with this awareness [105].
continuum from “Low to High Visibility of Bodily Actions” (Figure
As participants navigated into Quadrant 3, our fndings revealed10).
a refnement in their interpretation of shared control. Players exInitially (Quadrant 1), players focused on mastering the physiohibited a mastery over the efects of touch’s duration, innovating
logical sensations of shared bodily control, emphasising strategies

DIS ’24, July 01–05, 2024, IT University of Copenhagen, Denmark

Patibanda et al.

(Output)
High Level of
Bodily AwarenessQuadrant 3

Quadrant 4

Fine-tuneinterpretationof shared control

Proficiency inshared tactile control(Input)Brief
Shared Control

Extended
Shared Control
Technology
enhanced bonding

Communicate
strategicallyQuadrant 1

Quadrant 2

Low Level of
Bodily Awareness

Figure 9: The trajectory of player experiences in the experiential space of “Tolerance”.
(Output)
Low Visibility ofBodily Actions
Quadrant 3

Quadrant 4Experimenting
with physicalenvironment

Tactilechoreography(Input)Covert ShareControl
Strategic
vision play

Overt Shared
ControlMultisensory
mastery

Culturalcommunication

Quadrant 1

Quadrant 2

High Visibility ofBodily Actions

Figure 10: The trajectory of player experiences in the experiential space of “Precision”.
linked to vision, direction, and body movement synchronisation(Theme 3). This emphasis on multisensory engagement (Theme
3) enhanced players’ ability to predict opponents’ actions, whichaligns with prior work [67, 118] showcasing the benefts of multisensory experiences for understanding gameplay and overall enjoyment.
Progressing to Quadrant 2, players began using overt gesturesthat challenged conventional bodily communication. This fostereddeeper exploration of each other’s cultures and enhanced interpersonal communication (Theme 3). The shared bodily control becamea bridge for intercultural connection, appearing to support thenotion that digital games can catalyse cross-cultural appreciation[139].
In Quadrant 3, players experimented with the physical environment to optimise covert actions (Theme 3). This highlights how
physical and spatial factors can shape shared bodily control, supporting prior theories on environmental infuences [62, 139] andextending them within the context of social bodily play.
Advancing to Quadrant 4, players engaged in a rhythmic form ofinteraction. They approached IBIs with a tactical awareness, carefully balancing overt and covert actions in a manner resemblingtactile “choreography” (Theme 3). This phase demonstrates how
participants adapted to the dynamics of deception and visibility,

Shared Bodily Fusion: Leveraging Inter-Body Electrical Muscle Stimulation for Social Playdeveloping nuanced shared control and choreographed interaction.
This form of embodied communication suggests the potential fortechnology-mediated play [62, 139] to promote deeper interpersonal understanding, a potential precursor to empathy.
6.3.1 Design implication: Consider designing systems that incorporate synchronous and asynchronous IBIs. Prior research highlighted
that bodily actions, undertaken independently or coordinating witheach other, can enhance player engagement and interaction [104].
In our study, players engaged in both synchronous (coordinated)
and asynchronous (independent) IBIs to enrich their gameplay
experiences. This fexibility for engaging in inter-body interactions enhanced players’ overall engagement. Consequently, ourfndings support this prior work [104], and we suggest that designers consider designing systems that incorporate synchronousand asynchronous IBIs to enhance gameplay dynamics and player
engagement.

7

POTENTIAL PROSPECTS AND ETHICALCONSIDERATIONS OF OUR APPROACH

This section delves into the broader implications and future prospectsof the "Shared Bodily Fusion" approach. We extend the conversation beyond the immediate context of digital gaming to envisage its
potential impact across various domains. Furthermore, we address
the ethical implications that accompany the integration of intimate
technologies, such as EMS, when designing interactive systems.

7.1

The Future of Shared Bodily Fusion

Our “Shared Bodily Fusion” framework proposes innovative avenues for making Inter-Body Interactions (IBIs) intrinsic in digital games, with potential applications extending beyond mere entertainment. Echoing Mueller et al. [104], our approach aims tobroaden the horizons of social bodily interactions mediated by technology. For example, our framework can inspire new forms of athletic training and competition [122, 147] in the felds of SportsHCI[37, 98, 100] and Superhuman sports [68]. This can be done, forexample, by blending athletes’ physical abilities with subtle technological augmentation using BATs for richer shared control experiences, mirroring those found in contact sports like boxing,
martial arts, basketball, and handball [100]. Our framework could
also be considered when designing health applications, particularlyin therapeutic settings like motor-rehabilitation [91]. Given thattraditional therapy often grapples with issues of engagement andadherence and the need for treatment to occur in a co-located setting [44], introducing therapy with playful EMS experiences could
shift patients’ perception of therapy, and also aid in coming up
with creative solutions to treat patients over distance. This shift,albeit subtle, could impact therapy outcomes by aligning physicalrehabilitation with an enjoyable and immersive experience [10, 44].
Moreover, our framework has the potential to inspire investigations
beyond the immediate context of game design. For instance, it could
be adapted to facilitate shared bodily experiences over a distance[94, 97, 142]. Technologies such as haptic feedback systems [23, 127]
and remotely controlled actuators [28] might enable a sense of embodied interaction despite geographic separation. Additionally, theframework could fnd applications in embodied learning, where

DIS ’24, July 01–05, 2024, IT University of Copenhagen, Denmark

shared control simulations could help students grasp scientifc orhistorical concepts through direct physical experiences [92].
In contemplating the future of our approach, we also refectedon the limitations of our mediating computer (social EMS system).
Our system does not sense when players change their input, forexample, when they change location or intensity of touch. Our
intention was to retain the authenticity of a traditional gaming
experience while giving players options to amplify this experienceof shared control using a mediating computer. While this allowed
participants to have full control over their experience, incorporating
sensing technologies can help create an afective feedback loop
(e.g., [26, 60]), perhaps enhancing such shared control experiences.
This afective loop can then be used to augment other co-locatedtraditional social games, such as Twister [86] and Three-legged
race [136], possibly even allowing players to experience these colocated IBIs over a distance [14]. Moreover, such explorations could
also help augment physical games [83], such as arm-wrestling,where technology amplifes physical interactions in the pursuit ofbalancing such exertion games [11]. However, a challenge lies here:
What is the extent to which technological integration should mirror
and/or amplify IBIs while maintaining their authenticity?
As we look to the future, several other refective questions arise.
How do we ensure that these experiences remain inclusive and adaptable to diverse user needs? How can we balance the technologicalcomplexities with user-friendly interfaces to make these experiences
widely accessible? And perhaps most importantly, how do we navigate
the ethical landscape that accompanies integrating such intimate
technologies into everyday interactions?

7.2

Ethical Considerations

As we look towards the future of engaging with our approach, we
follow Friedman [43] and wish to not only advance the narrative
about technology but also to refect on its corresponding ethicalconsiderations. Our initial steps included developing a study designthat received institutional ethics approval. As suggested by prior
EMS work [121, 145], we followed three guidelines to conduct ourstudy to balance ethical responsibility alongside our technological
exploration. Firstly, "non-malefcence" focuses on minimising risks,
which we did by educating our participants on EMS usage andsupervising their gameplay during the pre-study phase. Secondly,"benefcence" involves clearly communicating the study’s benefts,
which we detailed in our explanatory statement. Lastly, "respect forautonomy" was upheld by securing explicit consent for each aspectof our study, including the use of demographic data and adherence
to EMS exclusion criteria [64].
In our case, another ethical issue about privacy and consent is thetouch’s personal nature [71]. To ensure participants’ well-being andcomfort with mediating computers that can amplify such IBIs [80],we recruited those who are familiar with each other. Additionally,
our approach opens several other ethical considerations:• Accessibility and inclusivity: While the production andconsumption of BATs like EMS is increasing [115], the ethicalimperative is not only to improve accessibility but also toensure that they are inclusive. This need is highlighted byresearchers interested in “Assistive Augmentation” [109], i.e.,“integrating technology with all human bodies, regardlessDIS ’24, July 01–05, 2024, IT University of Copenhagen, Denmarkof one’s physical abilities, to provide enhanced perceptive
capabilities” [109] raises several questions, including: How
can our approach be made adaptable to cater to individuals
with diverse physical abilities and sensory experiences? Can
technology be adapted to provide equivalent engagement forsuch individuals?
• Acceptability in diferent settings: Using our approachin less familiar settings, such as workplaces and educational
institutions, would raise questions about social acceptability[66, 113]. What would be the norms for social acceptance? Does
the change in personal boundaries efect the perception of technologically supported IBIs and, by extension, the experience’s
dynamics?
• Cultural sensitivities of IBIs: Diferent cultures perceive
shared control, such as via touch in varied forms (e.g., conveying emotions [13] or communicating non-verbally [126]).
Moreover, what may be considered a casual form of interaction in one culture could be seen as intrusive or even taboo inanother [13]. This raises questions such as: Can our approachbe applied to foster cross-cultural empathy? How should it
account for variations in personal boundaries when engaging
with IBIs in the same cultural context? How do we cater to thisintracultural diversity, ensuring comfort and consent?
Although these ethical perspectives are not exhaustive, we seek tocreate a starting point for dialogue among researchers, industry, andpolicymakers. With this dialogue, we hope to shape a technologicalfuture that respects human needs, upholds autonomy, and protects
the well-being of all.

8

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE WORK

Our study has some limitations. We did not study the Hidden Touch
game with players groups who were unfamiliar with each other.
However, even within familiar groups, participants discovered newthings about themselves, such as their apprehensiveness about
showing their bare feet. Future work could study strangers playing
the game. Our study also focused on one game to showcase ourapproach. While this game helped us to generate new knowledge
about IBIs that our approach could facilitate, future work could
explore the augmentation of other traditional games to evaluate
our work’s generalisability. Moreover, the number of players canbe scaled using our system, which future work might consider tofurther understand our work’s implications.
A technical limitation of our work was that players had to manually decide who touched and enter their selection to update thescore. While our study observations suggested that this manualgame engagement promoted camaraderie, future researchers could
automate such experiences using touch-sensing mechanisms fromprior work [59] to understand how they infuence player experiences. We also note the challenge of attaining balanced control(section 3.3.1) between players, which is an ongoing challenge facedby the HCI research community and is being addressed throughauto-calibration works [65].
While our safety measures proved efective in our study context, it is important to acknowledge that ensuring the safe use of
EMS across multiple individuals remains an area for continuous
improvement. Our current approach relies on player awareness andPatibanda et al.

adherence to instructions, but future work could prioritise more robust safeguards. These could include real-time monitoring systems
to detect potentially unsafe current levels, circuit designs that intrinsically limit current, and standardised procedural protocols withclear signals to immediately pause the electrical circuits if a player
expresses any discomfort. By addressing these safety complexities,
the feld can ensure the responsible and ethical development ofshared bodily control experiences.

9

CONCLUSION

In this work, we proposed the "Shared Bodily Fusion" approach –whereby players fuse their bodies through a mediating computer
to create a shared input and output system that facilitates IBIs
intrinsic to gameplay. Inspired by our experiments informed by ourprior work and traditional social play, we designed “Hidden Touch”
to showcase this approach. Through a study with 27 participants(in groups of three), we crafted three player experience themes.
Informed by these fndings, we mapped their trajectories acrossour three experiential spaces – Threshold, Tolerance, and Precision– which collectively form our design framework. This framework
supports the creation of future digital games with intrinsic IBIs,
facilitating both design and anticipation of user experiences, andultimately promoting the benefts of traditional social play.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was made possible through the support of the Australian
Research Council (DP190102068, DP200102612, LP210200656), with
contributions from Rakesh Patibanda, Aryan Saini, Nathalie Overdevest, Elise van den Hoven, and Florian ’Floyd’ Mueller. We extend
our gratitude to our study participants and those featured in theaccompanying visuals, who kindly provided consent for their inclusion.

REFERENCES[1] [n. d.]. https://www.nintendo.com/store/products/1-2-switch-switch/,https://www.nintendo.com/store/products/1-2-switch-switch/[2] [n. d.]. https://www.playworks.org/game-library/blob-tag/[3] [n. d.]. https://www.ign.com/games/bounden/articles[4] [n. d.]. https://66ft.com.au/products/digi-ems[5] [n. d.]. https://core-electronics.com.au/solder-able-breadboard.html
https://apcp.csp.org.uk/content/guide-use-electrical-stimulation[6] [n. d.].
paediatric-neurodisability[7] 2017. Introduction. Oxford University Press, 0. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:
oso/9780190210465.002.0007[8] 2023. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Footsies&oldid=1144441378
Page Version ID: 1144441378.
[9] Vero Vanden Abeele, Katta Spiel, Lennart Nacke, Daniel Johnson, and Kathrin
Gerling. 2020. Development and validation of the player experience inventory:
A scale to measure player experiences at the level of functional and psychosocial
consequences. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 135 (March
2020), 102370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2019.102370[10] Deepti Aggarwal, Bernd Ploderer, Thuong Hoang, Frank Vetere, and Mark
Bradford. 2020. Physiotherapy Over a Distance: The Use of Wearable Technology
for Video Consultations in Hospital Settings. ACM Transactions on Computingfor Healthcare 1, 4 (Sept. 2020), 21:1–21:29. https://doi.org/10.1145/3383305[11] David Altimira, Florian “Floyd” Mueller, Gun Lee, Jenny Clarke, and Mark
Billinghurst. 2014. Towards understanding balancing in exertion games. In
Proceedings of the 11th Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology (ACE ’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA,
1–8. https://doi.org/10.1145/2663806.2663838[12] AmbrettiA., PalumboC., and Elias Kourkoutas. 2019. Traditional Games Body
and Movement. Journal of Sports Science 7, 1 (Feb. 2019). https://doi.org/10.
17265/2332-7839/2019.01.005

Shared Bodily Fusion: Leveraging Inter-Body Electrical Muscle Stimulation for Social Play[13] Michael Argyle. 1988. Bodily Communication (2 ed.). Routledge, London. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203753835[14] Thomas Beelen, Robert Blaauboer, Noraly Bovenmars, Bob Loos, Lukas Zielonka,
Robby van Delden, Gijs Huisman, and Dennis Reidsma. 2013. The Art ofTug of War: Investigating the Infuence of Remote Touch on Social Presence
in a Distributed Rope Pulling Game. In Advances in Computer Entertainment(Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Dennis Reidsma, Haruhiro Katayose, andAnton Nijholt (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 246–257. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-03161-3_17[15] Bryan G. Behrenshausen. 2007. Toward a (Kin)Aesthetic of Video Gaming: The
Case of Dance Dance Revolution. Games and Culture 2, 4 (Oct. 2007), 335–354.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412007310810[16] Steve Benford and Gabriella Giannachi. 2008. Temporal trajectories in sharedinteractive narratives. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors
in Computing Systems (CHI ’08). Association for Computing Machinery, New
York, NY, USA, 73–82. https://doi.org/10.1145/1357054.1357067[17] Steve Benford, Gabriella Giannachi, Boriana Koleva, and Tom Rodden. 2009.
From interaction to trajectories: designing coherent journeys through user experiences. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems (CHI ’09). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA,709–718. https://doi.org/10.1145/1518701.1518812[18] Steve Benford, Chris Greenhalgh, Gabriella Giannachi, Brendan Walker, Joe
Marshall, and Tom Rodden. 2012. Uncomfortable interactions. In Proceedingsof the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’12).
Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2005–2014. https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2208347 event-place: Austin, Texas, USA.
[19] Charles Bond and Linda Titus. 1983. Social facilitation: A meta-analysis of 241
studies. Psychological bulletin 94 (Oct. 1983), 265–92. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0033-2909.94.2.265[20] Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology.
Qualitative Research in Psychology 3, 2 (Jan. 2006), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.
1191/1478088706qp063oa[21] Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2012. Thematic analysis. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, US, 57–71. https://doi.org/10.1037/13620004[22] Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2019. Refecting on refexive thematic
analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health 11, 4 (Aug. 2019),
589–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806[23] Scott Brave and Andrew Dahley. 1997. inTouch: a medium for haptic interpersonal communication. In CHI ’97 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in
Computing Systems (CHI EA ’97). Association for Computing Machinery, New
York, NY, USA, 363–364. https://doi.org/10.1145/1120212.1120435[24] Oğuz Turan Buruk and Oğuzhan Özcan. 2014. DubTouch: exploring human tohuman touch interaction for gaming in double sided displays. In Proceedingsof the 8th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Fun, Fast, Foundational (NordiCHI ’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY,
USA, 333–342. https://doi.org/10.1145/2639189.2639234[25] Roger Caillois. 2001. Man, Play, and Games. University of Illinois Press. GoogleBooks-ID: bDjOPsjzfC4C.
[26] Mert Canat, Mustafa Ozan Tezcan, Celalettin Yurdakul, Eran Tiza, Buğra Can Sefercik, Idil Bostan, Oğuz Turan Buruk, Tilbe Göksun, and Oğuzhan Özcan. 2016.
Sensation: Measuring the Efects of a Human-to-Human Social Touch Based Controller on the Player Experience. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 3944–3955. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858418[27] Alan Chamberlain, Andy Crabtree, Tom Rodden, Matt Jones, and Yvonne Rogers.
2012. Research in the wild: understanding “in the wild” approaches to designand development. In Proceedings of the Designing Interactive Systems Conference(DIS ’12). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 795–796.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2317956.2318078[28] Angela Chan. 2019. “I Need a Hug Right Now”: Afective Support ThroughRemote Touch Technology. In 2019 8th International Conference on Afective
Computing and Intelligent Interaction Workshops and Demos (ACIIW). 40–44.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ACIIW.2019.8925135[29] Bo-Han Chen, Sai-Keung Wong, Wei-Che Chang, and Roy Ping-Hao Fan. 2021.
Towards Social Interaction between 1st and 2nd Person Perspectives on Bodily
Play. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 34th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST ’21 Adjunct). Association for Computing
Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1145/3474349.3480211[30] Lung-Pan Cheng, Patrick Lühne, Pedro Lopes, Christoph Sterz, and Patrick
Baudisch. 2014. Haptic Turk: A Motion Platform Based on People. In Proceedingsof the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’14).
Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 3463–3472. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557101 event-place: Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
[31] Kenny Ching, Enrico Forti, and Evan Rawley. 2021. Extemporaneous Coordination in Specialist Teams: The Familiarity Complementarity. Organization
Science 32, 1 (Jan. 2021), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2020.1376

DIS ’24, July 01–05, 2024, IT University of Copenhagen, Denmark[32] Brigid Costello. 2014. Rhythms of Kinesthetic Empathy. Leonardo 47, 3 (June2014), 258–259. https://doi.org/10.1162/LEON_a_00768[33] Valdemar Danry, Pat Pataranutaporn, Adam Haar Horowitz, Paul Strohmeier,
Josh Andres, Rakesh Patibanda, Zhuying Li, Takuto Nakamura, Jun Nishida,
Pedro Lopes, Felipe León, Andrea Stevenson Won, Dag Svanæs, Florian ‘Floyd’
Mueller, Pattie Maes, Sang-won Leigh, and Nathan Semertzidis. 2021. Do Cyborgs dream of Electric Limbs? Experiential Factors in Human-Computer Integration Design and Evaluation. In Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conferenceon Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’21). Association for Computing
Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411763.3441355[34] Christine Dearnley. 2005. A refection on the use of semi-structured interviews.
Nurse researcher 13, 1 (2005).
[35] David J. Deming. 2017. The Growing Importance of Social Skills in the Labor
Market*. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 132, 4 (Nov. 2017), 1593–1640.
https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjx022[36] Ansgar E. Depping, Regan L. Mandryk, Colby Johanson, Jason T. Bowey, and
Shelby C. Thomson. 2016. Trust Me: Social Games are Better than Social
Icebreakers at Building Trust. In Proceedings of the 2016 Annual Symposium on
Computer-Human Interaction in Play (CHI PLAY ’16). Association for Computing
Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 116–129. https://doi.org/10.1145/2967934.
2968097[37] Don Samitha Elvitigala, Armağan Karahanoğlu, Andrii Matviienko, Laia
Turmo Vidal, Dees Postma, Michael Jones, Maria F. Montoya, Daniel Harrison,Lars Elbæk, Florian Daiber, Lisa Anneke Burr, Rakesh Patibanda, Paolo Buono,
Perttu Hämäläinen, Robby van Delden, Regina Bernhaupt, Xipei Ren, Vincent
van Rheden, Fabio Zambetta, Elise van den Hoven, Carine Lallemand, Dennis
Reidsma, and Florian ‘Floyd’ Mueller. 2024. Grand Challenges in SportsHCI. In
CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, Hawaii).
https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642285[38] Farzam Farbiz, Zhou Hao Yu, Corey Manders, and Waqas Ahmad. 2007. An
Electrical Muscle Stimulation Haptic Feedback for Mixed Reality Tennis Game.
In ACM SIGGRAPH 2007 Posters (SIGGRAPH ’07). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 140–es. https://doi.org/10.1145/1280720.1280873
event-place: San Diego, California.
[39] Dea Zahra Farwati, Mursidah Rahmah, and Entis Sutisna. 2018. THE APPLICATION OF ICE BREAKING ACTIVITIES IN TEACHING ENGLISH TO JUNIORHIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS. Journal of English Teaching and Linguistics Studies(JET Li) 1, 11 (Jan. 2018), 16–26. https://doi.org/10.55215/jetli.v1i1.1489[40] Mauro FM Ferrao, Kelly O’Hara, and Frutuoso GM Silva. 2012. An Exergame
using the Playstation Move Controller. (2012).
[41] Tim Fields and Brandon Cotton. 2012. Chapter Two - What Is a Social Game?
Morgan Kaufmann, Boston, 7–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-240-817668.00002-6[42] Luann D. Fortune. 2011. Essences of Somatic Awareness as Captured in a Verbally
Directed Body Scan: A Phenomenological Case Study. Schutzian Research. A
Yearbook of Lifeworldly Phenomenology and Qualitative Social Science Volume 3(2011), 107–119.
[43] Batya Friedman and Peter H. Kahn. 2002. Human values, ethics, and design. L.
Erlbaum Associates Inc., USA, 1177–1201.
[44] Michael J. Fu, Anna Curby, Ryan Suder, Benjamin Katholi, and Jayme S. Knutson.
2020. Home-Based Functional Electrical Stimulation-Assisted Hand Therapy
Video Games for Children With Hemiplegia: Development and Proof-of-Concept.
IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering 28, 6 (June2020), 1461–1470. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNSRE.2020.2992036[45] Thomas Fuchs. 2017. Intercorporeality and Interafectivity. Oxford University
Press, 0. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190210465.003.0001[46] Catherine Garvey. 1974. Some Properties of Social Play. Merrill-Palmer Quarterlyof Behavior and Development 20, 3 (1974), 163–180. https://www.jstor.org/stable/
23084524
Designing for homo ludens.
https:[47] William W. Gaver. 2002.
//www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Designing-for-homo-ludens-Gaver/d1028cd9761c320fcb6ed70957d4000f7add9e76[48] William W. Gaver, Jacob Beaver, and Steve Benford. 2003. Ambiguity as aresource for design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors
in Computing Systems (CHI ’03). Association for Computing Machinery, New
York, NY, USA, 233–240. https://doi.org/10.1145/642611.642653[49] Jim Gavin and Margaret Moore. 2010. Body intelligence: a guide to selfattunement. IDEA Fitness Journal 7, 11 (2010).
[50] Sommer Elizabeth Gentry. 2005. Dancing Cheek to Cheek: Haptic Communication
Between Partner Dancers and Swing as a Finite State Machine. Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer
Science. Google-Books-ID: UUigNwAACAAJ.
[51] P. Gill and J. Baillie. 2018. Interviews and focus groups in qualitative research:an update for the digital age. British Dental Journal 225, 77 (Oct. 2018), 668–672.
https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2018.815[52] Erving Gofman. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1st edition ed.).
Anchor Books, New York.

DIS ’24, July 01–05, 2024, IT University of Copenhagen, Denmark[53] Erving Gofman. 2013. Encounters; Two Studies in the Sociology of Interaction.
Martino Fine Books, Mansfeld Centre, Conn. https://www.amazon.com.au/
Encounters-Two-Studies-Sociology-Interaction/dp/1614274401[54] Chad Phoenix Rose Gowler and Ioanna Iacovides. 2019. “Horror, Guilt andShame” – Uncomfortable Experiences in Digital Games. In Proceedings of theAnnual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (CHI PLAY ’19).
Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 325–337. https://doi.org/10.1145/3311350.3347179 event-place: Barcelona, Spain.
[55] Saul Greenberg, Nicolai Marquardt, Till Ballendat, Rob Diaz-Marino, andMiaosen Wang. 2011. Proxemic interactions: the new ubicomp? Interactions 18,
1 (Jan. 2011), 42–50. https://doi.org/10.1145/1897239.1897250[56] Tomasz Grzyb and Dariusz Dolinski. 2021. The Field Study in Social Psychology:
How to Conduct Research Outside of a Laboratory Setting? Routledge.
[57] Ge Guo, Gilly Leshed, and Keith Evan Green. 2023. “I normally wouldn’t talkwith strangers”: Introducing a Socio-Spatial Interface for Fostering Togetherness
Between Strangers. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors
in Computing Systems (CHI ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New
York, NY, USA, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3581325[58] Mariam Hassib, Max Pfeifer, Stefan Schneegass, Michael Rohs, and FlorianAlt. 2017. Emotion Actuator: Embodied Emotional Feedback through Electroencephalography and Electrical Muscle Stimulation. In Proceedings of the2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 6133–6146. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025953[59] Mads Hobye and Jonas Löwgren. 2011. Touching a stranger: Designing forengaging experience in embodied interaction. International Journal of Design 5,
3 (2011), 31–48.
[60] Amy Huggard, Anushka De Mel, Jayden Garner, Cagdas “Chad” Toprak, Alan
Chatham, and Florian “Floyd” Mueller. 2013. Musical embrace: exploring social
awkwardness in digital games. In Proceedings of the 2013 ACM international joint
conference on Pervasive and ubiquitous computing (UbiComp ’13). Association
for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 725–728. https://doi.org/10.
1145/2493432.2493518[61] Johan Huizinga. 1971. Homo ludens: A study of the play element in culture.
Beacon Press, Kettering, OH. Citation Key: huizinga1971homo.
[62] Katherine Isbister. 2010. Enabling Social Play: A Framework for Design and
Evaluation. Springer, London, 11–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-9633_2[63] Katherine Isbister and Christopher DiMauro. 2011. Waggling the Form Baton:
Analyzing Body-Movement-Based Design Patterns in Nintendo Wii Games, Toward
Innovation of New Possibilities for Social and Emotional Experience. Springer,
London, 63–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-85729-433-3_6[64] J. Knibbe, A. Alsmith, and K. Hornbæk. 2018. Experiencing Electrical Muscle
Stimulation. Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol. 2, 3 (Sept.
2018). https://doi.org/10.1145/3264928[65] Jarrod Knibbe, Paul Strohmeier, Sebastian Boring, and Kasper Hornbæk. 2017.
Automatic Calibration of High Density Electric Muscle Stimulation. Proceedingsof the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies 1, 3
(Sept. 2017), 68:1–68:17. https://doi.org/10.1145/3130933[66] Marion Koelle, Susanne Boll, Thomas Olsson, Julie Williamson, Halley Profta,
Shaun Kane, and Robb Mitchell. 2018. (Un)Acceptable!?! Re-thinking the Social
Acceptability of Emerging Technologies. In Extended Abstracts of the 2018 CHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’18). Association
for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1145/
3170427.3170620[67] Ernst Kruijf, Alexander Marquardt, Christina Trepkowski, Jonas Schild, andAndre Hinkenjann. 2015. Enhancing User Engagement in Immersive Gamesthrough Multisensory Cues. In 2015 7th International Conference on Games andVirtual Worlds for Serious Applications (VS-Games). 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1109/
VS-GAMES.2015.7295773[68] Kai Kunze, Kouta Minamizawa, Stephan Lukosch, Masahiko Inami, and Jun
Rekimoto. 2017. Superhuman Sports: Applying Human Augmentation to Physical Exercise. IEEE Pervasive Computing 16, 2 (March 2017), 14–17. https://doi.org/10.1109/MPRV.2017.35[69] Patri Lankoski, Stafan Björk, and Et Al. 2015. Game Research Methods: An
Overview. ETC Press.
[70] Daniel Leithinger, Sean Follmer, Alex Olwal, and Hiroshi Ishii. 2014. Physicaltelepresence: shape capture and display for embodied, computer-mediated remote collaboration. In Proceedings of the 27th annual ACM symposium on Userinterface software and technology (UIST ’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 461–470. https://doi.org/10.1145/2642918.2647377[71] Madelaine Ley and Nathan Rambukkana. 2021. Touching at a Distance: Digital
Intimacies, Haptic Platforms, and the Ethics of Consent. Science and Engineering
Ethics 27, 5 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00338-1[72] Xiang Li, Yuzheng Chen, Rakesh Patibanda, and Florian ‘Floyd’ Mueller. 2021.
vrCAPTCHA: Exploring CAPTCHA Designs in Virtual Reality. 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, 1–4.

Patibanda et al.

https://doi.org/10.1145/3411763.3451985[73] Xiang Li, Xiaohang Tang, Xin Tong, Rakesh Patibanda, Florian ‘Floyd’ Mueller,and Hai-Ning Liang. 2021. Myopic Bike and Say Hi: Games for Empathizing with
The Myopic. In Extended Abstracts of the 2021 Annual Symposium on ComputerHuman Interaction in Play (CHI PLAY ’21). Association for Computing Machinery,
New York, NY, USA, 333–338. https://doi.org/10.1145/3450337.3483505[74] 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[75] Zhuying Li, Rakesh Patibanda, Felix Brandmueller, Wei Wang, Kyle Berean,
Stefan Greuter, and Florian ‘Floyd’ Mueller. 2018. The Guts Game: Towards
Designing Ingestible Games. In Proceedings of the 2018 Annual Symposium on
Computer-Human Interaction in Play (CHI PLAY ’18). Association for Computing
Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 271–283. https://doi.org/10.1145/3242671.
3242681[76] Zhuying Li, Yan Wang, Jacob Sheahan, Beisi Jiang, Stefan Greuter, and Florian Floyd Mueller. 2020. InsideOut: Towards an Understanding of Designing
Playful Experiences with Imaging Capsules. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 601–613. https://doi.org/10.1145/3357236.3395484[77] Alphonso Lingis and Maurice Merleau-Ponty. 1969. The Visible and the Invisible(frst edition ed.). Northwestern University Press, Evanston, Ill.
[78] Robyn Longhurst. 2003. Semi-structured interviews and focus groups. Key
methods in geography 3, 2 (2003), 143–156.
[79] Pedro Lopes and Patrick Baudisch. 2017. Immense Power in a Tiny Package:
Wearables Based on Electrical Muscle Stimulation. IEEE Pervasive Computing
16, 3 (2017), 12–16. https://doi.org/10.1109/MPRV.2017.2940953[80] Pedro Lopes, Lewis L Chuang, and Pattie Maes. 2021. Physiological I/O. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–4. http://doi.org/10.
1145/3411763.3450407[81] Pedro Lopes, Alexandra Ion, Willi Mueller, Daniel Hofmann, Patrik Jonell, andPatrick 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/gj37np[82] Pedro Lopes, Sijing You, Alexandra Ion, and Patrick Baudisch. 2018. Adding
Force Feedback to Mixed Reality Experiences and Games Using Electrical Muscle
Stimulation. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–13.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174020[83] Joe Marshall, Conor Linehan, and Adrian Hazzard. 2016. Designing Brutal
Multiplayer Video Games. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’16). Association for Computing Machinery,
New York, NY, USA, 2669–2680. https://doi.org/10/gj6qks[84] Joe Marshall, Duncan Rowland, Stefan Rennick Egglestone, Steve Benford,
Brendan Walker, and Derek McAuley. 2011. Breath control of amusement rides.
In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 73–82.
https://doi.org/10/bmj3sj[85] Joe Marshall and Paul Tennent. 2017. Touchomatic: Interpersonal Touch Gaming
In The Wild. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Designing Interactive
Systems (DIS ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA,417–428. https://doi.org/10.1145/3064663.3064727[86] Matthew Martin, Jenna Gavin, Daniel Cermak-Sassenrath, Charles Walker, and
Ben Kenobi. 2013. Shadow showdown: twister in a digital space. In Proceedingsof The 9th Australasian Conference on Interactive Entertainment: Matters of Lifeand Death (IE ’13). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA,
1–2. https://doi.org/10.1145/2513002.2513027[87] Cynthia McDougall, Bishnu Hari Pandit, Mani Ram Banjade, Krishna Prasad
Paudel, Hemant Ojha, Manik Maharjan, Sushila Rana, Tara Bhattarai, andSushma Dangol. 2009. Annex B.: Experiential Activities and Games. 187–214
pages. https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep02108.15[88] Grifn McElroy. 2012. Folk Lore: How Johann Sebastian Joust is defning a newgaming genre. The Verge (2012).
[89] Yash Dhanpal Mehta, Rohit Ashok Khot, Rakesh Patibanda, and Florian ‘Floyd’
Mueller. 2018. Arm-A-Dine: Towards Understanding the Design of Playful
Embodied Eating Experiences. In Proceedings of the 2018 Annual Symposium on
Computer-Human Interaction in Play (CHI PLAY ’18). Association for Computing
Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 299–313. https://doi.org/10.1145/3242671.
3242710[90] Kenya Mejia and Svetlana Yarosh. 2017. A Nine-Item Questionnaire for Measuring the Social Disfordance of Mediated Social Touch Technologies. Proceedingsof the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 1, CSCW (Dec. 2017), 77:1–77:17.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3134712[91] Philip Mildner and Florian ‘Floyd’ Mueller. 2016. Design of Serious Games.
Springer International Publishing, Cham, 57–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3319-40612-1_3

Shared Bodily Fusion: Leveraging Inter-Body Electrical Muscle Stimulation for Social Play[92] Gordon Minaker, Oliver Schneider, Richard Davis, and Karon E. MacLean. 2016.
HandsOn: Enabling Embodied, Creative STEM e-learning with ProgrammingFree Force Feedback. In Haptics: Perception, Devices, Control, and Applications,
Fernando Bello, Hiroyuki Kajimoto, and Yon Visell (Eds.). Springer International
Publishing, Cham, 427–437. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42324-1_42[93] India Morrison. 2016. Keep Calm and Cuddle on: Social Touch as a Stress
Bufer. Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology 2, 4 (Dec. 2016), 344–362.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40750-016-0052-x[94] Florian Mueller, Stefan Agamanolis, and Rosalind Picard. 2003. Exertion interfaces: sports over a distance for social bonding and fun. In Proceedings of
the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’03). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 561–568. https://doi.org/10.1145/642611.642709[95] Florian Mueller, Richard Byrne, Josh Andres, and Rakesh Patibanda. 2018. Experiencing the Body as Play. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’18). Association for Computing Machinery,
New York, NY, USA, 1–13. https://doi.org/10/gj5sjr[96] Florian Mueller and Katherine Isbister. 2014. Movement-based game guidelines.
In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2191–2200.
https://doi.org/10/ggcj93[97] Florian Mueller, Sophie Stellmach, Saul Greenberg, Andreas Dippon, SusanneBoll, Jayden Garner, Rohit Khot, Amani Naseem, and David Altimira. 2014.
Proxemics play: understanding proxemics for designing digital play experiences.
In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Designing interactive systems (DIS ’14).
Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 533–542. https://doi.org/10.1145/2598510.2598532[98] Florian Mueller and Damon Young. 2018. 10 Lenses to Design Sports-HCI.
Foundations and Trends® in Human–Computer Interaction 12, 3 (Dec. 2018),
172–237. https://doi.org/10.1561/1100000076[99] Florian ’Floyd’ Mueller, Stefan Agamanolis, Martin R. Gibbs, and Frank
Vetere. 2009. Remote impact: shadowboxing over a distance. In CHI ’09
Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (<conf-loc>,<city>Boston</city>, <state>MA</state>, <country>USA</country>, </confloc>) (CHI EA ’09). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA,3531–3532. https://doi.org/10.1145/1520340.1520527[100] Florian ’Floyd’ Mueller, Darren Edge, Frank Vetere, Martin R. Gibbs, Stefan
Agamanolis, Bert Bongers, and Jennifer G. Sheridan. 2011. Designing sports:
a framework for exertion games. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems (<conf-loc>, <city>Vancouver</city>,<state>BC</state>, <country>Canada</country>, </conf-loc>) (CHI ’11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2651–2660. https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979330[101] Florian ‘Floyd’ Mueller, Rakesh Patibanda, Richard Byrne, Zhuying Li, Yan Wang,
Josh Andres, Xiang Li, Jonathan Marquez, Stefan Greuter, Jonathan Duckworth,and Joe Marshall. 2021. Limited Control Over the Body as Intriguing Play
Design Resource. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems (CHI ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York,NY, USA, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445744[102] Florian “Floyd” Mueller, Josh Andres, Joe Marshall, Dag Svanæs, m. c. schraefel,
Kathrin Gerling, Jakob Tholander, Anna Lisa Martin-Niedecken, Elena Márquez
Segura, Elise van den Hoven, Nicholas Graham, Kristina Höök, and Corina Sas.
2018. Body-centric computing: results from a weeklong Dagstuhl seminar in a
German castle. Interactions 25, 4 (June 2018), 34–39. https://doi.org/10.1145/
3215854[103] Florian “Floyd” Mueller, Martin Gibbs, Frank Vetere, Stefan Agamanolis, andDarren Edge. 2014. Designing mediated combat play. In Proceedings of the
8th International Conference on Tangible, Embedded and Embodied Interaction(TEI ’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 149–156.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2540930.2540937[104] Florian ‘Floyd’ Mueller, Martin R. Gibbs, Frank Vetere, and Darren Edge. 2017.
Designing for Bodily Interplay in Social Exertion Games. ACM Transactions on
Computer-Human Interaction 24, 3 (May 2017), 24:1–24:41. https://doi.org/10/
gj6p7q[105] Florian “Floyd” Mueller, Louise Matjeka, Yan Wang, Josh Andres, Zhuying Li,
Jonathan Marquez, Bob Jarvis, Sebastiaan Pijnappel, Rakesh Patibanda, andRohit Ashok Khot. 2020. “Erfahrung & Erlebnis”: Understanding the Bodily
Play Experience through German Lexicon. In Proceedings of the FourteenthInternational Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (TEI’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 337–347. https://doi.org/10/gj5sjd[106] Florian ‘Floyd’ Mueller, Nathan Semertzidis, Josh Andres, Martin Weigel,
Suranga Nanayakkara, Rakesh Patibanda, Zhuying Li, Paul Strohmeier, Jarrod Knibbe, Stefan Greuter, Marianna Obrist, Pattie Maes, Dakuo Wang, Katrin Wolf, Liz Gerber, Joe Marshall, Kai Kunze, Jonathan Grudin, Harald Reiterer, and Richard Byrne. 2022. Human–Computer Integration: Towards
Integrating the Human Body with the Computational Machine. Foundations and Trends® in Human-Computer Interaction 16, 1 (Oct. 2022), 1–64.

DIS ’24, July 01–05, 2024, IT University of Copenhagen, Denmark

https://doi.org/10.1561/1100000086[107] Elena Márquez Segura, Annika Waern, Jin Moen, and Carolina Johansson. 2013.
The design space of body games: technological, physical, and social design. In
Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’13). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 3365–3374.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2466461[108] Ken Nakagaki, Chikara Inamura, Pasquale Totaro, Thariq Shihipar, Chantine
Akikyama, Yin Shuang, and Hiroshi Ishii. 2015. Linked-Stick: Conveying a
Physical Experience using a Shape-Shifting Stick. In Proceedings of the 33rd
Annual ACM Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing
Systems (CHI EA ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY,
USA, 1609–1614. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702613.2732712[109] Suranga Chandima Nanayakkara, Masahiko Inami, Florian Mueller, Jochen
Huber, Chitralekha Gupta, Christophe Joufrais, Kai Kunze, Rakesh Patibanda,
Samantha W T Chan, and Moritz Alexander Messerschmidt. 2023. Exploring
the Design Space of Assistive Augmentation. In Proceedings of the Augmented
Humans International Conference 2023 (AHs ’23). Association for Computing
Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 371–373. https://doi.org/10.1145/3582700.
3582729[110] Davida Navarre. 1982. Posture sharing in dyadic interaction. American Journalof Dance Therapy 5, 1 (Dec. 1982), 28–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02579539[111] Shreyas Nisal, Rakesh Patibanda, Aryan Saini, Elise Van Den Hoven, andFlorian “Floyd” Mueller. 2022. TouchMate: Understanding the Design ofBody Actuating Games using Physical Touch. In Extended Abstracts of the2022 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[112] Jun Nishida and Kenji Suzuki. 2016. BioSync: Synchronous Kinesthetic Experience among People. 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, 3742–3745. https://doi.org/10.
1145/2851581.2890244 event-place: San Jose, California, USA.
[113] Harry J. Otway and Detlof Von Winterfeldt. 1982. Beyond acceptable risk: On
the social acceptability of technologies. Policy Sciences 14, 3 (June 1982), 247–256.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00136399[114] Game Oven. 2014. Bounden. Game [Android].(2014). Game Oven, Amsterdam,
NL (2014). https://playbounden.com/[115] O’Beirne. 2022. Improving Quality of Life. 4099730 (May 2022). https://papers.
ssrn.com/abstract=4099730[116] David Parisi. 2018. Archaeologies of Touch: Interfacing with Haptics from Electricity to Computing. University of Minnesota Press. https://doi.org/10.5749/j.
ctt20mvgvz[117] Rakesh Patibanda, Chris Hill, Aryan Saini, Xiang Li, Yuzheng Chen, Andrii
Matviienko, Jarrod Knibbe, Elise van den Hoven, and Florian “Floyd” Mueller.
2023. Auto-Paízo 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 (Aug. 2023), 408:893–408:918.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3611054 arXiv:2307.11292 [cs].
[118] 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. Association for
Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 228–235. https://doi.org/10.1145/
3450337.3483464[119] 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[120] Rakesh Patibanda, Nathalie Overdevest, Aryan Saini, Zhuying Li, Josh Andres,
Jarrod Knibbe, Elise van den Hoven, and Florian ’Floyd’ Mueller. 2024. Exploring Shared Bodily Control: Designing Augmented Human Systems for Intraand Inter-Corporeality. In The Augmented Humans International Conference(Melbourne,VIC, Australia) (AHs 2024). https://doi.org/10.1145/3652920.3653037[121] 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. (Aug. 2023). https://doi.org/10.1145/3611049 arXiv:2307.11297 [cs].
[122] 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 Steve Mann. 2020. Motor Memory in HCI. In Extended Abstracts of the2020 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 event-place: Honolulu, HI, USA.

DIS ’24, July 01–05, 2024, IT University of Copenhagen, Denmark[123] Rakesh Patibanda, Elise Van Den Hoven, and Florian ’Floyd Mueller. 2022.
Towards Understanding the Design of Body-Actuated Play. In Extended Abstractsof the 2022 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (CHI
PLAY ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 388–391.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3505270.3558367[124] Alexander Peysakhovich, Martin A. Nowak, and David G. Rand. 2014. Humans
display a ‘cooperative phenotype’ that is domain general and temporally stable. Nature Communications 5, 11 (Sept. 2014), 4939. https://doi.org/10.1038/
ncomms5939[125] Stuart Reeves, Steve Benford, Claire O’Malley, and Mike Fraser. 2005. Designing
the spectator experience. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’05). Association for Computing Machinery,
New York, NY, USA, 741–750. https://doi.org/10.1145/1054972.1055074[126] Martin S. Remland. 2016. Nonverbal Communication in Everyday Life (4th editioned.). SAGE Publications, Inc, Thousand Oaks, California.
[127] Michael Rietzler, Gabriel Haas, Thomas Dreja, Florian Geiselhart, and Enrico Rukzio. 2019. Virtual Muscle Force: Communicating Kinesthetic Forces
Through Pseudo-Haptic Feedback and Muscle Input. In Proceedings of the
32nd Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 913–922.
https://doi.org/10/gj5smb[128] Hildy S. Ross and Deborah A. Kay. 1980. The origins of social games. New
Directions for Child and Adolescent Development 1980, 9 (1980), 17–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/cd.23219800904[129] Aryan Saini, Haotian Huang, Rakesh Patibanda, Nathalie Overdevest, EliseVan Den Hoven, and Florian ‘Floyd’ Mueller. 2022. SomaFlatables: Supporting
Embodied Cognition through Pneumatic Bladders. In Adjunct Proceedings of the35th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST’22 Adjunct). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–4.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3526114.3558705[130] Aryan Saini, Rakesh Patibanda, Nathalie Overdevest, Elise Van Den Hoven, andFlorian ‘Floyd’ Mueller. 2024. PneuMa: Designing Pneumatic Bodily Extensions
for Supporting Movement in Everyday Life. In Proceedings of the EighteenthInternational Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (<confloc>, <city>Cork</city>, <country>Ireland</country>, </conf-loc>) (TEI ’24).
Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 1, 16 pages.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3623509.3633349[131] Aryan Saini, Srihari Sridhar, Aarushi Raheja, Rakesh Patibanda, Nathalie Overdevest, Po-Yao (Cosmos) Wang, Elise Van Den Hoven, and Florian Floyd Mueller.
2023. Pneunocchio: A playful nose augmentation for facilitating embodied
representation. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on
User Interface Software and Technology (<conf-loc>, <city>San Francisco</city>,<state>CA</state>, <country>USA</country>, </conf-loc>) (UIST ’23 Adjunct).
Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 40, 3 pages.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3586182.3616651[132] Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman. 2004. Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals.
MIT Press.
[133] Elena Márquez Segura and Katherine Isbister. 2015. Enabling Co-Located PhysicalSocial Play: A Framework for Design and Evaluation. Springer International
Publishing, Cham, 209–238. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15985-0_10[134] Nathan Semertzidis, Michaela Scary, Josh Andres, Brahmi Dwivedi, Yutika Chandrashekhar Kulwe, Fabio Zambetta, and Florian Floyd Mueller. 2020. NeoNoumena: Augmenting Emotion Communication. 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/
3313831.3376599[135] Nathan Arthur Semertzidis, Michaela Scary, Xiao Fang, Xinyi Wang, Rakesh Patibanda, Josh Andres, Paul Strohmeier, Kai Kunze, Pedro Lopes, Fabio Zambetta,and Florian ‘Floyd’ Mueller. 2021. SIGHInt: Special Interest Group for HumanComputer Integration. 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, 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411763.3450400[136] Roberto Serrano and Iñigo Zapater. 1998. The Three-Legged Race: Cooperating
to Compete. Games and Economic Behavior 22, 2 (Feb. 1998), 343–363. https://doi.org/10.1006/game.1997.0588[137] Daniel G. Shapiro, Karen Tanenbaum, Joshua Mccoy, Larry LeBron,
Craig W. Reynolds, A. Stern, M. Mateas, Bill Ferguson, D. Diller,
Kerry Moftt, William Coon, and Bruce Roberts. 2015.
ComposingSocial Interactions via Social Games.
https://www.semanticscholar.
org/paper/Composing-Social-Interactions-via-Social-Games-ShapiroTanenbaum/33fe4b690fe6f544c790c3aeaf28586eb48ac07[138] Kye Shimizu, Santa Naruse, Jun Nishida, and Shunichi Kasahara. 2023. Morphing
Identity: Exploring Self-Other Identity Continuum through Interpersonal Facial
Morphing Experience. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’23). Association for Computing Machinery,
New York, NY, USA, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3580853[139] Miguel Sicart. 2014. Play Matters. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Patibanda et al.

[140] Wanda Strukus. 2011. Mining the Gap: Physically Integrated Performance andKinesthetic Empathy. Journal of Dramatic Theory and Criticism 25, 2 (2011),
89–105.
[141] Brian Sutton-Smith. 2001. The Ambiguity of Play (1st edition ed.). *Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, Mass.
[142] Philipp Sykownik, Katharina Emmerich, and Maic Masuch. 2018. Exploring Patterns of Shared Control in Digital Multiplayer Games. In Advances in ComputerEntertainment Technology (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Adrian David
Cheok, Masahiko Inami, and Teresa Romão (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 847–867. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76270-8_57[143] Laurie Takeda. 2020. The History of Nintendo: the Company, Consoles And
Games. ART 108: Introduction to Games Studies (Dec. 2020). https://scholarworks.
sjsu.edu/art108/21[144] Yasunori Tsubouchi and Kenji Suzuki. 2010. BioTones: A wearable device for
EMG auditory biofeedback. In 2010 Annual International Conference of the IEEE
Engineering in Medicine and Biology. 6543–6546. https://doi.org/10.1109/IEMBS.
2010.5627097[145] Ibo van de Poel. 2016. An Ethical Framework for Evaluating Experimental
Technology. Science and Engineering Ethics 22, 3 (June 2016), 667–686. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9724-3[146] Jan B. F. van Erp and Alexander Toet. 2015. Social Touch in Human–Computer
Interaction. Frontiers in Digital Humanities 2 (2015). https://www.frontiersin.
org/articles/10.3389/fdigh.2015.00002[147] Vincent van Rheden, Thomas Grah, Alexander Meschtscherjakov, Rakesh Patibanda, Wanyu Liu, Florian Daiber, Elise van den Hoven, and Florian “Floyd”
Mueller. 2021. Out of Your Mind!? Embodied Interaction in Sports. 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/10.1145/3411763.3441329[148] Amy Voida and Saul Greenberg. 2009. Wii all play: the console game as acomputational meeting place. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’09). Association for Computing Machinery,
New York, NY, USA, 1559–1568. https://doi.org/10.1145/1518701.1518940[149] Alan R. Wagner, Paul Robinette, and Ayanna Howard. 2018. Modeling the
Human-Robot Trust Phenomenon: A Conceptual Framework based on Risk.
ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems 8, 4 (Nov. 2018), 26:1–26:24.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3152890[150] Paul F. Wilkinson. 2017. In Celebration of Play: An Integrated Approach to Playand Child Development. Routledge. Google-Books-ID: 6NNBDwAAQBAJ.
A Brief Social History of Game Play.
[151] Dmitri Williams. 2005.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-Brief-Social-History-of-GamePlay-Williams/b83c8df512f340a58a662b918cdcd48ae900e690[152] Michele Willson. 2015. Social Games as Partial Platforms for Identity CoCreation. Media International Australia 154, 1 (Feb. 2015), 15–24. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1329878X1515400104[153] Douglas Wilson. 2011. Brutally Unfair Tactics Totally OK Now: On Self-Efacing
Games and Unachievements. Game Studies 11, 1 (Feb. 2011). http://gamestudies.
org/1101/articles/Wilson[154] Fiona Wiltshier. 2011. Researching With NVivo. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research 12, 11 (Jan. 2011). https://doi.org/
10.17169/fqs-12.1.1628[155] Jacob O. Wobbrock and Julie A. Kientz. 2016. Research contributions in humancomputer interaction. Interactions 23, 3 (April 2016), 38–44. https://doi.org/10.
1145/2907069[156] Lixiu Yu and Jefrey V. Nickerson. 2010. What Diagrams Say About Technology.
All Sprouts Content 9, 72 (Sept. 2010). https://aisel.aisnet.org/sprouts_all/323[157] John Zimmerman, Jodi Forlizzi, and Shelley Evenson. 2007. Research Through
Design As a Method for Interaction Design Research in HCI. In Proceedings of
the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’07). ACM,
New York, NY, USA, 493–502. https://doi.org/10.1145/1240624.1240704

A IMAGES FROM RESEARCH THROUGHDESIGN PROCESS
Received 8 February 2024; revised 20 April 2024; accepted 06 May 2024

Shared Bodily Fusion: Leveraging Inter-Body Electrical Muscle Stimulation for Social PlayDIS ’24, July 01–05, 2024, IT University of Copenhagen, Denmark

Figure 11: Shared Bodily Control in the same location (setup 1). While this setup seemed to foster camaraderie, the sharedspace allowed participants to anticipate each other’s actions, reducing the element of surprise.

Figure 12: Shared Bodily Control Across Distance (Setup 3). This setup investigates bodily control mediated through videoconferencing. Despite the physical distance, this setup allows for surprise due to internet lag, while retaining a sense of
camaraderie through voice communication.