The development of interactive technology is often based on the assumption of need to reduce the physical action and cognitive load of the user. However, recent conceptualizations, supported by research in various fields of science, emphasize human physical action in cognitive processes and knowledge formation. In fact, physical and closely related imaginary movement can be seen as the quintessence of humanity. Acknowledging this should imply a new approach to the design of interactive technology. In the current study, we propose a choreographic approach for shifting the focal point of interaction design to the aspects of human activity and movement within a technologized context. Hence, the proposed approach does not isolate use-related actions, which traditionally have been emphasized in interaction design, from the other activities of a person. The application of the methodological approach is divided into micro, local and macro levels, thus covering actions from minimal muscular activity of an individual to global movement-relevant issues.
References
[1]
Wiener, N. The Human Use of Human Beings: Cybernetics and Society; Houghton Mifflin: Boston, MA, USA, 1954.
[2]
McLuhan, M. Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man; McGraw Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1964.
[3]
Idhe, D. Bodies in Technology; University of Minnesota Press: Minneapolis, MI, USA, 2002.
[4]
Kozel, S. Closer; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2007.
[5]
Merleau-Ponty, M. Phenomenology of Perception; Routledge: London, UK, 1962. (Original work published in 1945).
[6]
Varela, F.; Thompson, E.; Rosch, E. The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience; The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1991.
[7]
Lakoff, G.; Johnson, M. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 1999.
[8]
Fuster, J.M. Cortex and memory: Emergence of a new paradigm. J. Cognitive. Neurosci. 2009, 21, 2047–2072, doi:10.1162/jocn.2009.21280.
[9]
Dourish, P. Where the Action Is: The Foundations of Embodied Interaction; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2001.
[10]
Gallese, V.; Lakoff, G. The brain’s concepts: The role of the sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge. Cogn Neuropsychol. 2005, 22(3), 455–479, doi:10.1080/02643290442000310.
[11]
Johnson, M. The Meaning of the Body: Aesthetics of Human Understanding; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2007.
[12]
Crabtree, G.R. Our fragile intellect. Part I. Trends in Genetics 2012, 29(1), 1–3.
[13]
Crabtree, G.R. Our fragile intellect. Part II. Trends in Genetics 2012, 29(1), 3–5.
[14]
Searle, J.R. Mind: A Brief Introduction; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2004.
[15]
Froese, T.; McGann, M.; Bigge, W.; Spiers, A.; Seth, A.K. The enactive torch: A new tool for the science of perception. IEEE Trans. Haptics. 2012, 5(4), 365–375.
[16]
Sheets-Johnstone, M. The Primacy of Movement; John Benjamin’s Publishing Company: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1999.
[17]
Piaget, J. The Principles of Genetic Epistemology; Routledge: London, UK, 1970.
Gallagher, S.; Zahavi, D. The Phenomenological Mind: An Introduction to Philosophy of Mind and Cognitive Science; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2008.
[20]
Gibbs, R.W. Embodiment and Cognitive Science; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2005.
[21]
No？, A. Action in Perception; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2005.
[22]
Husserl, E. Ding und Raum: Vorlesungen. 1907. Husserliana 16.; Claesges, U., Ed.; M. Nijhoff: The Hague, 1973.
[23]
Gibson, J.J. Observations on active touch. Psychol. Rev. 1962, 69, 477–490, doi:10.1037/h0046962.
[24]
Leslie, A. The necessity of illusion: Perception and thought in infancy. In Thought without Language; Weiskrantz, L., Ed.; Clarendom: Oxford, UK, 1988; pp. 185–210.
[25]
Longcamp, M.; Tanskanen, T.; Hari, R. The imprint of action: Motor cortex involvement in visual perception of handwritten letters. Neuroimage 2006, 33, 681–688, doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.06.042.
[26]
Freyd, J.; Finke, R. Representational momentum. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. 1984, 10(1), 126–132, doi:10.1037/0278-7393.10.1.126.
[27]
Bargh, J.; Chen, M.; Burrows, L. Automaticity of social behavior: Direct effects of trait consctruct and stereotype activation on action. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1996, 71, 230–244, doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.230.
[28]
Martin, A.; Wiggs, C.; Ungerleider, L.; Haxby, J. Neural correlates of category-specific knowledge. Nature 1996, 379, 649–652, doi:10.1038/379649a0.
[29]
Stern, D.A. Interpersonal World of the Infant: A View from Psychoanalysis and Developmental Psychology; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 1985.
[30]
Koppe, S.; Harder, S.; Vaever, M. Vitality affects. International Forum of Psychoanalysis 2008, 17, 169–179.
[31]
Saariluoma, P.; Lamminen, J.; Lepp？nen, M. Ontologies for human-technology interaction design. In Proceedings of the 16th International Product Development Management Conference, Twente, The Netherlands, 7 June–9 June 2009; EIASM: Twente, The Netherlands, 2009.
[32]
Baker, A.; Besana, P.; Robertson, D.; Weissmann, J.B. The benefits of service choreography for data-intensive computing. In Proceedings of Challenges of Large Applications in Distributed Environments 2009, Munich, Germany, 10 June 2009.
[33]
Gibson, J.J. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception; Houghton Mifflin: Boston, MA, USA, 1979.
[34]
Norman, D. The Psychology of Everyday Things; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 1988.
[35]
Gaver, W. Technology affordances. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems; ACM Press: New York, NY, USA, 1991; pp. 79–84.
[36]
Rosen, C. Piano Notes: The World of the Pianist; Scribner: New York, NY, USA, 2002.
[37]
Cole, J.; Montero, B. Affective proprioception. Janus Head 2007, 9(2), 299–317.
[38]
Bellamy, R.W., Jr.; Walker, J.R. Television and the Remote Control; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 1996.
[39]
Ferguson, D.A. Channel repertoire in the presence of remote control devices, VCRs and cable television. J. Broadcast. Electron. 1992, 36(1), 83–91.
