skip to main content
10.1145/3170427.3188403acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open Access

Dormio: Interfacing with Dreams

Authors Info & Claims
Published:20 April 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

Current HCI research overlooks an opportunity to create human-machine interaction within the unique cognition ongoing during dreams and drowsiness. During sleep onset, a window of opportunity arises in the form of Hypnagogia, a semi-lucid sleep state where we begin dreaming before we fall fully unconscious. To access this state, we developed Dormio, the first interactive interface for sleep, designed for use across levels of consciousness. Here we present evidence for a first use case, directing dream content to augment human creativity. The system enables future HCI research into Hypnagogia, extending interactive technology across levels of consciousness.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

alt1051-file4.mp4

mp4

8.3 MB

References

  1. Dzmitry Aliakseyeu, Jia Du, Elly Zwartkruis-Pelgrim, and Sriram Subramanian. 2011. Exploring interaction strategies in the context of sleep. Human-Computer Interaction - INTERACT 2011 (2011), 19--36. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Teresa M Amabile. 1985. Motivation and creativity: Effects of motivational orientation on creative writers. Journal of personality and social psychology 48, 2 (1985), 393.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Judith Amores and Pattie Maes. 2017. Essence: Olfactory interfaces for unconscious influence of mood and cognitive performance. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 28--34. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Wilma A. Bainbridge, Justin W. Hart, Elizabeth S. Kim, and Brian Scassellati. 2011. The benefits of interactions with physically present robots over video-displayed agents. International Journal of Social Robotics 3, 1 (2011), 41--52.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Patti Bao, Elizabeth Gerber, Darren Gergle, and David Hoffman. 2010. Momentum: getting and staying on topic during a brainstorm. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 1233--1236. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Deirdre Barrett. 1993. The "committee of sleep": A study of dream incubation for problem solving. Dreaming 3, 2 (1993), 115.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. O. M. Bazanova and L. I. Aftanas. 2008. Individual measures of electroencephalogram alpha activity and non-verbal creativity. Neuroscience and behavioral physiology 38, 3 (2008), 227--235.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Margaret M. Bradley and Peter J. Lang. 1999. Affective norms for English words (ANEW): Instruction manual and affective ratings. Technical Report. Technical report C-1, the center for research in psychophysiology, University of Florida.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Cynthia Breazeal, Paul L. Harris, David DeSteno, Kory Westlund, M. Jacqueline, Leah Dickens, and Sooyeon Jeong. 2016. Young children treat robots as informants. Topics in cognitive science 8, 2 (2016), 481--491.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Denise J. Cai, Sarnoff A. Mednick, Elizabeth M. Harrison, Jennifer C. Kanady, and Sara C. Mednick. 2009. REM, not incubation, improves creativity by priming associative networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106, 25 (2009), 10130--10134.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Arthur J. Cropley. 2000. Defining and measuring creativity: Are creativity tests worth using?, Roeper Review 23, 2 (2000), 72--79.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Stéphanie Devuyst, Thierry Dutoit, Patricia Stenuit, and Myriam Kerkhofs. 2011. Automatic sleep spindles detection - overview and development of a standard proposal assessment method. In Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, EMBC, 2011 Annual International Conference of the IEEE. IEEE, 1713--1716.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Juan Fasola and M Mataric. 2011. Comparing physical and virtual embodiment in a socially assistive robot exercise coach for the elderly. Center for Robotics and Embedded Systems, Los Angeles, CA (2011).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Louise Goupil and Tristan Bekinschtein. 2012. Cognitive processing during the transition to sleep. Archives italiennes de biologie 150, 2/3 (2012), 140--154.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Michael Gradisar, Amy R. Wolfson, Allison G. Harvey, Lauren Hale, Russell Rosenberg, and Charles A. Czeisler. 2013. The sleep and technology use of Americans: findings from the National Sleep Foundation's 2011 Sleep in America poll. Journal of clinical sleep medicine: JCSM: official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine 9, 12 (2013), 1291.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Joy Paul Guilford. 1956. The structure of intellect. Psychological bulletin 53, 4 (1956), 267.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Joy Paul Guilford. 1967. The nature of human intelligence. (1967).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Younbo Jung and Kwan Min Lee. 2004. Effects of physical embodiment on social presence of social robots. Proceedings of PRESENCE (2004), 80--87.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Hafizoah Kassim, Howard Nicholas, and Wan Ng. 2014. Using a multimedia learning tool to improve creative performance. Thinking Skills and Creativity 13 (2014), 9--19.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Manoochehr Khatami. 1978. Creativity and altered states of consciousness. Psychiatric Annals 8, 3 (1978), 57--64.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Jamy Li. 2015. The benefit of being physically present: A survey of experimental works comparing copresent robots, telepresent robots and virtual agents. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 77 (2015), 23--37. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Wanyu Liu, Bernd Ploderer, and Thuong Hoang. 2015. In bed with technology: challenges and opportunities for sleep tracking. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Australian Special Interest Group for Computer Human Interaction. ACM, 142--151. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. M. Massimini, G. Tononi, and R. Huber. 2009. Slow waves, synaptic plasticity and information processing: insights from transcranial magnetic stimulation and high-density EEG experiments. European Journal of Neuroscience 29, 9 (2009), 1761--1770.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Paolo Mazzarello. 2000. What dreams may come? Nature 408, 6812 (2000), 523--524.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Juliane Minkwitz, Maja U. Trenner, Christian Sander, Sebastian Olbrich, Abigail J. Sheldrick, Ulrich Hegerl, and Hubertus Himmerich. 2012. Time perception at different EEG-vigilance levels. Behavioral and Brain Functions 8, 1 (2012), 50.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Matthias Mölle, Lisa Marshall, Steffen Gais, and Jan Born. 2002. Grouping of spindle activity during slow oscillations in human non-rapid eye movement sleep. Journal of Neuroscience 22, 24 (2002), 10941--10947.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Dormio: Interfacing with Dreams

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          CHI EA '18: Extended Abstracts of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
          April 2018
          3155 pages
          ISBN:9781450356213
          DOI:10.1145/3170427

          Copyright © 2018 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 20 April 2018

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          CHI EA '18 Paper Acceptance Rate1,208of3,955submissions,31%Overall Acceptance Rate6,164of23,696submissions,26%

          Upcoming Conference

          CHI '24
          CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
          May 11 - 16, 2024
          Honolulu , HI , USA

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader