skip to main content
10.1145/3322276.3322319acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesdisConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Mediating Relatedness for Adolescents with ME: Reducing Isolation through Minimal Interactions with a Robot Avatar

Published:18 June 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

This paper discusses how a networked object in the form of a small robot designed to mediate experiences of care, social connectedness, and intimacy, was used by adolescents with Myalgic Encephalomyelitis, a condition that reduces their normal functioning, including the ability to socialize. A study with nine adolescents, each using the robot for about a year in average, revealed that it was largely effective at mediating their everyday experiences of relatedness, triggering productive new habits and social practices. We interpret these findings to propose a set of strategies for designing technologies that support relatedness while requiring minimal interactivity and engagement. Balance, extension-of-self, coolness, and acts-of-care, in addition to commonly used physicalness, expressivity and awareness, enable the robot to extend the adolescents' ability to relate to others, people and animals.

References

  1. Aloha H. Ambe, Margot Brereton, Alessandro Soro, and Paul Roe. 2017. Technology Individuation: The Foibles of Augmented Everyday Objects. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '17), 6632--6644.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Uddipana Baishya and Carman Neustaedter. 2017. In Your Eyes: Anytime, Anywhere Video and Audio Streaming for Couples. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (CSCW '17), 84--97. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Jorun Børsting and Alma L. Culén. 2017. Experiences with a Research Product: A Robot Avatar for Chronically Ill Adolescents. In Rapid Automation: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications, Tomayess Issa, Piet Kommers, Theodora Issa, Pedro Isaías, and Touma B. Issa (eds.). IGI Global, 31--55.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Bruce M. Carruthers, Marjorie I. van de Sande, Kenny L. De Meirleir, Nancy G. Klimas, Gordon Broderick, Terry Mitchell, et al. 2011. Myalgic encephalomyelitis: International Consensus Criteria. Journal of Internal Medicine 270, 4: 327--338.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Avshalom Caspi, HonaLee Harrington, Terrie E. Moffitt, Barry J. Milne, and Richie Poulton. 2006. Socially Isolated Children 20 Years Later: Risk of Cardiovascular Disease. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine 160, 8: 805--811.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Wei-Chi Chien and Marc Hassenzahl. 2017. Technology-Mediated Relationship Maintenance in Romantic Long-Distance Relationships: An Autoethnographical Research through Design. Human--Computer Interaction, 1--48.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Parmit K. Chilana, Andrew J. Ko, and Jacob Wobbrock. 2015. From User-Centered to Adoption-Centered Design: A Case Study of an HCI Research Innovation Becoming a Product. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '15), 1749--1758. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Alma L. Culén and Andrea A. Gasparini. 2012. Situated Techno-Cools: factors that contribute to making technology cool and the study case of iPad in education. PsychNology Journal 10, 2: 117--139.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Anthony Dunne and Fiona Raby. 1995. Fields and Thresholds. In Architects in Cyberspace, Neil Spiller (ed). Architectural Design 118, 60--65.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Johanne M. Entwistle, Mia K. Rasmussen, Nervo Verdezoto, Robert S. Brewer, and Mads S. Andersen. 2015. Beyond the individual: The contextual wheel of practice as a research framework for sustainable HCI. In Proceedings of the 2015 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '15), 1125--1134. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Anne Farmer, Tom Fowler, Jane Scourfield, and Anita Thapar. 2004. Prevalence of chronic disabling fatigue in children and adolescents. The British Journal of Psychiatry 184, 6: 477--481.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Asbjørn Følstad, Petter B. Brandtzaeg, Tom Feltwell, Effie L-C. Law, Manfred Tscheligi, and Ewa A. Luger. 2018. SIG: Chatbots for Social Good. In Extended Abstracts of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '18), 6: 1--4. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Bill Gaver and Rob Strong. 1996. Feather, Scent, and Shaker: Supporting Simple Intimacy. In Proceedings of CSCW '96, 29--30.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. William Gaver. 2012. What Should We Expect from Research Through Design? In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '12), 937--946. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. William Gaver, Mark Blythe, Andy Boucher, Nadine Jarvis, John Bowers, and Peter Wright. 2010. The prayer companion: openness and specificity, materiality and spirituality. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (CHI '10), 2055--2064. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Ellen M. Goudsmit, Jo Nijs, Leonard A. Jason, and Karen E. Wallman. 2012. Pacing as a strategy to improve energy management in myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome: a consensus document. Disability and Rehabilitation 34, 13: 1140--1147.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Marc Hassenzahl, Stephanie Heidecker, Kai Eckoldt, Sarah Diefenbach, and Uwe Hillmann. 2012. All You Need is Love: Current Strategies of Mediating Intimate Relationships Through Technology. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 19, 4: 30: 1--19. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Yasamin Heshmat, Brennan Jones, Xiaoxuan Xiong, Carman Neustaedter, Anthony Tang, Bernhard E. Riecke, et al. 2018. Geocaching with a Beam: Shared Outdoor Activities Through a Telepresence Robot with 360 Degree Viewing. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '18), 359: 1--13. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Ilyena Hirskyj-Douglas, Patricia Pons, Janet C. Read, and Javier Jaen. 2018. Seven Years after the Manifesto: Literature Review and Research Directions for Technologies in Animal Computer Interaction. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction 2, 2: 1--29.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Chung-Ching Huang and Erik Stolterman. 2011. Temporality in Interaction Design. In Proceedings of the 2011 Conference on Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces (DPPI '11), 62: 1--8. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Jack Ingram, Elizabeth Shove, and Matthew Watson. 2007. Products and Practices: Selected Concepts from Science and Technology Studies and from Social Theories of Consumption and Practice. Design issues 23, 2: 3--16.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Clarissa Ishak, Carman Neustaedter, Dan Hawkins, Jason Procyk, and Michael Massimi. 2016. Human Proxies for Remote University Classroom Attendance. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '16), 931--943. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Lars-Erik Janlert and Erik Stolterman. 2017. The Meaning of Interactivity-Some Proposals for Definitions and Measures. Human--Computer Interaction 32, 3: 103--138. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Leonard A. Jason, Abigail Brown, Erin Clyne, Lindsey Bartgis, Meredyth Evans, and Molly Brown. 2012. Contrasting case definitions for chronic fatigue syndrome, Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome and myalgic encephalomyelitis. Evaluation & the Health Professions 35, 3: 280--304.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Heekyoung Jung and Erik Stolterman. 2011. Form and materiality in interaction design: a new approach to HCI. In CHI'11 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '11), 399--408. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Joseph 'Jofish' Kaye. 2006. I Just Clicked to Say I Love You: Rich Evaluations of Minimal Communication. In CHI '06 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '06), 363--368.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Joseph 'Jofish' Kaye, Mariah K. Levitt, Jeffrey Nevins, Jessica Golden, and Vanessa Schmidt. 2005. Communicating Intimacy One Bit at a Time. In CHI '05 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '05), 1529--1532.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Jesper Kjeldskov, Martin Gibbs, Franks Vetere, Steve Howard, Sonja Pedell, Karen Mecoles, et al. 2004. Using Cultural Probes to Explore Mediated Intimacy. Australasian Journal of Information Systems 11, 2: 102--115.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Lenneke Kuijer, Annelise de Jong, and Daan van Eijk. 2008. Practices As a Unit of Design: An Exploration of Theoretical Guidelines in a Study on Bathing. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 20, 4: 21:1--22. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Tamara E. Lacourt, Elisabeth G. Vichaya, Gabriel S. Chiu, Robert Dantzer, and Cobi J. Heijnen. 2018. The High Costs of Low-Grade Inflammation: Persistent Fatigue as a Consequence of Reduced Cellular-Energy Availability and Non-adaptive Energy Expenditure. Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience 12, 78: 1--20.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Brett Laursen and Amy C. Hartl. 2013. Understanding loneliness during adolescence: Developmental changes that increase the risk of perceived social isolation. Journal of Adolescence 36, 6: 1261--1268.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Jonas Löwgren. 2007. Interaction design, research practices and design research on the digital materials. Under Ytan: Om Designforskning. Raster Forlag, 150--163.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Ramia Mazé and Johan Redström. 2005. Form and the computational object. Digital Creativity 16, 1: 7--18.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Hideyuki Nakanishi, Kazuaki Tanaka, and Yuya Wada. 2014. Remote Handshaking: Touch Enhances Video-mediated Social Telepresence. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '14), 2143--2152. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. William Odom and Ron Wakkary. 2015. Intersecting with Unaware Objects. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity and Cognition (C&C '15), 33--42. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. William Odom, Ron Wakkary, Youn-kyung Lim, Audrey Desjardins, Bart Hengeveld, and Richard Banks. 2016. From Research Prototype to Research Product. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '16), 2549--2561. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Sumit Pandey and Alma Leora Culén. 2018. Eyespy: Designing Counterfunctional Smart Surveillance Cameras. In Proceedings of the 10th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (NordiCHI 2018), 838--843. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Janet C. Read, Daniel Fitton, Benjamin Cowan, Russell Beale, Yukang Guo, and Matthew Horton. 2011. Understanding and Designing Cool Technologies for Teenagers. In CHI '11 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '11), 1567--1572. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Richard M. Ryan and Edward L. Deci. 2000. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American psychologist 55, 1: 68--78.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Anna K. Sheridan, Lesley Scott, Nancy MacDonald, Lorraine Murray, Samantha Holt, and Allen Kat. 2013. Exploring E-learning provision for Children with ME in Scotland. Other Education 2, 1: 78--80.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Elizabeth Shove and Mika Pantzar. 2005. Consumers, Producers and Practices: Understanding the invention and reinvention of Nordic walking. Journal of consumer culture 5, 1: 43--64.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. Elizabeth Shove, Mika Pantzar, and Matt Watson. 2012. The Dynamics of Social Practice: Everyday Life and How it Changes. SAGE Publications.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. James K. S. Teh, Adrian D. Cheok, Yongsoon Choi, Charith L. Fernando, Roshan L. Peiris, and Owen N. N. Fernando. 2009. Huggy Pajama: A Parent and Child Hugging Communication System. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (IDC '09), 290--291. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Frank Twisk. 2018. Dutch Health Council Advisory Report on Myalgic Encephalomyelitis and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: Taking the Wrong Turn. Diagnostics 8, 34: 1--10.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Patrick van der Duin. 2018. Toward "Responsible Foresight": Developing Futures that Enable Matching Future Technologies with Social Demands. World Futures Review 11, 1: 69--79.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. Maja van der Velden and Christina Mörtberg. 2015. Participatory Design and Design for Values. In Handbook of Ethics, Values, and Technological Design, Jeroen van den Hoven, Pieter E. Vermaas and Ibo van de Poel (eds.). Springer, 41--66.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Maja van der Velden, Margaret M. Sommervold, Alma L. Culén, and Britt Nakstad. 2016. Designing Interactive Technologies with Teenagers in a Hospital Setting. In Perspectives on HCI Research with Teenagers, Linda Little, Daniel Fitton, Beth T. Bell, and Nicola Toth (eds.). Springer, 103--131.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Peter-Paul Verbeek. 2005. What Things Do: Philosophical Reflections on Technology, Agency, and Design. Penn State University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Peter-Paul Verbeek. 2015. Beyond interaction: A Short Introduction to Mediation Theory. Interactions 12, 3: 26--31. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. John Vines, Róisín McNaney, Stephen Lindsay, Jayne Wallace, and John McCarthy. 2014. Special topic: Designing for and with vulnerable people. interactions 21, 1: 44--46. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. John Vines, Gary Pritchard, Peter Wright, Patrick Olivier, and Katie Brittain. 2015. An Age-Old Problem: Examining the Discourses of Ageing in HCI and Strategies for Future Research. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 22, 1: 2: 1--27. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. Jenny Waycott, Hilary Davis, Anja Thieme, Stacy Branham, John Vines, and Cosmin Munteanu. 2015. Ethical Encounters in HCI: Research in Sensitive Settings. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '15), 2369--2372. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. Marisol Wong-Villacres and Shaowen Bardzell. 2011. Technology-mediated Parent-child Intimacy: Designing for Ecuadorian Families Separated by Migration. In CHI '11 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '11), 2215--2220. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. John Zimmerman and Jodi Forlizzi. 2014. Research Through Design in HCI. In Ways of Knowing in HCI, Judith S. Olson and Wendy A. Kellogg (eds.). Springer, 167--189.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Living Profiles: Map your social tree. Retrieved June 5, 2013 from http://livingprofiles.net/?page_id=99Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Mediating Relatedness for Adolescents with ME: Reducing Isolation through Minimal Interactions with a Robot Avatar

    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
      DIS '19: Proceedings of the 2019 on Designing Interactive Systems Conference
      June 2019
      1628 pages
      ISBN:9781450358507
      DOI:10.1145/3322276

      Copyright © 2019 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: 18 June 2019

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      DIS '19 Paper Acceptance Rate105of415submissions,25%Overall Acceptance Rate1,158of4,684submissions,25%

      Upcoming Conference

      DIS '24
      Designing Interactive Systems Conference
      July 1 - 5, 2024
      IT University of Copenhagen , Denmark

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader