Bioaffect:Current events
IAT881: BioAffective Computing & Interactive Media
Spring 2011
Dr. Diane Gromala
Structure of class meetings
In each class meeting, unless otherwise noted, we will have:
topics for discussion & readings, assignments, reports, examples (artifacts) and discussion of methods.
Topics
Topics for discussion will be informed by the assigned readings.
I will assume that everyone has a thorough understanding of the readings (or quizzes may result).
We will discuss each topic by traditional means: discussion and textual responses.
For each reading, one of you will be assigned to address the topic by non-traditional, non-textual means.
This may be a video, performance, prank, interactive artwork, computer application, game, sound,
or any other legal means you come up with.
Assignments
Some assignments will simply be turned in, but most will be addressed in class.
Reports
Reports are presentations of issues assigned to you. Examples are a sensory mode,
a technology, an example (artifact, such as an application or interactive artwork)
and ideas for your project. Most should be no longer than 5 to 7 minutes, with 10-15 minutes of discussion or demos.
Basic suggestions for these reports will be provided, but you are encouraged to be creative and experimental.
For instance, perhaps the person who is assigned to report on the sense of hearing may bring in
things to listen to, things that might modify the way we hear, or design a sonic demo.
Similarly, whomever is assigned, say, the biofeedback technology of GSR might set
up a scenario using the technology, and show videoclips from the Millgram experiment.
Week One January 12: Introductions to affective computing, course requirements and each other.
Readings for next week:
The Emotional Self, Deborah Lupton: Introduction, Chapter 1 & Chapter 3 Media:LuptonReading1.pdf
Affective Computing, Rosalind Picard, Introduction & Chapter 1 Media:LuptonChapter1.pdf
Assignments:
1. Add information about yourself and your interests + ideas you’d like to explore to this wiki, in the Community Portal section.
2. Reports regarding “the senses” assigned.
Reporting requirements: Each of you has chosen a sensory mode. For our next class meeting,
bring a 7 page PowerPoint or KeyNote slide set. Be concise -- the words we see should only
be touchstones that help you recall your recently acquired knowledge.
Slide 1: (large) the name of the sensory mode (small) your name, IAT881: Bioaffective Computing, Spring 2011.
Slide 2: An articulation of how the sensory mode works in physiological terms.
Think about how the sensory mode you are covering might relate to other sensory modes. For instance,
touch requires proximity and presence, but vision does not.
Go beyond general assumptions.
For example, many may assume that vision just requires a set of eyes, but the brain is also crucial.
Viscera is very complex, so whomever has this one should probably focus on the enteric system, or refer to Wilson's reading, below.
We will know if whomever covers taste has done their homework if they tell us that we have taste buds
that recognize 4 (not 5) basic kinds of taste. Images, sound, animations, diagrams and videoclips are
okay, but be sure you include proper citations/attributions in small text.
Slide 3: Historical considerations. For vision, for example, some ancient Greeks believed that our eyes
emitted rays. (Note: this slide may likely have some overlap with the subsequent slide.)
Slide 4: Cultural considerations. How was or is your sensory mode considered in diverse cultures
(evil eye, eyes are the windows to our souls)? What role does your sensory mode have in one or
more cultures? (It is argued that some centuries in Western cultures were dominated by
visual or so-called scopic regimes -- what does that mean?)
Slide 5: Find an exemplary artifact regarding your sensory mode. This might be a painting,
videogame, machine, interactive artwork, musical composition, foley effect, CGI,
piece of grafitti, or so on. Choose your artifact to make a point that interests you.
Slide 6: What existing technologies relate to, simulate or address your sensory mode? Tell us
about them generally and specifically. Are there any sci-fi technologies that are interesting? If so, why?
Slide 7: Brainstorm about one project you'd love to create that directly relates to your sensory mode.
Think outside of the box. Don't be shy.
Suggestions:
a) Conduct Ypres-like research about that sensory mode. For exteroceptive senses, a good place to start is to
refer to Diane Ackerman's book A Natural History of the Senses. For interoceptive senses, a good place to
start is to refer to Drew Leder's The Absent Body. You will be confronted with a seemingly insurmountable
task -- to find and plow through an immense amount of information, and to make sense of it in a concise
but not dumbed-down manner. My advice is to maintain a hard-core, laser-like focus. Find the information
you need in the burning building, grab it, and get the heck out. One aspect of this assignment is for you to
figure out ways to quickly locate the best, most up-to-date knowledge from diverse domains, to determine
who the major players (theorists, scientists) are, what the main issues are, where exemplary works of
art, design, media or computing are, how to digest it all, and how to brainstorm ideas about that sense modality.
These are incredibly important skills.
b) Assume that you will have 30-45 seconds per slide, on average. Your report (slide presentation) will be
followed by a discussion, so use your reporting time in a concise manner. The rest of us will likely
expand upon what you have presented.
c) You can't possibly cover everything, so don't try. You DO want to make an incredibly well-informed
presentation, and you DO want to communicate the most important information. But at many points in
this process, you will have to make important decisions about WHAT is important and WHY it is important.
That's part of the assignment.
d) Often, it is easier to gain an understanding of how something works by looking at examples
of dysfunction, or so-called outliers. An example of this is the work of someone like Oliver Sacks.
e) You are strongly encouraged to enhance our understanding by helping us get our hands dirty as it were.
That means you are encouraged to bring stuff in, have us do things, or otherwise find ways to make
your information come out of the textual box. Remember that you don't have a lot of time, however.
One idea is to augment just ONE slide with something in the material world. For touch, for example,
you might consider bring in things to touch, or a technology that affects the way we experience touch.
f) Have fun. This stuff is really interesting. Seriously.
g) Remember, strategic risk-taking will be rewarded, in heaven, on earth and in class.
Week Two January 19: The Substrate of Sensory Experience: Intero- and Exteroception
Topics for discussion:
• Affective Computing, according to Picard
• Exteroception (Seeing, Tasting, Touching, Hearing, Smelling) and
Interoception (Proprioception, Temperature, Pain, Orientation, Kinesthetic Sense, Visceral Sense)
• Technologies related to affective computing: biofeedback, (and possibly: GPS, accelerometers)
Readings for next week:
1. (re-read Lupton)
2. CHI Paper: Humanities: Feminist HCI: Taking Stock and Outlining an Agenda for Design; doi: 10.1145/1753326.1753521
3. CHI Paper: Scientific: Predicting tie strength with social media; doi: 10.1145/1518701.1518736 (sent via email)
4. Barnes: "The Simulation of Smiles (SIMS) model: Embodied simulation and the meaning of facial expression" (sent via email) http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayIssue?iid=7947586
Assignment:
Conduct an “autopsy” of the "Feminist HCI" and the "Predicting tie strength" papers.
For this first assignment, we will examine 2 papers that received best paper awards.
(For the next assignment, papers will come from more obviously different knowledge bases and fields.)
Bring the results of your autopsy in a form that can be easily shared with the rest of your colleagues in class.
The term autopsy: "to see for oneself" (Ancient Greek)
Goal: to uncover reasons why each paper was deemed to be a good paper, and to formulate reasons
for why each paper was recognized as a "best paper" by CHI decision-makers. It is assumed that few
of you are privvy to the internal politics or extenuating circumstances for best paper decision making.
This is loosely based on criteria used for judging academic papers generally, and much of it pertains to non-academic papers as well, so you will doubtless find pragmatic use for this exercise.
Directions for conducting a forensic autopsy (assume you are a SIAT-CSI):
1. Assess overall context: you know that each paper received the best paper distinction from the CHI conference.
Each of you have varying degrees of knowledge about that conference.
1.1 Articulate what you know and what you have discovered about that conference. (Given time constraints, it may be useful to ask
your colleagues and faculty members, to visit CHI's site, and to visit the URLs that lists best paper awards
for the past few years. http://jeffhuang.com/best_paper_awards.html,
http://www.chi2006.org/bestofchi.php, www.chi2007.org/pressroom/0425-best-papers.pdf
1.2 Make an initial assessment about factors that may have played roles in the decision to recognize each paper as "best paper."
2. Identification.
2.1 Who are the authors?
2.2 What factors may be associated with assessing their credibility?
2.3 What is the subject of the paper?
3. The Y-incision:
3.1 Why may this subject be relevant to the CHI community?
3.2 Is the subject innovative, original or one which may have only been rarely addressed before? Does it provide new insights? If yes, articulate your reasons; if no, articulate your reasons.
4. Structural integrity:
4.1 Is each paper technically sound? While you may not be familiar with this field, look for clues anyway.
Is the technology dated (look at the citations)?
Do you see the terminology elsewhere on the CHI site or in a CHI search? If the technology is experimental, does it seem realistic and doable?
(If the authors describe, say, a computer based on DNA soup or on jet-pack technology, or if such technologies are not visible in the citations, the answer is probably no.)
4.2 Is the article structurally sound in terms of readability, structure of argument, grammar and use of images & graphics? Taken together, these should promote comprehension, even if you are not an expert.
5. Assessing major organs:
Does each component make sense or cohere?
Are the claims backed up by appropriate citations? Every claim needs to be supported unless it is "common knowledge."
Is there a component that leaps out at you because it is exceptionally confusing, not backed up, not articulated well, too broad or too specific? Or does it just not seem to fit? Often, even good papers have problems (or "issues") -- usually one glaring issue that needs to be addressed by rewriting and resubmitting. Is there an identifiable weakness? If so, what is it?
If possible, it may be helpful to structure your answers in parallel columns, or on two parallel pages, one per article.
You may use words, phrases or bulleted lists for some of your answers, but use sentences when you need to really explain something in detail.
Remember, you are to read (and re-read) and assess the "Feminism HCI" and the "Predicting Social Tie Strength" articles, NOT the "Simulation of Smiles" article. THe more effort you put into this, the better your results will be now and later. Like a new CSI (crime scene investigator), you are expected to use specialized tools and methods -- in this case, to search for information elsewhere. Over time, this becomes a habit, but you will almost never judge a paper simply by reading it, especially when you are in interdisciplinary realms. Knowledge is constantly updated, so even the most prominent specialists habitually make sure that they keep current with knowledge in their field (in some fields like medicine, one needs to regularly accrue continuing education credits and certification), scours journals and databases and generally seeks knowledge for pain and pleasure.
GRADING: I will take your background and current knowledge into account, but I expect everyone to demonstrate that they have made serious efforts. Thus, answers such as "this is crap," and "I disagree with the basic premise," and "I have no idea how to even begin to figure this out" will doom you to the depths of very bad grades.
Like the grading schema you witnessed during the slide presentations, grades in the realm of an A mean that you not only do the assignment, but that you do it exceptionally well and go beyond the instructions. Some of that is sheer insight and being able to make profound connections, while some of it means you've spent hours slogging through information, and/or you demonstrate superior investigative techniques -- like finding experts for advice or sending the authors or editors a friendly email. (Note: busy people will generally not reply to emails unless you provide them with a reason to do so, and make it easy for them to do so. So asking them open-ended questions usually won't elicit a response.) Grades in the B range mean that you have done a good, solid job.
Note: As witnessed in the slide presentations, you may choose a relatively "objective" stance, or you may choose to integrate knowledge you are expert in, or you may choose a position (point of view) that may not be obvious or usual. That is encouraged -- it just has to be relevant and really good. Contrary to popular belief, you CAN follow the assignment specifications AND be creative. And stay within presentation time limits.
Week Three January 26: Biopsychology of Emotion
Guest lecturer: Dr. Steven Barnes, neuroscientist & artist, UBC/SFU (sjb@nervouscreation.com)
Discussions:
1. Lupton: Discussion leaders: Veronica & Jay
2. Biopsychological Theories of Emotion: Dr. Steven Barnes Reading: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayIssue?iid=7947586
Please send your autopsy assignments to Dr. Gromala via email. Due: Wed. Jan 26th, 5:30pm. Don't forget to title the email, beginning with BIOAFFECT.
(NOTE: slide presentations from Daniel & Andrea will be forthcoming.)
Week Four: February 2
Discussions:
Review: Lupton & Picard: What counts as "emotion"? Mood? Affect? Temperment? + Barnes' reading
Biofeedback demos
Readings for this week:
Picard, Affective Computing, Chapter 2
NOTE: We will be reading most of Picard's book, so it would be a good idea to plan to read 2 chapters per week (say, during the reading break).
Week Five: February 9
Discussions:
Readings for next week:
Week Six: February 16 READING BREAK
Self-monitoring project: investigate a monitoring technology and design a self-monitoring project.
Readings for next week:
Finish reading Picard's Affective Computing book.
Week Seven:
Discussions:
Readings for next week:
Week Eight:
Discussions:
Readings for next week:
Week Nine:
Discussions:
Readings for next week:
Week Ten:
Discussions:
Readings for next week:
Week Eleven:
Discussions:
Readings for next week:
Week Twelve:
Discussions:
1. Medical Frontiers: Research re: brain-computer interfaces, drug delivery technologies, genetics, nanotechnology.
2. CAM (Complementary & Alternative Medicine)
4 CLASS PRESENTATIONS
Week Thirteen: April 6
Course Review
5 CLASS PRESENTATIONS
FINAL PROJECT ARCHIVAL INFORMATION TURNED IN, IN CLASS.
Be sure everything is labelled and dated. No label, no grade.
Required Readings for the course
Affective Computing, Rosalind Picard http://troy.lib.sfu.ca/record=b1876254 (Full text available online)
The Emotional self : a sociocultural exploration, Deborah Lupton http://troy.lib.sfu.ca/record=b1904667
Parables for the Virtual: Movement, Affect, Sensation, Brian Massumi http://troy.lib.sfu.ca/record=b2483710 (Full text available online)
"The Simulation of Smiles (SIMS) model: Embodied simulation and the meaning of facial expression" http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayIssue?iid=7947586
Suggested Readings for the course: Intero- and Exteroception
The Absent Body, Drew Leder http://troy.lib.sfu.ca/record=b1465856
A Natural History of the Senses, Diane Ackerman http://troy.lib.sfu.ca/record=b2461966
Psychosomatic: Feminism and the Neurological Body, Elizabeth A. Wilson Chapter 2: The Brain in the Gut http://troy.lib.sfu.ca/record=b3617961 (Full text available online)
Suggested Readings for the course: technologies
Physical Computing: Sensing and Controlling . . . , Tom Igoe and Dan O'Sullivan http://troy.lib.sfu.ca/record=b3872653 (Full text available online)
The Affect Theory Reader, Melissa Gregg & Gregory J. Seigworth, eds. http://troy.lib.sfu.ca/record=b5532632
The Taboo of Subjectivity: Toward . . . B. ALan Wallace http://troy.lib.sfu.ca/record=b2137665 (Full text available online)
Interesting Readings?
10 Most Bizarre Scientific Papers
