Pro Yearly is on sale from $80 to $50! »

Implanted User Interfaces

Implanted User Interfaces

We investigate implanted user interfaces that small devices provide when implanted underneath human skin. Such devices always stay with the user, making their implanted user interfaces available at all times. We discuss four core challenges of implanted user interfaces: how to sense input through the skin, how to produce output, how to communicate amongst one another and with external infrastructure, and how to remain powered. We investigate these four challenges in a technical evaluation where we surgically implant study devices into a specimen arm. We find that traditional interfaces do work through skin. We then demonstrate how to deploy a prototype device on participants, using artificial skin to simulate implantation. We close with a discussion of medical considerations of implanted user interfaces, risks and limitations, and project into the future.

More information on http://www.christianholz.net/implanted_user_interfaces.html

1b1d5420dfff84bf061b2cc53e9b839b?s=128

Christian Holz

May 07, 2012
Tweet

Transcript

  1. Implanted User Interfaces Christian Holz1,2 Tovi Grossman1 George Fitzmaurice1 Anne

    Agur 3 Autodesk Research Toronto, Canada 1 Hasso Plattner Institute Potsdam, Germany 2 Department of Anatomy University of Toronto, Canada 3
  2. None
  3. [Mann]

  4. [Starner et al. ’00]

  5. [Saponas et al ’09]

  6. [Tamaki et al. ’09]

  7. [Mistry and Maes ’09]

  8. [Harrison et al. ’10]

  9. [Gustafson et al. ’11]

  10. None
  11. hearing aid pacemaker

  12. None
  13. 3 Million people no need for manual attaching cannot lose

    or forget them available at all times potentially completely invisible
  14. how can users interact with their implanted devices?

  15. Kittel serious look 1 2 3 design space user feedback

    technical feasibility
  16. Kittel serious look 1 2 3 design space

  17. I input II output III communication IV power design space

  18. direct input and output what does interaction look like for

    implanted devices?
  19. I input

  20. tap push I input press

  21. hover I input speech input

  22. II output

  23. visual • loud audio quiet audio II output <<•>> vibration

  24. III communication

  25. III communication (((•)))

  26. IV power

  27. IV power • )))

  28. Kittel serious look 1 2 3

  29. Kittel serious look 1 2 3 user feedback

  30. how do participants feel about interacting with implanted devices in

    public?
  31. arti cial skin

  32. arti cial skin

  33. arti cial skin

  34. arti cial skin

  35. arti cial skin prototypes

  36. None
  37. 3in3out

  38. 3in3out input output

  39. 3in3out output

  40. battery powered

  41. 3in3out

  42. tasks

  43. 1. ask for the time

  44. 2. use public transport

  45. 3. directions to post o ce

  46. 4. get a free newspaper

  47. 5. buy co ee

  48. 6. sit in the park

  49. results

  50. output components vibration motor easy to notice and private audio

    and LED only when paying attention input controls button and tapping good for activation pressure sensor hard to discover
  51. only few curious looks no comments despite casual settings social

    perception
  52. can support interactive tasks methodology for prototyping and testing implanted

    devices
  53. Kittel serious look 1 2 3

  54. 1 Kittel serious look 2 3 technical feasibility

  55. input Bluetooth inductive charger output I input II output III

    communication IV power
  56. input

  57. pressure sensor I input

  58. button I input

  59. tap I input

  60. capacitive I input

  61. brightness I input

  62. microphone I input

  63. output

  64. motor II output

  65. LED II output

  66. speaker II output

  67. communication

  68. Bluetooth

  69. power

  70. receiver provider

  71. Department of Anatomy University of Toronto Department of Anatomy University

    of Toronto
  72. specimen arm

  73. Figure skin lay were im the skin neou ~1mm

  74. Figure skin lay were im the skin neou subcutaneous layer

  75. avoid uid intrusion

  76. apparatus

  77. piston contact sensors specimen I input contact input

  78. piston contact sensors specimen I input contact input

  79. hover sensors hover input I input

  80. hover sensors hover input I input

  81. hover sensors hover input I input

  82. 25cm I input audio input microphone microphone

  83. I input audio input microphone microphone 60cm

  84. decending staircase design for minimum perceivable intensities human observer (32

    years, male) II output output components LED, audio, vibration
  85. II output camera mic accelerometer LED, audio, vibration as well

    as sensors output components
  86. III communication Bluetooth Bluetooth

  87. IV power inductive charging measured current drawn at various resistances

    receiver
  88. IV power inductive charging measured current drawn at various resistances

    receiver
  89. conditions

  90. device (implanted) implanted condition specimen

  91. table baseline condition device

  92. results

  93. I-IV all tested components functioned successfully input, output, wireless synchronization,

    and powering do work through skin.
  94. but they require more intensity...

  95. pressure 8N 10cm implant baseline 0cm I input

  96. brightness 0 100% approach touch release baseline implant I input

  97. 60dB 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% set:volume microphone | close

    speaker 100% 0dB implant baseline I input
  98. II output

  99. 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 8.1% II output LED

    baseline saturated power
  100. 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 48.9% II output LED

    baseline implant saturated power
  101. II output speaker | close 10dB 5dB 0% 20% 40%

    0.3% 5.2dB baseline
  102. II output speaker | close 10dB 5dB 0% 20% 40%

    7% 6.7dB baseline implant
  103. 9600:bps 115200:bps 100% 0% 0 2000 4000:bps 9600:bps 115200:bps 0Ω

    500Ω 1KΩ 1.5KΩ 2KΩ 100mA 50mA III communication IV power
  104. more details are in the paper...

  105. implanted devices a ord interaction through skin

  106. conclusions

  107. addressed questions explored the design space of four core areas

    methodology to prototype demonstrated technical feasibility
  108. open questions people’s views and values including ethical concerns risks,

    such as infections bene ts for medical implants
  109. 3 Million people no need for manual attaching cannot lose

    or forget them available at all times potentially completely invisible
  110. None
  111. thank thanks to

  112. Department of Anatomy at University of Toronto Wei Li Azam

    Khan, Justin Matejka, Frank Li Alex Tessier, Francesco “Frio” Iorio, Gord Kurtenbach Patrick Baudisch, Alan Borning participants of our qualitative evaluation thanks to
  113. end christian holz http://www.christianholz.net