This article I wrote with my intern Meike Kurella for the Design Research Society conference 2018. The article was rejected but we would still like to share our findings here.
In this article we explore the role of an artist in a multidisciplinary team with regard to the effectiveness of the communication and the productivity of the team. In this case study a diverse team worked towards a complex, multifaceted, interactive art piece. Our main questions were: What makes this challenging collaboration successful? How does the team deal with the boundaries they encounter? We have looked at those questions from the following angles: The teams’ use of boundary objects, the multidisciplinarity of the artist, her artistic vision and the final result the team is working towards. We have researched these questions using observation, reflection and through a questionnaire answered by every team member. We have come to the conclusion that all four angles have contributed to the success but there may be other factors at play which call for further exploration.
Keywords: Experiential Knowledge; Boundary Crossing; Boundary Object; Multidisciplinary Collaboration
This article describes part of the creation process of a mixed media artwork. This work is being created during a six month project as part of the WEAR Sustain open call. The aim of the WEAR consortium is in line with the broader goal of the European Commission “…to enhance creativity and the innovative capacity in industry and society…” (“Open Call Themes”, 2017) it wants “…to boost synergies between artists and ICT experts (technologists) to enable Europe to benefit from the catalytic nature of the arts and culture across European society and industry. …In order to promote further collaboration between the arts and technology through innovation activities, WEAR focuses its engagement in collaboration, co-design and co-development of a new generation of ethical, critical, and aesthetic wearable technologies and smart textiles to influence change in industries practices and for a more circular economy.” (“Open Call Themes”, 2017)
Artist DR works at the intersection of art, technology, science, spirituality and design. With her work she wants to promote self and environmental awareness and well-being using emerging technologies and data. At the time of the call announcement she had already been working on a wearable for a year. The wearable tracks physiological and environmental data during meditation. Its aim was to learn if and how meditation practice can be optimised by changing aspects of the environment.
This wearable fitted the theme and criteria of the call. She applied for the call and was one of the 23 winners. Below follows a brief description of the project.
The project is called Meditation Lab Experimenter Kit. It is a tool-set that allows users to do their own experiments to improve their meditation quality. The kit consists of:
- a wearable with 10 different sensors called Silence Suit
- a software program for storing, analysing and managing data and wearables called the Data Server
- an Internet of Things interface to automatically influence environmental light using a device called Light Instrument
- an API to create your own applications with the data
To realise this the system makes use of emerging technologies like Internet of Things. This allows devices to talk to each other wirelessly such as, in this case, the wearable and the light device. An artificial intelligence module will learn from the data to create the most optimal light circumstances for meditation for individual users.
During this 6 month project we focussed on building a basic, flexible system that can actually influence meditation through light.
The structure of the call is such that you apply with a team, they are the project owners and get to spend the most time and money on the project. With additional vouchers a team can buy external expertise not present with the team members. So there is a technical difference between team members and external experts. For our research in this article we will however regard both types of collaborators as part of the team.
Both authors of the article are part of the team. They work on the project as well as reflect on the collaboration. Below we will describe the team and its members in more detail.
What might set this project apart from other design assignments is that the artist is also the commissioner. She had complete freedom in determining the deliverables and setting their standards. She could decide on the success of the project and its outcomes.
At the time of writing the project is still ongoing and is in its third month. But the first stage of the project is where the collaboration is most intensive and the meetings are most frequent. During the first stage the design and production of the wearable takes place. The data server structure and interface is designed. Both these activities require a lot of communication and collaboration. We therefore think that reflecting on the collaboration at this stage will still yield valuable insights. More so because were are not only looking at the results to inform the success of the project and collaboration but we are especially looking at the role of the artist within the team.
Part of the requirements of the WEAR Sustain call was that there was already a prototype at technical readiness level 3 (TRL3). At the start of the project there was a wearable that could be worn and data from the sensors could be plotted and stored. So a lot of the design, the concept and technical groundwork was already done. The collaboration during the first three months focussed on:
- Improving the existing wearable with regards to technical robustness, look and feel, usability and interaction design
- Designing the overall system and the Data Server which included: system architecture, database design and user interaction
The team consists of a mix of experienced experts, students and interns. Their backgrounds vary from computer science and electronic engineering to design and fine arts. This is a typical setting of boundaries at work in the technology and design domain as explained by Akkerman (Akkerman & Bakker, 2011). Below is a summary of the team members’ roles and expertise. This provides a picture of the diversity of the team.
The main team (as defined in the WEAR Sustain call) are:
DR is an artist. She is the project manager and during this part of the project works on various design tasks ranging from interaction design, experiment design and soft electronics. She holds a BFA in sculpting and monumental design. She has completed several university courses in psychology, psychological experiment design and statistics. She finished several courses in the field of software engineering and intensively studied information architecture. She learned the basics of electronic engineering. She took online courses on Buddhism and psychology and philosophy. And she has studied and practiced user-centred design. DR combined autonomous art production with work as a self-employed web designer (until 2013) and various teaching jobs and project management in the cultural sector (up to the present). We will explain the significance of this knowledge and experience in the collaboration process below.
VP is a textile designer with a strong interest in technologies like 3D printing, laser cutting and sustainability through fashion on demand. She is responsible for the suit design, pattern making and production.
SB is an embedded software engineer with experience in hardware for wearables and software development. He’s an employee of the innovation acceleration foundation Protospace. He is responsible for the system design and programming of the Data Server.
The external experts (as defined in the WEAR Sustain call) are:
SG is a master student embedded systems. At this stage he is responsible for the electronics and firmware.
KH is a master student embedded systems at Twente University. He is responsible for the design and production of the PCBs.
JD is a bachelor student mechanical engineering at Twente University. He is responsible for the design and 3D printing of the containers for the electronics.
AH is a student Multimedia Design and Communication and is an intern at Protospace. She works on the user interaction and interface design of the Data Server.
GB is a data scientist. He is responsible for the learning algorithms and artificial intelligence module.
HA is a software architect. His responsibility is to ensure the robustness, flexibility and scalability of the whole system.
MK is a fine arts student. As an intern at DR she works on describing the ongoing development of Meditation Lab Experimenter Kit in a weekly blogpost and various hands on tasks like sewing.
The team has used several ways to communicate. Because members were scattered over 5 locations telephone and teleconferencing have been used in addition to face to face meetings.
To research DRs multidisciplinairity and the impact on the collaboration with experts from different disciplines, we reflected on the interaction between team members in specific meetings. Especially, we focused on the role of the DR in relation to others. In this research DR reflected mainly on herself and how she experienced the collaboration and the communication. MK took on the role of an observer to reflect on how the collaboration and the communication seemed to a third party.
To verify the assumptions we made, we asked all team members to fill in a survey about how they see the collaboration and communication. In this survey we combined 5 point Likert scale responses with open questions where the team members could describe their individual point of view. So we could get as much detailed information as possible as well as the possibility to compare them to each other.
The questions we asked the team members were about their own role and their motivation to work on the project. DRs role and her qualities, as well as the interaction between DRs role and the team members and the quality of the communication within the collaboration (Attachment 1).
Working with boundaries
In this part we want to further explore the role boundaries play in this project. We have described the multidisciplinary team, the artist leading the team and the mixed media deliverables the project will yield. We want to take this a step further and show how boundaries, boundary crossing and boundary objects are at the core of the process and the end result.
When looking at the progress in the first months (milestones are being met) and the overall smoothness of the communication and collaboration (rated 3.81/5 by the team) we believe the collaboration up to the point of writing has been successful. This is despite the diversity of the team and the complex results they aimed for. We hypothesise this is due to the following factors:
- The use of boundary objects
- The multidisciplinary artist
- The artistic vision
- The art piece as a boundary object
1. The use of boundary objects
In order to make communication and transfer of knowledge possible and better, mixed teams make extensive use of self-created objects often referred to a boundary objects. They can be described as artefacts doing the crossing across sites by fulfilling a bridging function (Akkerman & Bakker, 2011). The team described in this article is no exception.
We have identified 19 objects which can be considered boundary objects (table 1). They have been used on varying occasions and by different numbers of team members. Because the art piece is multi-faceted, every facet has its own set of objects which may explain the even distribution of use and perceived usefulness of the various objects (table 1).
Table 1. Overview of identified boundary objects
|Title/name||Type||Use frequency||Subjective importance|
|1||Meditation Lab Experimenter Kit|System Specifications||Dropbox paper||41 changes, 7 remarks in 2 months, shared with 7 users||3|
|2||MLEK Data Scheme||Dropbox paper||13 changes, shared with 6 people||2|
|3||Silence Suit first design a||Tangible object||Brought to x f2f meetings||3|
|4||System Outline version 2||Schematic image||Brought to almost every meeting, referred to in Skype meetings||1|
|5||MLEK system architecture||PowerPoint with system architect proposals||Used in one Skype meeting||3|
|6||MLEK data server user interface and functionality||Schematic image||Used in two meetings, referred to in no 1||4|
|7||Costumer journey maps||Text file||Used in two meetings||2|
|8||MLEK DS Implementation||Schematic image||Used in one meeting||4|
|9||Meditation Quality Classification||Annotated image||Used in one meeting|
|10||Silence Suit textile sample version 1||Tangible object||Used in one meeting||2|
|11||Silence Suit textile sample version 2||Tangible object||Used in one meeting||2|
|12||Silence Suit first prototype b||Tangible object||Used in one meeting||2|
|13||Silence Suit part list||Excel file||Used in several meetings, shared with multiple people|
|14||Project management plan Design Lab||White board drawing||Used in one meeting|
|15||Cable and connection layout version 1 and 2||Drawings||Used in several meetings, shared with multiple people||2|
|16||Photographic notes||Photographs||Used in several meetings by the designer||1|
|17||3D PCB designs||Technical drawing||Used in several meetings||2|
|18||To-do list per meeting||Evernote to-do list||Used in one meeting||1|
|19||User interaction flowchart||Schematic image||Used in several meetings, shared with multiple people||1|
In our survey we asked the team to name the objects most helpful to them. We have ranked the objects found most useful by the team and categorised them:
- Schematics of the system (5 objects)
- Prototype (4 objects)
- Interactive collaboration tools (on-line) (2 objects)
- Drawings (2 objects)
Other objects have been used but were mentioned once or not at all by team members in the survey.
From the reactions in the survey it has become clear that the appreciation of the communication and the intensiveness of use of boundary objects are strongly linked. To explain this finding we give two examples on the extreme of the collaboration spectrum.
On the one hand is the work with VP, the suit designer. VP rated the overall communication 5/5. DR and VP have worked intensively on the user interaction with the suit. They have used iterations of the suit prototype to explore the way in which users will wear it and interact with it. The prototype was always at the centre of the communication. They enacted the future interaction with the suit with simple objects available at the scene (image 1). This way they simulated the future reality for the user and made it visual and tangible for both the artist and the designer. This type of learning through boundary objects is part of the reflective impact of boundaries called perspective taking. “This taking of the other into account, in light of a reflexive knowledge of one’s own perspective, is the perspective-taking process”. (Akkerman & Bakker, 2011, pp. 145). We crossed the boundary into the future to imagine the most optimal way for the future users to interact with the garment. The object facilitated our learning and thinking process.
Image 1 cardboard sensor replica and suit prototype. Photograph by VP
On the other hand is JD, the 3D printing expert. JD rated the overall communication 2/5. Contrary to the many samples of VP, JD only presented DR with a 3D drawing of one of the containers during a Skype meeting. It was difficult to get a clear idea of the container from the screen, this was also hampered by lack of computing power to render the drawing. In his statement he clarifies that much remained unclear because of different frames of mind. This makes clear that from his perspective boundaries were not crossed. This is underscored by his remarks when questioned about the use of boundary objects: he finds boundary objects useful in general but acknowledges the fact that we made poor use of them and mostly used email.
What was lacking is this particular communication was the learning aspect of coordination in which “…effective means and procedures are sought allowing diverse practices to cooperate efficiently in distributed work, even in the absence of consensus…” (Akkerman & Bakker, 2011, pp. 143). In those cases boundary objects facilitate the bare minimum of dialogue necessary to maintain work flow (Akkerman & Bakker, 2011). 3D printing is an area DR is not very knowledgeable in. JD is a young and specialised student. The two perspectives were very much apart. A requisite for coordination is a communicative connection between diverse practices or perspectives established through boundary objects (Akkerman & Bakker, 2011). The lack of (good) mediating artefacts at least partly explains the low productivity and stagnant work flow in the design and production of the containers.
These examples make very clear the key role boundary objects have in supporting boundary crossing communication.
2. The multidisciplinary artist
To characterize DR as an artist we first need to define different kinds of artists in the contemporary art scene as described by Gielen, van Winkel, Zwaan, 2012.
Nearly every contemporary artist is a multidisciplinary artist who has no steady medium. By medium we mean the traditionally known disciplines, such as painting, sculpting or ceramics through which the artist expresses himself. We are living and working in the post-medium-conditions. This means that the question about the medium no longer defines the artistic practice. It no longer defines you as an artist. It changes the artist’s self-concept as well as how he is seen in the society (Gielen, van Winkel, Zwaan, 2012).
In our days, many creative professions are plural practices. Bureau and Shapiro define in ‘L’Artiste Pluriel’ three different levels of pluriformity: the polyvalent artist, the polyactive artist and the pluriactive artist. The polyvanlent artist has different tasks in his own artistic practice. That could be creating things, developing the concept as well as managing his own project and governing financial matters. The polyactive artist has different professions in different social fields. It is the artist who has a non-artistic job in addition to his artistic practice. The pluriactive artist has different professions in the creative field. That means that the job you have in addition to your artistic practice takes place in the applied art field. Pluriformity is an economic as well as a legislative and a political choice. It offers you a financial security but it changes the identity and the autonomy of the artist (Gielen, van Winkel, Zwaan, 2012).
Camiel van Winkel, Pascal Gielen and Koos Zwaan add a fourth level of pluriformity to the artistic practice. It is the hybrid artist they introduce. A hybrid artist firstly has to be a pluriactive artist. Secondly, the two practices of autonomous and applied art are no longer divided, so that they are equal. They take shape in one context and in the same production. The blurring can contribute to the identity and the profile of the artist in a positive way. The artist has no need to divide the tasks because they enhance each other (Gielen, van Winkel, Zwaan, 2012).
As van Winkel, Gielen and Zwaan describe, together with the hybridism and the post-medium-conditions goes also the deskilling of the artist. The contemporary art practice is build up around a framework of concepts, intentions and attitudes. The vision of the artist is central. From here the artist determines which (technical) skills he has to learn to realize the vision. This phenomenon is called deskilling because the skills itself come on the second place. They are a derivative of the vision instead of a main thing. The artist creates a versatile package of skills (Gielen, van Winkel, Zwaan, 2012).
In this sense the artist maintains his autonomous context which is characterized as self-determined, uncompromising and authentic (Gielen, van Winkel, Zwaan, 2012). The vision of the artist is central. It is the critical view of an artist and the extraordinary capability to reflect on yourself as well as on the society. A driving force to the artist is the will to make things nobody is waiting for, except yourself. From the personal desires and inspirations around yourself the vision of an artist develops.
Having described the various types of contemporary artist we will now explain how DRs position is unique and how it may influence the team collaboration.
Looking at her art practice we can conclude that DR is polyvalent, pluriactive and hybride in different parts of her practice.
When DR is working in her studio she is an polyvalent artist. Also in this project she has different tasks such as team leader, project manager and artist at the same time.
She is a pluriactive artist when she adds various design aspects to her artistic work, may it be the research method or the outcome of the work.
The combination of design and autonomous work goes further in the case of DR than a pluriactive practice. It definitely can be said that she is a hybrid artist. ‘There is no need to divide the different domains of my work, because it is not possible to divide them. The autonomous practice needs the applied art to meet my vision and vice versa’, she explains.
We think that her skills and her artistic identity go beyond the practice of a hybrid artist. DR graduated from St Joost art school in Breda, the Netherlands in 1993 on the subject of sculpture and monumental design. So when she finished her art school education the post-medium-conditions were not that present as they are nowadays.
DR is not only active as a creative but has also worked in and or studied psychology, ICT and spirituality. During her career as an artist DR has built a broad set of skills and she has expanded her knowledge continuously. Not only to keep up to date with new developments but also to broaden her view.
This process is called ‘deskilling’ (Gielen, van Winkel, Zwaan, 2012). The choices of what to learn and how to expand are closely linked to the artistic vision. DR studied these fields to enhance her art practice and to be better able to talk to experts in different fields. On the other hand the studies and work in different fields are also a big source of inspiration to her. They feed her artistic practice and help her come up with new ideas and provide different angles of looking at reality.
During her career she has stepped outside of the art scene and traditional artist sources. She has been on the lookout for new and interesting developments in science and technology. This is what sets her apart from regular hybrid artists. Having a broad repertoire and keeping a learning mind-set are typical for innovators (Liedtka, 2017). We believe it is this outlook which enables her to perform well across boundaries as we will explain next.
Akkerman & Bakker explain the ambivalence people working at the boundary may perceive: On one hand they have a very rich and valuable position since they are the ones who can introduce elements of one practice into the other (cf. Wenger, 1998). On the other hand they face a difficult position because they are easily seen as being at the periphery, with the risk of never fully belonging to or being acknowledged as a participant in any one practice (2011).
Within this project DR clearly performs the role of boundary crosser. Contrary to the claims made above she didn’t experience any of the difficulties described. We contribute that to the following factors.
After winning the open call DR automatically became the commissioner of the Meditation Lab Experimenter Kit project. She also controlled the budget. She was right at the centre of the project and never experienced herself as being at the periphery.
She felt a strong sense of belonging. DR describes her own role as including but not limited to guarding the process and keeping direction. With that comes a natural leadership position which the team recognises and respects. SG describes her role as between costumer and product owner. He says: “We have room for our ideas but finally, she [DR] has to agree. Therefore we have to underpin our ideas well.” Apparently the team members follow DR as a leader but also feel free to bring in their own ideas.
As for never being acknowledged as a participant in any one practice: this and other projects have shown that being a boundary crosser is at the core of her work and her identity as an artist. Complex projects like the one described in this case study enable her to fully be an artist at the cross-roads of disciplines and domains.
As explained above DR can be characterised as hybrid artist and innovator which implies a broad repertoire and a learning mind-set. Both the contemporary artist and the innovator can be characterised as multidisciplinary. To verify if DR was perceived as such by the team we first asked the team how they rated the multidisciplinary of DR. This yielded a score of 4.4/5. So the overall perception was that DR is highly multidisciplinary. Next we asked if this broad knowledge was sufficient for the team members to perform their role and tasks. The knowledge sufficiency was rated 4.2/5. DRs overall general knowledge and openness to expert knowledge is appreciated. She has enough general knowledge to be able to enter the conversation. But there is enough room for the experts to do their job and feel they have an import role to play in the project. They feel DR relies on their expertise. “DR learns quickly and trusts advice.” is HDs comment on the question if DRs knowledge is sufficient. SB put it very well: “On a global level, yes on implementation level no. In my opinion global knowledge is in this case important.”
3. The artistic vision
We hypothesised that the artistic vision of DR could influence the motivation of the team members in a positive way. To verify this hypothesis we asked them in the survey if the artistic vision influenced their motivation. This yielded an average of 3/5. But there is only one team member who scored a 3. This points to a balance between two extremes of members who find the artistic vision a very strong influence on their motivation on the one hand, and on the other hand people who find the artistic vision does not influence their motivation at all. We wondered how it can be that the opinions of different team members on the same project are so far apart.
To explain these extremes it is interesting to look at the members own motivation. Here there are also two extremes. On the one hand, there are team members who are mainly motivated because of the collaboration aspect of and the personal challenge contained in the project. E.g. VP: “Knowledge enrichment concerning technology. Working in a team. Being a member of a bigger whole.”
On the other hand there are team members who mainly work on the project because of specific interests such as money or the fascination for their own discipline (e.g. JD: “Money.” or KH: “I am always in for electronics.”). We compared the extremes of the motivation to the extremes of the influence of the artistic vision and it appears that those who worked on the project because of the collaborative aspect were influenced by the artistic vision and those who were focused on a specific interest were not influenced by the artistic vision.
We consider these two perspectives a strength of this project, not a weakness. Members coming from different angles could and did find their role and contribution to the project useful, as we will explain below.
We see the artistic vision as guiding: even if it is not influencing people’s work or motivation directly, this project with all his complexity and diversity could never have taken place without a strong artistic vision.
4. Art piece as a boundary object
When looking at the description of a boundary object one may conclude that the final result of the collaboration will actually be a boundary object. The results translates between different disciplines as well as between autonomous and applied art. We believe this quality contributes to the success of the collaboration, as we will explain below.
The final result will be a mixture of different media and fields of expertise. This will make it accessible for different types of users:
Users wanting to optimise their meditation.
Users who want to experiment with their meditation.
Developers who want to explore new possibilities with the data and the build in Internet of Things functionality.
Users who enjoy the autonomous quality of suit and art works created from the data.
Right in the middle of these use cases is Meditation Lab Experimenter Kit. To accommodate for these different uses the outlook and expertise of very different people was needed.
The parts we worked on at the time of writing were: the garment, the electronic hardware and its containers, the embedded software, the data server with data base and user interface, the artificial intelligence module and the overall system architecture. The outline of the results were there, they guided the various tasks. But there was enough room for every team member to experience that their expertise is a valuable contribution. When asked about their role 4 out of 11 team members explicitly mention their role in the project as useful or important. The others see their role mostly as facilitating important parts or the project as a whole. Or as SG put it: “…It is clear that she [DR] needs to be surrounded by a team of experts to develop all the details of her ideas.”
We have described the process of working on a complex mixed media project with a diverse multidisciplinary team. Despite these challenging circumstances milestones were met and the quality of the communication and collaboration was high. We have explored the reasons for this success through observations, reflection and a survey among team members. We have discovered that the four aspects below have contributed to the success:
- The use of boundary objects
- The multidisciplinary artist
- The artistic vision
- The art piece as a boundary object
With respect to item 1. we conclude that we have used many different types of boundary objects which can be explained by the multi facet-ness of the project. In most interactions they have been used intensively. Which resulted in good productivity and communication. In the one case where boundary objects were lacking we saw a lack of productivity and poor communication.
With regard to DR as multidisciplinary we conclude that as an artist DR goes beyond the hybrid artist. Her innovative mindset has provided her with broad general knowledge. This enables her to easily cross boundaries. Her knowledge is sufficient to lead different team members. Being a generalist creates the need for expertise but also creates room for others to excel in their expertise.
We can conclude that the importance of the artistic vision differs among team members. This is driven by individual motivation. Still the overall vision is crucial because it connects the many facets and disciplines included in the project. But we believe that the passion of the artist in pursuing this vision reflects on the team members and acts as a source of inspiration. It might be the (hidden) driving force to go that extra mile. It triggers the team members to cross the boundaries of their own expertise.
Because we can identify the final art piece itself as a boundary object it provides room for users and experts to take a stance on the result and the tasks involved. This allows team members to view their contribution as an important part of the whole. The nature of the art piece is one of the aspects that enabled the successful design and production process.
This research has provided insights into what aspects contribute to successful communication and collaboration. For this article we only looked at the first months of the project period. Future research should take into account the whole project period. We believe that the role of the artistic vision and artist as someone who inspires is worthy of further research.
Abrahamson, D. & Chase, K. (2015). Interfacing Practices: Domain Theory Emerges via Collaborative Reflection. Reflective Practice: International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives, 16(3): 372–389. DOI: 10.1080/14623943.2015.1052384.
Akkerman, S.F., Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary Crossing and Boundary Objects. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 132 – 169.
Bowen, S., Durrant, A., Nissen, B., Bowers, J. & Wright, P. (2016). The Value of Designers’ Creative Practice within Complex Collaborations. Design Studies, 46, 174-198. DOI: 10.1016/j.destud.2016.06.001.
Gielen, P., van Winkel, C., Zwaan,K. (2012). De hybride kunstenaar; De organisatie van de artistieke praktijk in het postindustriële tijdperk [The hybrid artist; The organisation of the artistic practice in the post-industrial age]. Breda, Netherlands: AKV|St. Joost Expertisecentrum Kunst en Vormgeving.
Liedtka, J.M. (2017). Design Thinking for Innovation, Coursera Course University of Virginia.
Open Call Themes. (n.d.). Retrieved November 11, 2017, from https://wearsustain.eu/open-calls/open-call-themes/
Questions to team members
1. What did you expect from the project before you started?
2. What motivated you to take part in the project?
3. Meditation Lab Experimenter Kit is guided by an artistic vision (working towards a high tech hermitage). Does this vision have an impact on your motivation?
4. How do you see your role in and its meaning for the Meditation Lab Experimenter Kit prototype?
5. How would you characterize the role of Danielle within the project?
6. How multidisciplinary does Danielle appear to you? How does that impact your tasks for this project?
7. Do you fell Danielle’s knowledge is sufficient for your contribution?
8. The next questions are related to specific meetings. In answering the next questions please go back to one of the following meeting. State in your answer which meeting you picked.
a. Software kick-off via Skype Monday 21 August from 14-16h
b. Kick-off at Design Lab Twente Monday 11 September from 15:30-17h
c. Work session at Design Lab Twente Thursday 5 October from 12-17h
1. If you think back to these meetings how good was the communication? (Think of smoothness, mutual understanding, knowledge sharing, etc.)
2. To communicate we used several aids (think of: prototypes, schematics, shared documents.) How would you describe the meaning of those aids with regards to the communication? Which aids were most useful to you?
During the Dutch Design Week Awareness Lab conducted an experiment which consisted of a virtual tour through the future Meditation Lab. Visitors viewed a slide show and got an explanation of what it will entail to use Meditation Lab Experimenter Kit (MLEK).
After the tour we asked them open-ended questions like: Can you imagine using MLEK? Do you think the use of the PC is disturbing or contributing to your mindset and attitude? Do you have experience in meditation?
We collected 10 forms and got responses from 14 participants. We were touched by their involvement and interesting and valuable remarks. Remarks turned out to fall into a few areas of interest. Some remarks were mentioned only once others up to six times by different people.
You may download this A3 sized PDF: DDW17Viz
I would like to thank: the participants, Creative Ring Eindhoven, Meike Kurella, Hans d’Achard.
A romantic dinner by candle light, bright lights in an office building. Both give us a very different experience. We all know from experience how light can influence our mood and the way we perceive a space.
What I want to find out with Meditation Lab is if light conditions can also influence the quality of your meditation experience. I have a hunch that it does. This is also based on over 20 years of daily meditation practice. And I’ve found starting points on optimal lighting during meditation in scientific research.
Conditions for a good meditation session
Contrary to a commonly held belief meditation isn’t about being relaxed and a little sleepy. I practice in the Buddhist tradition of Vipassana (insight) meditation. This form of meditation is about being fully present in the moment without effort. This clear observation will give a person insight into the true nature of reality. This insight will help to overcome suffering and to become a wiser and more compassionate being. An important concept in this context is the Satipatthana.
So the ideal state for a good meditation session is being relaxed but at the same time alert. I had heard about changing light conditions in classrooms to support different activities and states of mind of students. I was also wondering if work had been done on the psychological aspects of light. I’ll summarize my findings and tell about how I will be translating that into one person experiments.
Working with a light expert
Before diving into the theory I would like to explain how I will go about changing the light conditions. I was very fortunate be introduced to Tom Bergman. He is Principal Scientist at Philips Lighting. He has been working on what he calls Light instruments: LED light systems that can be programmed and played like a musical instrument. With his instruments he wants to go beyond mere functionality and use light for expression and experience. Our goals and explorations were a perfect match. I will be using his 9 x 9 mosaic instrument. It can make all colours and make beautiful and unexpected colour transitions. Also interesting is that it has been tested as tool for relaxation by master student Nina Oosterhaven (1). Her study showed for example that looking at changing patterns of light showed a significant reduction in heart-rate. So there are interesting starting points to work with the instrument.
The light instruments are of course very specialized and not commercially available. So Tom kindly also supplied me with a Philips Hue Go. This will enable me to try out similar settings with a consumer device which is already Internet of Things ready.
Types of light
In the various articles I read I was looking for settings in light colour and intensity that would either relax or activate people and make them alert. There hasn’t been much research on the psychological effects of lighting. Seuntiens and Vogels(2) have done research on atmosphere and light characteristic in living room settings with a group of light designers. They looked at four types of atmospheres of which activating and relaxing are relevant for Meditation Lab. Interesting were their findings on the influence of colour temperature, brightness and dynamics on these atmospheres. In general the findings were: warmer (+/- 2700 Kelvin), static and less bright light (180 lux) is perceived as relaxing. Cooler (+/- 3800 K) and brighter light (390 lux) is perceived as activating this light can have a slow dynamic.
Sleegers et al (3) looked at school performance in children and students under adjusted light conditions. Their studies used build in light systems which had different settings. Focus, calm and engery are the most interesting for my project. Energy is an interesting setting, it is used in the morning or after mealtime to overcome sluggishness. The settings correspond with the following light properties (measured at eye-hight):
Energy:650 lux and 12000 K colour temperature
Focus:1000 lux and 6500 K colour temperature
Calm:300 lux and 2900K
Jacques Taillard et al (4) studied the effects of blue light on staying awake whilst driving a car at night. They compared the effects of continuous blue light to drinking coffee. When compared to a placebo both coffee and the blue light condition reported significantly less inappropriate line crossings with coffee doing only slightly better then blue light. The light source was a Philips GOLite with a wavelength of 468 nm. Luminance level was around 20 lux measured at eye level.
Sleepiness, tension and lack of focus are challenges you face when meditating. By experimenting with different types of light I want to find out if the findings in other areas can be used in a meditation setting. I will use warm white light for relaxation, cool white light for focus and blue light for alertness. I will be exposed to one light condition per 20 minute meditation session. Before and after every session I fill in the standardised questionnaires which I have designed. I have started single person experiments (n=1) and I have designed the following experiments.
There is no baseline measurement included in the single person meditation session. Instead I have conducted 54 baseline session under my usual meditation conditions. I did a 6 day solitary retreat at home. The sessions took place throughout the day, I didn’t manipulate anything, especially not the light conditions. So they varied widely as the day progressed.
At the moment I’m conducting n=1 experiments using the Light instrument and the three main light states described above. I’ve set up a darkened lab to control the light conditions. I keep my eyes slightly open with my gaze turned down.
My first impressions are that there is a difference from what I normally experience during meditation. The white lights I find quite relaxing and somehow invigorating. The blue light I find less pleasant and a bit depressing. I suppose the light will interact with my overall state of focus, sleepiness and alertness as it fluctuates during the day. That is why I try to do the experiments at different times of the day while using the same light setting. I do worry a bit about my sleep when meditating in the evening in bright light. For that reason I have turned down the brightness (there a 5 settings) in an effort to not affect my sleep too much.
The single person experiments are my starting point. Later I will report on my design for group experiments. I’m always on the lookout for people who would like to join the experiments. So please leave a comment if you want to participate.
1) Oosterhaven, N. (2017). Fascinated by Dynamic Lighting. Thesis Master of Science In Human Technology Interaction
2) Seuntiens, P.J.H. & Vogels, Ingrid. (2008). Atmosphere creation: The relation between atmosphere and light characteristics. Proceedings from the 6th Conference on Design and Emotion 2008.PJC Sleegers, PhD, NM Moolenaar, PhD, M Galetzka, PhD, A Pruyn, PhD, BE 3) Sarroukh, PhD, B van der Zande, PhD (2013). Lighting affects students’ concentration positively: Findings from three Dutch studies. Lighting Research & Technology Vol 45, Issue 2, pp. 159 – 175
4) Taillard J, Capelli A, Sagaspe P, Anund A, Akerstedt T, Philip P (2012) In-Car Nocturnal Blue Light Exposure Improves Motorway Driving: A Randomized Controlled Trial. PLoS ONE 7(10): e46750.
Last weeks we had a great time working hard on the paper we wrote about the collaboration in a multidisciplinary team. All team members worked hard on the next prototype of the Silence Suit and we made great steps to realize it.
But first, I want to tell you more about the paper we wrote. As a reaction to the call for papers from the Design Research Society, Danielle and me decided to reflect on the collaboration in this project. We decided that it goes very well and wanted to research if Danielle’s artistic vision of Hermitage 3.0 is stimulating the team member’s motivation in a positive way. We formulated a survey every team member answered to verify our hypothesis. These hypothesis were created by our reflection. While Danielle reflected on her own role and how she subjectively experience the collaboration, I took the role of an observer to reflect on it from a third angle as onlooker.
It was a really intensive time because it was very hard to formulate our hypothesis and our questions that clear, so we can compare it to the answers of the survey. First, it went very naturally. I did some research about the contemporary artist and compared it to Danielle’s art practice. Danielle read articles about the collaborations and how designers communicate within a collaboration. We saw some parallels with how our collaboration goes and talked about it. Later, it became more complex. We had some hypothesis and questions we still wanted to research. But what does our hypothesis mean in the bigger whole? While I found it easy to zoom in on the artistic practice, I found it more difficult to zoom out at the end to see the relations with the main question to formulate a conclusion.
It was noticeable that Danielle was the leader within this collaboration of writing the paper. I realized that she is experienced in reflecting and formulating her hypothesis in an academic way. Reflecting on how I worked on the paper, I noticed that the art school context is very different from the real world. Criteria for an artist as open minded and innovative seem obvious to me looking at my classmates. Danielle told me her experience with colleagues who finished art school but still work conservatively. I wonder if these people are artists in my eyes.
In the end I am really happy about the result of the paper. Even if there are some things we could further reflect on to get it more precisely, we made great discoveries. We concluded that there are objects needed to communicate with people from different disciplines. They are named boundary objects because they help the team members to cross boundaries. We also learned that the artistic vision of the project stimulates some team members to cross the boundaries of their own expertise. We believe that Danielle as person and as an artist stimulates also the dynamic of the project. But that is an aspect which is worthy of further research.
The writing of the paper was an extraordinary experience for me to work together on one text. I learned how difficult and important it is to understand each other thoughts in the way that you can think further on the thought of another. We have submitted the paper for review by the Design Research Society. We will know if it is accepted by the end of January. We’ll keep you posted.
Visit to Twente
Because we were so busy writing the paper I had no time yet to tell you about our last visit to Design Lab where three students from University Twente: Stephen, Klaas and Jelmer, are working hard to realize the electronics, 3D printed housing and the firmware for Silence Suit. Vera de Pont, the designer, went with us to look how the wiring and the sensors have to be included in the suit. The meeting itself seemed a bit chaotic to me because there was no main focus. Later, I realized that there cannot be a main focus because everyone is working on his own aspect from his own expertise. While Vera and Danielle tried on the suit, Stephen, Klaas and Jelmer worked on the PCBs and casing. And while Danielle spoke with Stephen, Klaas and Jelmer about technical details, Vera tried to effectuate the first adaptation. I noticed that Danielle took the cross over role between these two different work-fields, between design and technology she was the artist.
Generally, many things do not work from the beginning. So you have to make many trials before the result fulfils your expectations. That is something I really learned from my intern-ship and it is still something I have to work on. Personally, I want to do it right in one step. But obviously that is not possible with such a complex project. That is also why the meeting in Twente seemed that chaotic to me. In the end, I had the feeling that we did not reach our goals, because many things did not work. Now, some weeks later, I realize that these trials (I knowingly do not want to name it mistakes) were essential to come where we now are.
The first PCBs are ready, the badge for the environmental sensors and the box for the micro-controller are 3D printed and they look beautiful. The software and the suit itself will soon be ready. Then we have to bring together the suit with the wiring and the sensors. The next step will be to meditate as much as possible to get enough data to program the software intelligence which has to operate the light instrument. It is a exciting time because now, things really have come together.
Last week, we had an inspiring day at Dutch Design Week in Eindhoven. We exhibited the latest prototype of the Silence Suit in the exhibition Do (not) feed the makers and asked the visitors to participate in a virtual tour through the Meditation Lab. We wanted to ask them for some feedback about the procedure of putting on the suit and logging the data of a meditation session.
We were well prepared. We created a setting with meditation mats and some tea to welcome the visitors. Beforehand, we made a slide show with icons to show all steps belonging to the preparations before meditating, such as putting on the suit and checking every sensor, starting the computer to fill in de questionnaire about which experiment you are going to do and activating the light instrument. In the course of the virtual tour we explained what is happening while meditating: the detected data drive the light instrument to optimize your meditation session. For example, if your heartbeat is too high, you need some warm white light to relax or if you nearly fall asleep, you need some blue light to focus.
The feedback was very positive. Experienced meditators as well as beginners and inexperienced were enthusiastic to think along with our vision. The experienced found it an interesting tool to deepen their meditation experiences. And the inexperienced found it a great tool to facilitate the start of meditating. ‘If there is a light instrument helping you to focus, meditation cannot be that difficult.’, someone said.
Danielle was mostly in dialogue with the visitors and I was taking notes to later look it up to check if we can realize some of the visitor’s wishes. The consensus of the day is in my opinion that the data base as well as the questionnaire have to be as flexible as possible, so that the user can customize it easily. The desires about the outcome of the data were very individual.
In the course of the day, we also heard some critical voices. Some of the visitors criticized the use of technology in combination with meditation. Their motivation to meditate would be to free from the media. Some people also criticized the judgement of a good or a bad meditation session. Meditation has to free you from the pressure you experience in your everyday life. For those people it would be great to profit from the light instrument without reflecting on the outcome.
I learned, that the Meditation Lab Experimenter Kit is not for everyone. It was never Danielle’s intention to make something everyone is waiting for. It makes her an artist that she realizes a project which seems paradoxical first, but can be really stimulating if you are willing. Staying open for the Meditation Lab Experimenter Kit means to be interested in meditation, technology and self-development. You must not be scared about the combination of spirituality and technology which can be very interesting as the Silence Suit shows.
We were very happy about the outcome of this exhibition. I found it very interesting to see how exhibiting, researching and networking can go together. It was inspiring to hear enthusiastic as well as critical voices and it was a great exercise to get in contact with some potential users. We got a list of people who want to know more about the project and maybe want to participate in some Meditation Lab Experiments.
I am really enjoying my internship at Awareness Lab. Even if I only speak Danielle regularly, and other team members from time to time, I get the impression that I can mean something to the whole. I like to hear how Danielle is reflecting on her own person every morning I visit her. And I enjoy contributing my part to the paper as well as to the representation of the Silence Suit on Dutch Design Week in Eindhoven, as you can read in the following.
Reflecting on the multidisciplinary collaboration
As I told you last time we are working hard on our paper about the multidisciplinary collaboration and Danielles’ role as a multidisciplinary person. We want to define her role as an artist and differentiate her from a designer. We want to answer questions as: What makes her an artist, even if her mentality sometimes seems more a designer’s mentality? Does every multidisciplinary project needs at least one multidisciplinary person to make it efficient?
We are doing research by reading academic articles about the designer’s approach, an artists mentality and multidisciplinary teams. We also want to speak out of our own experiences. I am preparing a questionnaire for all team members. I want to know how they see the collaboration. I want them to reflect on their own role as well as on Danielle’s role and their communication. I am excited about the outcome of the questionnaire and how we can integrate the other’s point of view in our paper.
Dutch Design Week
We got the possibility to present the Silence Suit in the exhibition Do (not) feed the makers which is part of Dutch Design Week in Eindhoven. Danielle asked the question what we could present so that we can use this presentation as a research method. The idea is that you can get some input and some feedback by presenting your ideas to the visitors of Dutch Design Week. But what shall we present? The suit itself and the data server are not ready yet. We got to think: We do have the questionnaire and the costumer journeys. We could share the procedure of a logged meditation and actuated session virtually on screen. In this way, we can ask visitors for feedback on the procedure and outcomes.
We went further on that idea by thinking of the setting. We want the visitors to get an impression of how a Meditation Lab session could feel. So we think of a simple setting that still breaths a Zen feel: meditation mats, incense, tea and oriental snacks. A room divider could create a safe space where you dare to get into the vision of the Meditation Lab Experimenter Kit. The prototype of the Silence Suit will be presented on a mannequin. By projecting the questionnaire and some icons describing the procedure, the visitor will get an idea of a logged meditation session.
We want to know if they can imagine using the Meditation Lab Experimenter Kit. Maybe they have some ideas about how they would like to prepare before meditating. What do they expect from the outcome? I am curious if the Meditation Lab Experimenter Kit can change the way they think about meditating.
So if you want to participate on our visual demonstration of the Meditation Lab Experimenter Kit, come visit us the 28th of October on Dutch Design Week – Do (not) feed the makers in Eindhoven. I hope to see you there! :-)
At the moment the project really satisfies me. We still get deeper into many aspects of the Silence Suit as you can read in the following.
Reflecting on the collaboration
As you can read in our last two blog posts, Danielle and me are both reflecting on our collaboration with technician, software engineers and designers. By chance, we got a call for a paper this week by DRS Special Interest Groups on Experiential Knowledge. They want to collect papers about experiential knowledge in collaborative interdisciplinary design research. By reflecting further on our personal experience we could contribute a paper to that interesting collection. We choose to work together on one paper and I am really excited about it. Personally, I hope to get clearer what the role of an artist means to me, by reflecting further on the collaboration I am observing in the case of this project.
Deepening of the content
I see that Danielle is working hard to get more knowledge about the influence of light on meditation. She reads many academic articles about how light can influence the relaxing and the activating atmosphere of a room. She mainly wants to focus on first calming the one who is going to meditate and later facilitate his focus while meditating. I find it impressive how she appropriates the knowledge to formulate her own criteria for her own scenarios as you can read here. By still acquiring more knowledge, Danielle retains the deepening of the content of her vision.
The complexity of the project, I described to you last time, is also noticeable in the setup of the database. Simon de Bakker from ProtoSpace is working hard on the NoSQL database. I learned that this database consists of many different tables. Every table describes one aspect of the whole, such as sensor, session or user. Every table is connected to other tables. That is the point where it gets so complex that I find it difficult to explain. But I understood that it connects for example the user with the suit he is working with. The table about the sensor is first in general about all sensors. When it comes to the suit, as you can see in the following picture, it describes among other things the id of the suit and which specific sensor sits in that suit. When it detects a wrong value the data base learns that one of the sensors does not work. The user first has to know in which suit the specific sensor sits. So that he can later see which sensor it is and how he has to work on it. This is only one example of the correlations which have to be programmed in the NoSQL database, which makes it that complex.
Anne (Protospace intern) is working on the wire frames. I brainstormed with Danielle about the design of the screens. By formulating the criteria, it gets clearer to me what the message should be when the user opens the platform. The atmosphere of a zen meditation and the feeling of calming down do not have to be present in the design. That is something you experience while meditating. Via the platform Danielle wants to transfer the idea of an experimenter kit, tools and functionality. The wire frames have to work as a manual for the kit.
To optimise the comfort and the functionality of the Silence Suit we worked further on the button ring to mark a moment in the timeline of your meditation session. I think now we got the most optimal version of the ring. We succeeded in making a ring from conductive fabric functioning as a button sensor. So that the position of your hands do not matter.
Anyway, you can push the button without much effort while meditating. In the following picture you see the data of our experiment. When you push the button the value minimises. Even if the sensor is a little unstable, you can see clearly the marked moments in your timeline. I am satisfied seeing the success of developing the ring over many weeks in data.
Generally, I enjoy the moments when our experiments yield insights which bring the Silence Suit to the next level, so that it takes more and more form. Especially, the inspiring conversations with Danielle help me to understand the context and the correlations of the project and the project itself. Personally, it brings me further in my positioning as an artist by comparing my practice to hers.
Hello, I am Meike Kurella. I am an art student finishing the final year of the art academy St.Joost, Breda. For the next half year I am doing my internship at Awareness Lab. I am going to help Danielle Roberts by blogging about the process and helping her with all kind of hands on tasks. For me, it will offer an insight in the daily life of an artist. I am really interested how a network of artists and scientists works and I would like to discover what technology could mean for my work.
I am really excited we can start realising the Meditation Lab together. I want to follow and to determine the whole process of the project. That is why I will give an overview in form of a weekly blog. This is how I experienced my first day at Awareness Lab.
In the morning, Danielle explains her plans and shows me the prototype of the Silence Suit. She gets the wearable on. “It has to become a ritual”, she says. It does not look very comfortable. So I ask her if she wants some help. “Oh no, just enjoy the moment, you are the public”, she says and goes on. She got it. Every sensor, every cable is connected to the microcontroller. To optimise the process of putting on the wearable Danielle has recorded an MP3 file so you can listen to her instructions by scanning a QR-code. Thus, putting on the wearable becomes a part of the whole experience. We start the system and it does not work. “You see, we have to work on it”, she says and laughs. She has no idea why it does not work. We have to test some options before it is fixed. She logs while we are sitting at the computer in her studio. But the session terminates every time she moves too much. We have to work on the sensor that detects sitting. The errors have to be eliminated. There are already some tests done to choose the right sensor. Danielle had three options for different sensors. By logging sessions with each of the three sensors she could make a choice. “You see, the blue one is the best.” That seems to be how it works: Trial and error.
Danielle already planned the project before she knew she could realise the Meditation Lab. She already knew who would be her mentor, who would help her realising the software system and who would design the wearable. She already had everything worked out before she knew the expectations of WEAR Sustain. After she won the call she learned about rules and limitations on spending the budget. That is why many plans have to be changed. It costs much time that she actually wanted to use to do some test en trials. These are organizational problems you have to deal with.
But as an artist Danielle wants to do research and create things. That is why she continues by doing research about the meaning of a habit. She wants to reform the design of the wearable. It has to become more classic so you get the association of a contemporary monk. Next week we will meet Léanne, the designer, to tell her about the new plans. Moreover, Danielle already spoke to Doshin, her meditation teacher. By connecting with inspiring people and talking to experts like Doshin she wants to increase the importance of the Silence Suit for your meditation session.
She plans to develop a questionnaire that you have to fill in before and after your meditation session. So you can quantify the quality of your experience. That is only one point of Danielle’s very long wish list for the Meditation Lab.
In experiment three I wanted to see if adding movement to visual content had a bigger lowering effect on heart-rate and subjective stress then just using a still. And I wanted to know if variables like heart-rate and skin conductance could be restored to or below the baseline following a stress stimulus. Sound accompanied the visuals and I used the same soundtrack for both conditions.
The animation consisted of a main landscape layout with different animated elements over-laying that scene. The landscape consisted of a blue sky with white clouds slowly moving over it. Three hills with shrubs in different shades of green and a blue water body with a cream coloured shore. The animations were started mostly in sequence so there were just one or two animated elements to be seen. This is aside from the clouds and the waves on the water body, they were visible most of the time.Animation still used in condition 2
Other animations are: big and small flocks of “birds” consisting of 150 and 5 “birds” respectively. They move in random directions within the frame. Blossom leaves flying from one side of the screen to the other. This animation also included a bee flying from one side of the screen in a slow, searching way. A final animation element are the butterflies. They flutter near the bottom of the centre of the screen and disappear after a random time span. The visuals are not realistic but simplified and based on the style of the old Japanese woodblock prints.
The sounds are inspired by nature but underwent a lot of computer manipulation. The sound is carefully synced with the imagery and movements on the screen.
In both conditions I measured subjective tension (7 point likert scale), heartbeats per minute, heart-coherence and skin conductivity. The experiment consisted of three stages: a baseline measurement (5 minutes), a cognitive stress task (around two minutes), the audio and visual stimulus part (5 minutes). Subjective tension was measured before the baseline measurement, after the stress task and after the stimulus. For a full description of the lab setup and experiment view the previous post.
The sample consisted of a total of 33 participants, more women then men (75% over 25%), this frequency was the same for both conditions. They were mainly recruited from the art centre where the experiment took place, there were a couple of students and some members from the general public. They were randomly assigned to each condition. The maximum age was 71, the minimum was 20 (mean 41,1). One dataset was corrupt so I ended up with 16 (mean age 39,6) participants in condition 1 (animated landscape) and 16 (mean age 42,7) in condition 2 (landscape still).
I’ve used SPSS 20 to calculate the statistics. I was curious if the heart-rate or heart-coherence would correlate with the subjective tension and/or the skin conductance. I could find very few significant correlations between the different variables. There are only significant connections between the different measurements of one variable. So the beats per minute (BPM) of the baseline measurement correlates with that of the cognitive stress task measurement and of the stimulus (landscape) measurement. The same is true for the Gavanic skin response (GSR) and the heart-coherence (HC). The only interesting correlation I found was a negative correlation between the baseline HC and the self reported tension (SRT) of the baseline and the stimulus. The could indicate that, assuming that heart-coherence is a measure of alert relaxation, perceived tension at the start and during the task the opposite of this alert relaxation state. But the correlation is weak (-496 and -501) so not much can be concluded from that.
Before comparing conditions (with or without motion) I had to check if the stress stimulus had worked and if there was an effect for the audiovisual stimulus in general. Below you see an overview of the variables self reported tension (SRT), beats per minute (BPM), heart-coherence (HC) and galvanic skin response (GSR). The values for these variables are the mean values for the duration of the different parts of the experiment: Baseline (t1), cognitive stress task (t2) and stimulus (audiovisual material, both conditions) (t3). You can also see the expected direction of the variables. The significant values are printed in green.
From the table you can tell that there is a significant difference between the baseline measurement and the cognitive stress task on the one hand and between the stress task and the stimulus. This is true for BPM, GSR and self reported tension. All values rose during the stress task and decreased during the stimulus presentation. As those measures are strong indicators for stress this indicates that the stress task worked and the tension showed significant variation during the experiment. Heart-coherence shows no significant changes.
For the heart-rate there was even a significant lowering of the mean compared to the baseline. Indicating that the BPM was even lower the when participants entered the experiment.
Of course I wanted to test if there was a difference in the variables between conditions, that way I could see if animation was more effective then using only a static image. As you can see from the table there were no significant results for either of the conditions apart from the skin conductivity (GSR). The skin conductivity is a measure for arousal, the more aroused the higher the value. I would expect the GSR to be low at the start, high during the stress task and again low during the stimulus presentation. The GSR values for the stimulus presentation were significantly lower then during the stress task but they were still significantly higher then during the baseline measurement. This indicates that the GSR levels haven’t gone back to the baseline let alone become lower then the baseline state. This might be due to the fact that it takes more time for the skin activity to go back to normal. The response is slower than for heart-rate measurements.
We can see a reduction in heart-rate for both conditions with a bigger reduction in heart-rate for the animation condition. But neither of these changes are significant.
For the self reported tension we see a significant lowering in the tension from the higher values during the stress task and stimulus presentation. This means that people felt significantly less tense watching the landscape than during the stress task. The perceived tension was also lower in the animation condition than during at the start of the experiment though not significantly so. We don’t see this effect in the static condition. For this condition the baseline was lower and the effect of the stress stimulus was stronger. The overall variation was bigger. So you can’t really draw any definitive conclusions from this data other then that the landscapes reduced arousal in both conditions.
Overall lack of significance of many of the variables in either conditions may be caused by small the sample or it may indicate that there isn’t enough difference between the conditions for it to be significant. This might be caused by the way the stimuli were presented. For the sound we used a high quality active noise cancellation headphone. The impact of the sound was big. The screen image on the other hand was rather small (84,5 x 61,5 cm). The effect of the visuals might therefore be less strong in comparison with the high impact of the sounds.
I was of course also interested in the overall differences between the conditions, especially for the landscape stimulus. When comparing the different measurement moments for BPM we can see that in every moment the heart-rate in the static image condition is lower. So the participant in the first condition already started out with a much higher heart-rate. During the stress task the difference is even bigger and during the landscape presentation the differences have become smaller. I had expected that the heart-rate in the first condition would be lower but the differences are so big to begin with that you can’t draw any conclusions from it.
So does animation have a more positive effect on heart-rate, heart-coherence, skin conductance and self reported tension? I’ve looked at the interaction between all these variables and animation but on non of the variables the effect is significant. The major effects are on heart-rate. A bit to my surprise there are absolutely no effects on heart-coherence. In the first condition we see even a (non-significant) lowering of coherence during the animation. I’m therefore not going to use this value to drive my animation as was my original intention.
While analysing I got curious to see if there are differences between the scenes of the animation and sound in condition 1 and 2. The animation and accompanying sounds can be divided into 10 different scenes. During the construction of the video I tried to incorporate various animation elements. They become visible one after the other.
I looked at the effects on mean heart-rate because it showed the most results. I wrote a script to calculate the mean heart-rate for every scene and for both conditions. The results are show in the graph below.
The variations between the scenes were not significant for the sound with still condition but they were at two points for the animated condition. You can view stills of the scenes below. There was a significant reduction in heart-rate of 4,8 between scenes 1 (mean 76,6) and 2 (mean 71,8). And a significant reduction in heart-rate between scenes 1 and 9 (mean 71, 5) of 5,1. This could suggest that more is happening to the participants in the animation condition and that animation has more potential for influencing the heart-rate of users.