{"id":1847,"date":"2011-08-03T12:49:03","date_gmt":"2011-08-03T12:49:03","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.physiologicalcomputing.net\/?p=1847"},"modified":"2021-12-22T20:21:14","modified_gmt":"2021-12-22T20:21:14","slug":"physiological-computing-challenges-for-developers-and-users","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.physiologicalcomputing.net\/?p=1847","title":{"rendered":"Physiological Computing, Challenges for Developers and Users."},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

I recently received a questionnaire from the European Parliament, or rather \u00a0its\u00a0STOA panel<\/a>\u00a0with respect to developments in physiological computing and implications for social policy. \u00a0The European Technology Assessment Group (ETAG<\/a>)\u00a0is working on a study with the title “Making Perfect Life” which includes a section on biocybernetic adaptation as well as BCI as other kinds of “assistive” technology. \u00a0The accompanying email told me the questionnaire would take half-an-hour to complete (it didn’t) but they asked some interesting questions, particularly surrounding the view of the general public about this technology and issues surrounding data protection.<\/p>\n

I’ve included a slightly-edited version of the questionnaire with my responses. Questions are in italics.\"\"
\n<\/p>\n

Section 1: State of the art and future directions<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

\u201cBiocybernetically adaptive artefacts\u201d use data about the changing affective, physiological or neurophysiological state of the user in order to change their own functionality and\/or appearance accordingly. Would you say that your research is concerned with \u201cbiocybernetic adaptation\u201d?<\/em><\/p>\n

Mainly, among others.<\/p>\n

“<\/strong>There is a noticeable excitement among computer scientists, especially in the HCI community with respect to physiological computing (e.g. sections on \u201cBrain-Computer Interfaces for HCI\u201d at CHI-2008 and \u201cBrain and Body Interfaces\u201d at CHI-2011). In this vein Fairclough (2009) states \u201cPhysiological computing has the potential to provide a new paradigm for HCI by allowing a computer system to develop and access a dynamic representation of the cognitions, emotions and motivation of the user\u201d. Are you inclined to share these high hopes and to acknowledge the great potential of these technologies, or would you consider them first of all as hype phenomena?<\/em><\/p>\n

<\/em>Please explain your point of view:”<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

As the author of the quote above, let me defend my position against any accusations of hype.\u00a0 If we want our computer systems to be smarter, more autonomous or demonstrate higher levels of \u201cintelligence\u201d, we need to enhance the sensitivity of technology to the context of the user, in order to do that, computers require a representation of the state or behavioural context of the user.\u00a0 Physiological computing represents a means of implicitly monitoring the psychological state of the user in order to inform computer adaptation and automation. \u00a0 \u00a0This is a new paradigm for human-computer interaction because there is a real dialogue or two-way exchange of information between user and system.\u00a0 Thus, the system responds to changes in user state, which is subsequently altered by events at the interface and so on.\u00a0 The net effect of this reflexive interaction is that computers will no longer respond in a deterministic and totally predictable fashion, instead the behaviour of technology at the interface will be more probablistic in nature – this would be a huge paradigm change.\u00a0 In addition, as events at the interface respond to a machine classification of user state, the system functions as a \u2018mirror\u2019 for the user with implications for psychological self-awareness and self-regulation.<\/p>\n

“Biocybernetic adaptation is sometimes described by its proponents as a means of achieving greater symmetry between humans and machines, because both human and computer are then able to enter a kind of dialogue and to get information about the status of the other. Is symmetrical HCI a robust and useful guiding vision for further development of HCI research?<\/em><\/p>\n

Please explain your point of view:”<\/em><\/p>\n

My answer to this question is \u2018yes\u2019.\u00a0 As technology becomes more pervasive and powerful (both in terms of autonomy and the capability to deliver information), we need a new model for HCI where IT works less as a deaf and blind slave system and more like a team player equipped with a tacit awareness of how best to serve the dynamic needs of the user.\u00a0 The benefits of this development are systems that are \u2018smarter\u2019 with respect to how\/when they deliver information or systems that\u00a0actively\u00a0attempt to enhance safety and wellbeing.\u00a0 However, these potential enhancements will come at a price – symmetrical HCI means that users must engage in an more intimate relationship with technology (in terms of sharing information about private or personal experiences) and that computer systems will exercise a greater level of autonomy.<\/p>\n

“What will be the single major application area where biocybernetic adaptation will be first applied on a large scale?<\/em><\/p>\n

Please explain your choice and the underlying consideration:”<\/em><\/p>\n

At the time of writing, the vast majority of sensors for physiological measurement still tend to be intrusive and generally not very comfortable for long-term use.\u00a0 Therefore, users who can perceive specific benefits will be the early adopters of this kind of technology.\u00a0 The two application areas where users can see definite benefits will be computer games, where physiological computing can add new modes of control and enhanced gaming dynamics, and telemedicine, where the availability of sensor apparatus allows both patients and medical professionals to monitor health status.<\/p>\n

“What are the most relevant application fields where biocybernetically adaptive artefacts are already in use or will be in use in the (not too far) future? (healthcare, education and learning, entertainment, safety critical systems, driver assistance systems etc.?).<\/em><\/p>\n

I see a great future for biocybernetically adaptive systems in (please check)<\/em>\u00a0:
\nhealthcare, \u00a0education and learning, \u00a0entertainment & games, safety critical systems, \u00a0assistance systems (e.g. driver assistance), \u00a0others\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

Biocybernetically adaptive systems will remain a marginal phenomenon in (please check)<\/em>\u00a0:
\nhealthcare, \u00a0education and learning, \u00a0entertainment & games, safety critical systems, assistance systems (e.g. driver assistance), \u00a0others<\/em><\/p>\n

Please comment your choices:”<\/em><\/p>\n

The great future for physiological computing is theoretical at present based upon an assumption that the costs of the technology will be justified by the enhancements delivered by the systems.\u00a0 This \u201cgreat future\u201d will remain theoretical unless we develop a multidisciplinary research base where psychologists, engineers and computer scientists work together to develop this kind of technology; at the moment, the area seems somewhat fractured and that is a cause for concern with respect to whether the potential of this technology will be realised.<\/p>\n

“Do you know of any study where experience and\/or expectations of (potential) users have already been addressed?\u00a0If so, what has precisely been investigated?”<\/em><\/p>\n

There have been studies on the development of physiological computing systems which have been evaluated as prototypical systems – particularly with respect to adaptive automation and gaming technology.\u00a0 Most report that performance and engagement with the task (e.g. game or simulated aviation task) have been enhanced as a result.\u00a0 Where researchers have studied the use of biocybernetic adaptation on automation, they have reported a reduction of mental workload, which is one positive effect of system automation.<\/p>\n

“Outside human-computer-interaction physiological computing is discussed as a means for biometric surveillance, e.g. to recognise criminal intent automatically. Do you think that surveillance is a likely, suitable and desirable application field for physiological and affective computing.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

Please explain your point of view:”<\/em><\/p>\n

Where there is the opportunity to monitor physiology, there is the potential to attach psychological concepts to the resulting pattern of data.\u00a0 I have written in the past that this whole area of technology was developed in the shadow of the polygraph.\u00a0 My own feeling is that detection of criminal activity is an unsuitable and undesirable application for physiological computing.\u00a0 It is undesirable because the monitoring of physiology that is essential for this technology should only be performed with full consent of the individual.\u00a0 I would also argue that users should retain full control over their own data streams with respect to sharing that information with others.\u00a0 Secondly, this kind of technology can only function with any degree of precision where the link between physiological activity and psychological concepts are fully validated in the field as well as the laboratory.\u00a0 I know of no such research work where the intention to engage in criminal activity has been identified in either the laboratory or the field.\u00a0 This may not mean that the development of such a surveillance system is unlikely – but I have strong reservations about whether it could work with any accuracy and without violating the data protection rights of individuals.<\/p>\n

“Outside human-computer-interaction physiological computing is also thought of as a means to evaluate the user or consumer behaviour of software, media products, and even physical products. \u201cNeuro-marketing\u201d is one of the recent buzzwords in this context. How realistic is the use of physiological computing for consumer research and related purposes?\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

Please explain your point of view:”<\/em><\/p>\n

Much depends on how we define consumer behaviour in this context.\u00a0 It should be certainly possible to capture psychophysiological responses to consumer items in terms of the level of physiological activation provoked by a specific item.\u00a0 It may also be possible to capture variables such as emotional valence and approach\/avoidance motivation in response to items.\u00a0 These implicit responses may inform consumer research but testing would have to be highly systematic in order to yield clear and unambiguous results.\u00a0 For example, the type of consumer item under consideration must be carefully controlled – if we were to present a user with four items: a laptop, a mobile telephone, a handgun and a sex toy – the latter two would provoke the strongest response with respect to physiological activation regardless of whether users wished to purchase them or not.<\/p>\n

“What are the major economic and social barriers to the diffusion of technologies incorporating biocybernetic adaptation (lack of demand, costs, data protection\/privacy, problems related to the autonomy of human users, impact on self-perception of humans?\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

Please describe in detail:”<\/em><\/p>\n

In my view, the greatest economic barrier would be to develop a system that unambiguously delivered enhanced value via physiological computing.\u00a0 The requirement for sensor technology would, at the moment, act as an additional peripheral device and the additional cost would have to be justified.\u00a0 The largest social barrier I think is the development of a totally unobtrusive, discrete and comfortable sensor technology.\u00a0 The other factors listed in the question such as data protection\/autonomy\/self-perception are not major issues until we have sensor technology that is acceptable to the general public and software that provides users with an incentive to wear these sensors.<\/p>\n

“Where are the main scientific challenges in physiological computing research? In other words: What are the essential scientific breakthroughs required to advance the whole research field?<\/em><\/p>\n

Please explain:”<\/em><\/p>\n

The essential scientific developments fall into several categories: (1) as stated earlier, we need sensor technology that is comfortable, unobtrusive, capable of delivering robust data in the field and aesthetically appealing, (2) we need more work on real-time algorithms that capture psychophysiological measures whilst dealing with artifacts and confounds, (3) we need more work on evolutionary algorithms where signal classification is tailored to the individual user (so the algorithm grow with the user), and (4) innovations in software design where a repertoire of adaptive responses are available in order to tailor system response to the context of the user.<\/p>\n

\n

“Without doubt, thinking of future biocybernetically adaptive artefacts based on affective, physiological and neurophysiological computing, ethical concerns arise such as most subtle Orwellian surveillance scenarios, a nightmare for privacy, a horror of subconscious manipulation of thoughts, a loss of human autonomy because machines are guiding and nurturing us. Do you think any of these risks and threats is already part of our present day reality?<\/em><\/p>\n

Which of these risks or threats are already here or imminent? Please explain your point of view:” \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

There is analogy between these kinds of concerns about physiological computing and existing systems, such as Amazon and iTunes, which monitor purchasing patterns in order to make recommendations.\u00a0 In both cases, surveillance is performed on the buying patterns of the person, which are fed to an algorithm, in order to make recommendations about future purchases.\u00a0 These systems reduce autonomy in order to nurture future buying patterns.\u00a0 However, these systems are tolerated because the benefits (saved time searching) attained outweigh the reduction of privacy and autonomy.\u00a0 Physiological computing systems must aim to the same kind of utilitarian trade-off in order to be acceptable to the public.<\/p>\n

“There are different approaches to privacy. In a sense privacy and data protection are just two elements of the social controllability and thus acceptability of technology (Steinm\u00fcller 1971). In this view the relation between organizations (private or public) developing and deploying technology on the one hand and users or citizens on the other hand has to be designed.\u00a0 To this end \u201cprivacy by design\u201d, privacy enhancing technologies, and legal regulations and requirements (e.g. of transparency or facilities for intervention) may be helpful. What is your understanding of privacy and what type of intervention and framing would you deem necessary and promising with respect to physiological computing applications?<\/em><\/p>\n

Please tell:”<\/em><\/p>\n

As I implied in an earlier answer, my view is that a contract for data sharing must be clearly defined prior to any interaction with a physiological computing system.\u00a0 This contract must\u00a0clearly\u00a0define: (1) who has access to the data stream besides the user, (2) whether the data is stored and if so, where, and who has access to this depository, (3) under what conditions data is shared with others, and (4) anonymity of the data record, i.e. when data is shared, can it be traced to an individual or IP address etc.\u00a0 In my view, control over (1) and (2) must always be determined by the user and the user should be able to make adjustments to these parameters at any time without any need for explanation.\u00a0 Like all information communication technologies, physiological computing would be susceptible to hacking and appropriate software security must be developed.\u00a0 This is the most personal and private category of data and my feeling is that users will desire clear information about privacy and data protection that places them in full control before they will be willing to use these systems.<\/p>\n

“There are optimistic statements, e.g. by Rosalind Picard, that control of the system should always lie with the user. But this might be impracticable and inapplicable for two reasons: first the vision of an invisible, smart interface implies a need for at least temporary intransparency. Otherwise it could not fulfil its purpose. Second, many envisaged application areas assume interaction between a computer system and a person with reduced autonomy (e.g. handicapped persons, children).<\/em><\/p>\n

In your opinion, how can we cope with these data protection dilemmas, if at all:”<\/em><\/p>\n

l do not agree with your first statement – simply because a technology is pervasive and implicit, it does not imply that normal controls over data protection and privacy should be withdrawn.\u00a0 If my body network is being asked to share information with other systems (in my car or public transport, or from buildings) as I move around, I can either decide which systems to share information with as a pre-set or I can be asked.\u00a0 As for the second statement, this seems to me to be a generalisation.\u00a0 If handicapped persons are capable of interacting with this kind of technology for any task, then surely they are capable of exerting controls over data protection and privacy in the same way that a non-handicapped person could?\u00a0 As for children, the control of data sharing should be authorised by a parent\/carer\/teacher.<\/p>\n

Please explain your point of view:”<\/em><\/p>\n

I do not think that physiological computing systems can \u201cread minds\u201d but on the other hand, these issues are not completely speculative.\u00a0 A large part of the problem here is the media and the way in which research in this area is conveyed to the public, generally in the most sensationalist language and framed within the context of science fiction movies.\u00a0 People need to understand that measuring psychophysiological data will deliver a quantitative characterisation of a psychological state or experience.\u00a0 These data and the actual experience of the person are not equivalent.\u00a0 These data are quantitative, crude and relatively impoverished in comparison to the richness of embodied experience.\u00a0 In these terms, the computer cannot access our innermost thoughts, desires and intentions.\u00a0 However, there must be a connection between psychological activity and physiological reactivity for biocybernetic systems to function, therefore, it is true to say that the technology will \u2018read minds\u2019 but only with respect to a crude, impoverished representation of the mind.\u00a0 Nevertheless, the capability of technology to represent the mind of the user, even in this crude form, is likely to be a cause for concern – particularly if these data are shared with others or represented at the interface in a public space.<\/p>\n

“Affective computing, physiological computing and neuro-physiological computing are related concepts. It is however not clear if the difference between the three concepts requires separate ethical considerations, e.g. the ethics concerns with respect to brain-computer interfaces may be rather different from those issues of computer applications displaying emotional cues.\u00a0How would you frame and approach the unity of concerns vs. the uniqueness of each concept?<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Some short hints are sufficient here:”<\/em><\/p>\n

All these systems (including BCI) involve streaming physiological data from the user – therefore, fundamental ethical considerations regarding privacy and data protection, associated with data collection are identical.\u00a0 For physiological computing, ethical issues surround how data on psychological experience and health are displayed at the interface and how these measures and derivates are shared with other users.\u00a0 In this respect, I do not see a differentiation between the three terms used above.\u00a0 All are concerned with monitoring spontaneous changes in physiology to provide a dynamic representation of the user state in order to inform software adaptation.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I recently received a questionnaire from the European Parliament, or rather \u00a0its\u00a0STOA panel\u00a0with respect to developments in physiological computing and implications for social policy. \u00a0The European Technology Assessment Group (ETAG)\u00a0is working on a study with the title “Making Perfect Life” which includes a section on biocybernetic adaptation as well as BCI as other kinds of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"spay_email":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[9,59,61,64],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/pY315-tN","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.physiologicalcomputing.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1847"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.physiologicalcomputing.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.physiologicalcomputing.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.physiologicalcomputing.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.physiologicalcomputing.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1847"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.physiologicalcomputing.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1847\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4687,"href":"https:\/\/www.physiologicalcomputing.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1847\/revisions\/4687"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.physiologicalcomputing.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1847"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.physiologicalcomputing.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1847"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.physiologicalcomputing.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1847"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}

“A major concern of citizens confronted with visions of intelligent interfaces and neurophysiological computing is that computer systems will be able to “read their minds\u201c (among others, a finding of the EU project ETICA:\u00a0http:\/\/moriarty.tech.dmu.ac.uk:8080<\/a>\/). How realistic is this vision from your point of view? How close are we to realizing it? Or does this discussion belong to the realm of highly speculative ethics (in the sense as discussed by Nordmann\/Rip in Nature Nanotechnology 4, 273 – 274 (2009) http:\/\/www.nature.com\/nnano\/journal\/v4\/n5\/pdf\/nnano.2009.26.pdf)?<\/em><\/p>\n