Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Social Fabric Fitness: The Design and Evaluation of Wearable E-Textile Displays to Support Group Fitness

2,102 views

Published on

Group exercise has multiple benefits including greater adherence to fitness regimens, increased enjoyment among participants, and enhanced workout intensity. While a large number of technology tools have emerged to support real-time feedback of individual performance, tools to support group fitness are limited. In this paper, we present a set of wearable e-textile displays for running groups called Social Fabric Fitness (SFF). SFF provides a glanceable, shared screen on the back of the wearer's shirt to increase awareness and motivation of group fitness performance. We discuss parallel prototyping of three designs-one flexible e-ink and two flexible LED-based displays; the selection and refinement of one design; and two evaluations'a field study of 10 running groups and two case studies of running races. Our qualitative findings indicate that SFF improves awareness of individual and group performance, helps groups stay together, and improves in-situ motivation. We close with reflections for future athletic e-textile displays.

Published in: Design, Technology, Business
  • Sie können Hilfe bekommen bei ⇒ www.WritersHilfe.com ⇐. Erfolg und Grüße!
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Ich kann eine Website empfehlen. Er hat mir wirklich geholfen. ⇒ www.WritersHilfe.com ⇐ Zufrieden und beeindruckt.
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Überprüfen Sie die Quelle ⇒ www.WritersHilfe.com ⇐ . Diese Seite hat mir geholfen, eine Diplomarbeit zu schreiben.
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Writing a good research paper isn't easy and it's the fruit of hard work. For help you can check writing expert. Check out, please ⇒ HelpWriting.net ⇐ I think they are the best
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here

Social Fabric Fitness: The Design and Evaluation of Wearable E-Textile Displays to Support Group Fitness

  1. 1. WHAT IF OUR CLOTHES COULD SHOW HOW FAST WE RUN? Human Computer Interaction Laboratory makeability lab
  2. 2. Human Computer Interaction Laboratory makeability lab Social Fabric Fitness: The Design and Evaluation of Wearable E-Textile Displays to Support Group Fitness Matthew Louis Mauriello Michael Gubbels Jon E. Froehlich CHI 2104 April 30th, 2014
  3. 3. Plethora of Run Trackers
  4. 4. Carron et al., 1996; Hanc, 2005; Kolata, 2009; Robbins, 2009; Youngren, 2009 Barder & Knight, 2010 Group Running Benefits Adherence to training Educational benefits Aids training intensity Increases enjoyment
  5. 5. Carron et al., 1996; Hanc, 2005; Kolata, 2009; Robbins, 2009; Youngren, 2009 Barder & Knight, 2010 Group Running Benefits Adherence to training Educational benefits Aids training intensity Increases enjoyment Social facilitation theories posits: the presence of others can increase a person’s drive and focus (e.g., Carron, 1996; Strauss, 2002)
  6. 6. Bond reframes social facilitation in terms of Goffman’s presentation of self. Presence of others can motivate the individual to project image of competence. For tasks perceived to be too difficult, however, performance may actually decline as individual becomes self-conscious SFF: Theoretical Underpinnings
  7. 7. Potential Dichotomy Increased motivation vs. increased anxiety SFF Externalizes Performance
  8. 8. Wearables & Sports Wearables for Sensing Wearables for Sensing & Visualization
  9. 9. Wearables & Sports Wearables for Sensing Wearables for Sensing & Visualization
  10. 10. Under Armour E39 Real-time athlete monitoring
  11. 11. Adidas miCoach Elite Real-time athlete monitoring
  12. 12. Wearables & Sports Wearables for Sensing Wearables for Sensing & Visualization
  13. 13. Wearables & Sports Wearables for Sensing Wearables for Sensing & Visualization
  14. 14. Reebok Checklight Co-located sensing & feedback on athlete
  15. 15. TeamAWear Page & Vande Moere, Pervasive’07
  16. 16. TIMELINE SFF: DESIGN AND EVALUATION PROCESS
  17. 17. TIMELINE SFF: DESIGN AND EVALUATION PROCESS Parallel Prototyping 3 Designs Informal Pilot Studies Refine Final Design Field Study of 10 Running Groups 2 Race Studies Final Pilots Ideation & Lo-Fi Proto.
  18. 18. SFF: DESIGN AND EVALUATION PROCESS Parallel Prototyping 3 Designs Informal Pilot Studies Refine Final Design Field Study of 10 Running Groups 2 Race Studies Final Pilots Ideation & Lo-Fi Proto.
  19. 19. DESIGN GOALS Comfort Robustness User Experience Display Content
  20. 20. SFF: SYSTEM OVERVIEW
  21. 21. Battery Android Smartphone with RunKeeper SFF: SYSTEM OVERVIEW Wirelessly transmits run data to wearable display WEARABLE PROTOTYPE
  22. 22. Designing the Visual Content Glanceable & Easy-to-understand
  23. 23. 09:37 PACE/MI SFF: PRIMARY VISUALIZATIONS
  24. 24. 09:37 PACE/MI 52:43 DURATION SFF: PRIMARY VISUALIZATIONS
  25. 25. 09:37 PACE/MI 4.5 mi DISTANCE 52:43 DURATION Although RunKeeper tracks a single user, these measures are shared across the running group as they run together. SFF: PRIMARY VISUALIZATIONS
  26. 26. 09:37 PACE/MI 4.5 mi DISTANCE 132 bpm HEARTRATE 52:43 DURATION SFF: PRIMARY VISUALIZATIONS
  27. 27. Comfort Low-Fidelity Prototypes
  28. 28. Engineering Responsive & Robust
  29. 29. SFF: DESIGN AND EVALUATION PROCESS Parallel Prototyping 3 Designs Informal Pilot Studies Refine Final Design Field Study of 10 Running Groups 2 Race Studies Final Pilots Ideation & Lo-Fi Proto.
  30. 30. SFF: DESIGN AND EVALUATION PROCESS Parallel Prototyping 3 Designs Informal Pilot Studies Refine Final Design Field Study of 10 Running Groups 2 Race Studies Final Pilots Ideation & Lo-Fi Proto.
  31. 31. 3 PROTOTYPE DESIGNS
  32. 32. 3 PROTOTYPE DESIGNS Prototype #1Custom LED Matrix Display Prototype #2Electronic Ink Display Prototype #3Erogear LED Matrix Display
  33. 33. 3 PROTOTYPE DESIGNS Prototype #1Custom LED Matrix Display
  34. 34. Prototype #1Three prototyping dimensions Prototyping Technology Prototyping Visualization Prototyping Materials
  35. 35. Prototype #1Three prototyping dimensions Prototyping Technology Prototyping Visualization Prototyping Materials
  36. 36. Prototype #1Three prototyping dimensions Prototyping Technology Prototyping Visualization Prototyping Materials Select MCU Platform 1 Prototype Circuit Designs 2 Build Software 3 Layout PCB 4 Manufacture PCB 5 Test Final PCB & Software 6
  37. 37. Prototype #1Prototype Circuit Designs
  38. 38. Prototype #1Single Letter Display Test
  39. 39. Prototype #1Scrolling Display
  40. 40. Prototype #1Three prototyping dimensions Prototyping Technology Prototyping Visualization Prototyping Materials Select MCU Platform 1 Prototype Circuit Designs 2 Build Software 3 Layout PCB 4 Manufacture PCB 5 Test Final PCB & Software 6
  41. 41. Prototype #1Three prototyping dimensions Prototyping Technology Prototyping Visualization Prototyping Materials Select MCU Platform 1 Prototype Circuit Designs 2 Build Software 3 Layout PCB 4 Manufacture PCB 5 Test Final PCB & Software 6
  42. 42. Prototype #1Prepare PCB Schematic
  43. 43. PCB Layout Slide Prototype #1Prepare PCB Schematic
  44. 44. http://PCBUniverse.com http://tristateelectronicmfg.com
  45. 45. Prototype #1Manufactured Flexible PCB Manufactured at PCBUniverse.com and pick-and-place performed by Tristate Electronics
  46. 46. Flexible PCB 24 x 6 Matrix Green or Blue LEDs Prototype #1Manufactured Flexible PCB Manufactured at PCBUniverse.com and pick-and-place performed by Tristate Electronics
  47. 47. Prototype #1Flexible PCB
  48. 48. Prototype #1Prototype Evolution Flexible PCB
  49. 49. Prototype #1Three prototyping dimensions Prototyping Technology Prototyping Visualization Prototyping Materials Select MCU Platform 1 Prototype Circuit Designs 2 Build Software 3 Layout PCB 4 Manufacture PCB 5 Test Final PCB & Software 6
  50. 50. Prototype #1Three prototyping dimensions Prototyping Technology Prototyping Visualization Prototyping Materials Select MCU Platform 1 Prototype Circuit Designs 2 Build Software 3 Layout PCB 4 Manufacture PCB 5 Test Final PCB & Software 6
  51. 51. Prototype #1Three prototyping dimensions Prototyping Technology Prototyping Visualization Prototyping Materials
  52. 52. Prototype #1Three prototyping dimensions Prototyping Technology Prototyping MaterialsPrototyping Visualization
  53. 53. 2 x Arduino Pro Minis 2 x LED Matrices on Flexible PCB 2 x 3.7V (2000 mAh) LiPoly Batteries Velcro Perimeter Pleather Enclosure Cotton Diffusion Layer Prototype #1Final Prototype
  54. 54. Prototype #1 Prototype #2 Prototype #3 Display Weight 66.9 g 25.4 g 46.8 g Total Weight 152.9 g 411.7 g 161.2 g Pixels 24 x 12 320 x 240 32 x 16 Refresh Rate 5 Hz 1.1 Hz 38 Hz Dimensions* 21.3 x 12.2 cm 18.4 x 14 cm 20.3 x 15.2 cm Display Thickness* 13.5 mm 4.9 mm 4.8 mm * With enclosure As a comparison: iPhone 4S = 140 g SFF: THREE PROTOTYPES
  55. 55. Prototype #1 Prototype #2 Prototype #3 Display Weight 66.9 g 25.4 g 46.8 g Total Weight 152.9 g 411.7 g 161.2 g Pixels 24 x 12 320 x 240 32 x 16 Refresh Rate 5 Hz 1.1 Hz 38 Hz Dimensions* 21.3 x 12.2 cm 18.4 x 14 cm 20.3 x 15.2 cm Display Thickness* 13.5 mm 4.9 mm 4.8 mm * With enclosure SFF: THREE PROTOTYPES
  56. 56. Prototype #1Custom LED Matrix Display Prototype #2Electronic Ink Display Prototype #3Erogear LED Matrix Display
  57. 57. Prototype #2Electronic Ink Display
  58. 58. Prototype #2Three steps Find Manufacturer Prototyping Software Prototyping Materials
  59. 59. Plastic Logic Flexible e-Ink Display 4.7” (320 x240) 4 x 1.5V (2000 mAh) AA Batteries 32-bit BeagleBone (AM335x 720MHz ARM) Plastic Logic Display Controller (HummingBird) Nylon Enclosure Prototype #2Final e-Ink Prototype
  60. 60. Prototype #1 Prototype #2 Prototype #3 Display Weight 66.9 g 25.4 g 46.8 g Total Weight 152.9 g 411.7 g 161.2 g Pixels 24 x 12 320 x 240 32 x 16 Refresh Rate 5 Hz 1.1 Hz 38 Hz Dimensions* 21.3 x 12.2 cm 18.4 x 14 cm 20.3 x 15.2 cm Display Thickness* 13.5 mm 4.9 mm 4.8 mm * With enclosure SFF: THREE PROTOTYPES
  61. 61. Prototype #1Custom LED Matrix Display Prototype #2Electronic Ink Display Prototype #3Erogear LED Matrix Display
  62. 62. Prototype #3Erogear LED Matrix Display
  63. 63. Prototype #3Early Erogear Visualizations
  64. 64. Prototype #3Extremely Flexible/Lightweight
  65. 65. 2 x 3.7V (2200 mAh) Li-Ion Batteries 2 x 32x8 Erogear LED Matrices 2 x 32-bit MCU; 16-bit LED Matrix Driver; Bluetooth Modem Prototype #3Final Erogear Prototype
  66. 66. Prototype #1 Prototype #2 Prototype #3 Display Weight 66.9 g 25.4 g 46.8 g Total Weight 152.9 g 411.7 g 161.2 g Pixels 24 x 12 320 x 240 32 x 16 Refresh Rate 5 Hz 1.1 Hz 38 Hz Dimensions* 21.3 x 12.2 cm 18.4 x 14 cm 20.3 x 15.2 cm Display Thickness* 13.5 mm 4.9 mm 4.8 mm * With enclosure SFF: THREE PROTOTYPES
  67. 67. SFF: DESIGN AND EVALUATION PROCESS Parallel Prototyping 3 Designs Informal Pilot Studies Refine Final Design Field Study of 10 Running Groups 2 Race Studies Final Pilots Ideation & Lo-Fi Proto.
  68. 68. SFF: DESIGN AND EVALUATION PROCESS Parallel Prototyping 3 Designs Informal Pilot Studies Refine Final Design Field Study of 10 Running Groups 2 Race Studies Final Pilots Ideation & Lo-Fi Proto.
  69. 69. Informal Pilot Studies Evaluate Comfort Examine Viewability Gain qualitative reactions Investigate Robustness Prototype #3
  70. 70. Prototype #1 Prototype #2 Pilot Studies In-situ observation
  71. 71. Data Collection In-situ observation
  72. 72. Data Collection In-situ observation
  73. 73. Data Collection Pre- and Post-Surveys
  74. 74. Analysis Post-hoc review
  75. 75. Viewability Examining Diffusion Layers
  76. 76. Viewability Prototype #1 & #2
  77. 77. Viewability Prototype #1 & #2
  78. 78. Viewability Prototype #3: Lighting Conditions
  79. 79. SFF: DESIGN AND EVALUATION PROCESS Parallel Prototyping 3 Designs Informal Pilot Studies Refine Final Design Field Study of 10 Running Groups 2 Race Studies Final Pilots Ideation & Lo-Fi Proto.
  80. 80. SFF: DESIGN AND EVALUATION PROCESS Parallel Prototyping 3 Designs Informal Pilot Studies Refine Final Design Field Study of 10 Running Groups 2 Race Studies Final Pilots Ideation & Lo-Fi Proto.
  81. 81. Prototype #3Erogear LED Matrix Display
  82. 82. 09:37 PACE/MI 4.5 mi DISTANCE 132 bpm HEARTRATE 52:43 DURATION SFF: PRIMARY VISUALIZATIONS
  83. 83. SFF: FINAL VISUALIZATIONS
  84. 84. 07:45 Group set target pace Last 9 mins of the run SFF: SHARED GOAL VISUALIZATION
  85. 85. 07:45 Running faster than set pace SFF: SHARED GOAL VISUALIZATION
  86. 86. 07:45 Still faster than set pace but slowing down SFF: SHARED GOAL VISUALIZATION
  87. 87. 07:45 SFF: SHARED GOAL VISUALIZATION Now running slower than set pace
  88. 88. Final PrototypeShared Goal Visualization
  89. 89. SFF: Design and Evaluation Process Parallel Prototyping 3 Designs Informal Pilot Studies Refine Final Design Field Study of 10 Running Groups 2 Race Studies Final Pilots Ideation & Lo-Fi Proto.
  90. 90. SFF: Design and Evaluation Process Parallel Prototyping 3 Designs Informal Pilot Studies Refine Final Design Field Study of 10 Running Groups 2 Race Studies Final Pilots Ideation & Lo-Fi Proto.
  91. 91. SFF Overview SFF: STUDY PROCEDURE
  92. 92. SFF Overview Pre-Study Questionnaire SFF: STUDY PROCEDURE
  93. 93. SFF Overview Pre-Study Questionnaire SFF Run (30-60 minutes) SFF: STUDY PROCEDURE
  94. 94. SFF Overview Pre-Study Questionnaire SFF Run (30-60 minutes) Post-Study Questionnaire SFF: STUDY PROCEDURE
  95. 95. SFF Overview Pre-Study Questionnaire SFF Run (30-60 minutes) Post-Study Questionnaire Post-Study Interviews SFF: STUDY PROCEDURE
  96. 96. 5:30AM Obligatory Red Bull
  97. 97. FIELD STUDY PARTICIPANTS 10 GROUPS; 52 INDIVIDUALS (35 FEMALE) Avg Group Size: 5 Avg Age: 40.7 Avg Target Pace: 10:14 Avg Distance: 3.5 mi
  98. 98. SFF: ANALYSIS We analyzed the Likert scale survey data to uncover trends and use the interview and open-form data to provide context.
  99. 99. Comfort Display Content Awareness Motivation User Experience Cohesiveness Other Technology Self-Consciousness SFF: FIELD STUDY RESULTS
  100. 100. Comfort Display Content Awareness Motivation User Experience Cohesiveness Other Technology Self-Consciousness SFF: FIELD STUDY RESULTS
  101. 101. FIELD STUDY RESULTS 5.5 5.2 5.1 4 0 2 4 6 8 7-PointLikertScale COMFORT; WEARERS (N=19) Battery Display Heart Monitor Armband 7-Point Likert Scale Higher is more comfortable
  102. 102. Higher is better 5.5 5.2 5.1 4 0 2 4 6 8 7-PointLikertScale Battery Display Heart Monitor Armband FIELD STUDY RESULTS COMFORT; WEARERS (N=19)
  103. 103. Higher is better 5.5 5.2 5.1 4 0 2 4 6 8 7-PointLikertScale Battery Display Heart Monitor Armband FIELD STUDY RESULTS COMFORT; WEARERS (N=19)
  104. 104. “I thought [the system] would be uncomfortable; it turned out to be unnoticed.” -G5P2-W FIELD STUDY RESULTS COMFORT; WEARERS (N=19)
  105. 105. Higher is better 5.5 5.2 5.1 4 0 2 4 6 8 7-PointLikertScale Battery Display Heart Monitor Armband FIELD STUDY RESULTS COMFORT; WEARERS (N=19)
  106. 106. Higher is better 5.5 5.2 5.1 4 0 2 4 6 8 7-PointLikertScale Battery Display Heart Monitor Armband FIELD STUDY RESULTS COMFORT; WEARERS (N=19)
  107. 107. FIELD STUDY RESULTS COMFORT; WEARERS (N=19) “Armband is heavy; other [equipment] was fine…” -G2P1-W
  108. 108. Comfort Display Content Awareness Motivation User Experience Cohesiveness Other Technology Self-Consciousness SFF: FIELD STUDY RESULTS
  109. 109. Comfort Display Content Awareness Motivation User Experience Cohesiveness Other Technology Self-Consciousness SFF: FIELD STUDY RESULTS
  110. 110. Rank Order List FIELD STUDY RESULTS DISPLAY CONTENT; ALL (N=52) Pace 1.5 Distance 2.2 Duration 3.1 Visualization 3.9 Heart Rate 4.3 Average Scores
  111. 111. Comfort Display Content Awareness Motivation User Experience Cohesiveness Other Technology Self-Consciousness SFF: FIELD STUDY RESULTS
  112. 112. Comfort Display Content Awareness Motivation User Experience Cohesiveness Other Technology Self-Consciousness SFF: FIELD STUDY RESULTS
  113. 113. “It made me more aware of our pacing and kept me more focused on the run.” -G2P2-W FIELD STUDY RESULTS DATA AWARENESS; ALL (N=52)
  114. 114. Comfort Display Content Awareness Motivation User Experience Cohesiveness Other Technology Self-Consciousness SFF: FIELD STUDY RESULTS
  115. 115. Comfort Display Content Awareness Motivation User Experience Cohesiveness Other Technology Self-Consciousness SFF: FIELD STUDY RESULTS
  116. 116. “Made me feel like I was pushing my efforts, which is good.” -G7P8 FIELD STUDY RESULTS MOTIVATION; ALL (N=52) “Motivated me to go faster than the pace displayed.” -G7P7
  117. 117. Comfort Display Content Awareness Motivation User Experience Cohesiveness Other Technology Self-Consciousness SFF: FIELD STUDY RESULTS
  118. 118. Comfort Display Content Awareness Motivation User Experience Cohesiveness Other Technology Self-Consciousness SFF: FIELD STUDY RESULTS
  119. 119. FIELD STUDY RESULTS SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS; WEARERS (N=19) “Yes, I expected to feel more conspicuous; didn’t really mind it.” -G2P2-W
  120. 120. SFF: DESIGN AND EVALUATION PROCESS Parallel Prototyping 3 Designs Informal Pilot Studies Refine Final Design Field Study of 10 Running Groups 2 Race Studies Final Pilots Ideation & Lo-Fi Proto.
  121. 121. SFF: DESIGN AND EVALUATION PROCESS Parallel Prototyping 3 Designs Informal Pilot Studies Refine Final Design Field Study of 10 Running Groups 2 Race Studies Final Pilots Ideation & Lo-Fi Proto.
  122. 122. RACE STUDY PARTICIPANTS 4 INDIVIDUALS (1 FEMALE) Male, 34 Target Pace: 6:10 County 8K Female, 33 Target Pace: 8:20 County 8K Male, 26 Target Pace: 7:45 Labor Day 10K Male, 18 Target Pace: 8:30 Labor Day 10K
  123. 123. Race Deployment Competitive Interactions
  124. 124. Gold Medal
  125. 125. “It made me run faster because my performance was on display.” -R2P1-W RACE STUDY RESULTS MOTIVATION; WEARERS (N=4)
  126. 126. Limitations
  127. 127. Limitations Novelty Observational Bias
  128. 128. Job! GOOD Future Work Encouragement Going! Keep
  129. 129. Future Work Social Media Integration
  130. 130. Future Work Spectator Sports
  131. 131. Future Work Cross Domains
  132. 132. Summary This work contributes to two rapidly growing areas: personal informatics and wearable technology. Through parallel prototyping, iterative design, and exploratory studies we demonstrate the potential to motivate group fitness performance with wearable technology.
  133. 133. Human Computer Interaction Laboratory makeability lab Thanks to our collaborators: RunKeeper and Erogear Thanks to Nokia for funding Matt Mauriello @mattm401 Michael Gubbels @mokogobo Jon Froehlich @jonfroehlich Our Research Team:
  134. 134. Noun Project Icon Credits Tshirt Nithin Viswanathan http://thenounproject.com/term/tshirt/25531/ Fire Jop van der Kroef http://thenounproject.com/term/fire/8023/ Running Dillon Arloff http://thenounproject.com/term/running/17825/ Medal Andrew J. Young http://thenounproject.com/term/medal/3798/ Watch Kiran Malladi http://thenounproject.com/term/watch/20778/ Awareness Ivan Colio http://thenounproject.com/term/awareness/30176/ Warning Christopher Holm-Hansen http://thenounproject.com/term/warning/52375/ Notepad Lemon Liu http://thenounproject.com/term/notepad/8155/ Celebration Scott Lewis http://thenounproject.com/term/celebration/6215/ Weight Lifting Nithin Viswanathan http://thenounproject.com/term/weight-lifting/50882/ Calendar Edaward Boatman http://thenounproject.com/term/calendar/6730/ Education Chris Matthews http://thenounproject.com/term/education/3012/
  135. 135. Image Credits “Marathon” US Road Sports “Watch” Garmin Ltd. “Mobile Application” MapMyFitness, Inc. “Group Running” Unknown “Goffman” Open Library “E39” Under Armour, Inc. “Reebok Checklight” Reebok International “TeamAWear” Pervasive Computing, 2007 “Adidas miCoach Elite” Adidas America Inc. “iPhone” Apple Inc. “Google Maps” Google Inc. “Heart Rate Monitor” Polar Electro “Twitter” Twitter Inc. “Swimming” International Olympic Committee

×