Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 143 references

Audio Personas: Augmenting Social Perception via Body-Anchored Audio Cues

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A person's body-anchored audio cues—their audio persona—change how strangers rate their attractiveness, likability, and threat, and the paper shows that anchoring sound to the body, not just playing it nearby, is what makes the cue stick…

desk verdict A genuinely new concept and a carefully run preregistered study, but the claim that body-anchoring specifically drives the effect is weaker than the abstract suggests because the control condition also varies whether the sound moves. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.00956 v2 pith:KEK33S3C submitted 2025-05-02 cs.HC

Yujie Tao , Libby Ye , Jeremy N. Bailenson , Sean Follmer This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords audiopersonasaugmentedrealitysocialperceptionimpressionformationbody-anchoredmultisensoryintegrationspatialsoundvalence
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper introduces audio personas: sounds anchored to a person's body and played to nearby people through headphones, like a wearable sonic outfit. It claims that these body-anchored cues get incorporated into other people's impressions of the wearer, and that the emotional tone of the cue shifts those impressions. In a preregistered lab study with 64 participants, a person wearing a positive audio persona was rated as more socially attractive, more likable, and less threatening than a person wearing a negative one, while object-anchored sounds produced the same trend without reaching significance. A second study with eight audio designers maps out intended uses, with public and semi-public spaces seen as the natural setting for managing impressions and signaling current states.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is body anchoring: an audio source whose spatial position tracks the wearer's body in real time, so the sound moves when the person moves and stays within the wearer's social space. The proof-of-concept uses head-worn trackers, a game engine for 3D audio rendering with distance-based volume rolloff, and a multi-listener audio streaming pipeline so each user both broadcasts a persona and hears others'. This spatial coincidence between sound and person is what, under multisensory cue integration, makes the sound bind to the person rather than the environment.

What would settle it

Run the same 64-person study with a third control condition in which the research assistant carries a sound source, such as a handheld speaker, that moves with them but is visibly not part of their body; if participants incorporate the sound into impressions at the same rate as the audio-persona condition, body attachment itself is not what drives the effect.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that body-anchored audio cues—audio personas—change how strangers form impressions of a person in face-to-face interaction. The paper argues that spatially anchoring a sound to the body aligns the auditory cue with the person, making the sound available information about that person, whereas the same sound anchored to an object stays background. The supporting evidence is that 62.5% of participants in the audio-persona condition included the sound in impression drawings or writings, versus 18.75% in the object-anchored control, and that positive audio personas produced significantly higher social attraction, higher likability, and lower perceived threat than negative audio personas within the audio-persona group. The valence effects replicated as non-significant trends in the control group, which the paper reads as evidence that body anchoring strengthens, rather than creates, the effect.

Load-bearing premise

In the comparison that supports body anchoring, the body-anchored sound moves with the research assistant while the object-anchored sound stays fixed in the room, so the measured effect could come from the sound's movement or novelty rather than from being attached to the body.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • People can deliberately craft a sonic first impression, adding a dynamic layer to clothing and makeup that can change with mood or context.
  • The contrast between 62.5% incorporation of body-anchored sounds versus 18.75% for object-anchored sounds indicates that body anchoring itself drives the absorption of the cue into impressions.
  • The valence findings mean audio personas can work as an implicit signal—buzzing or hurricane sounds read as threatening, brook or forest sounds read as warm—without the wearer saying a word.
  • The prototype shows that the core technical ingredients—head tracking, spatialized audio with distance rolloff, and multi-user audio streaming—are sufficient to deliver body-anchored personas in a lab setting.
  • Designer feedback points to public and semi-public spaces as the natural context, suggesting early deployments should target encounters among strangers rather than private gatherings.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A cleaner test of body anchoring would replace the object-anchored control with a moving sound source carried by the research assistant; if incorporation rates stay high, motion rather than body attachment would be doing the work.
  • Because valence effects reached significance only in the body-anchored group, audio personas may matter most in multi-person settings, where an object-anchored sound cannot be attributed to any one person; the paper did not test that case.
  • The null behavioral results suggest the shift may be confined to explicit ratings rather than approach or avoidance; a social-distance or implicit-association measure could reveal whether the effect reaches behavior.
  • A shared vocabulary problem follows: if audio personas rely on valence associations, widespread use needs something like an emoji library of sounds, since the same sound can read as positive to one person and negative to another.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces the concept of 'Audio Personas'—body-anchored sounds rendered in audio augmented reality—and evaluates it through a proof-of-concept system and two empirical studies. Study #1 (n = 64, preregistered, mixed-factorial) compares an audio-persona condition (sounds anchored to research assistants) with an object-anchored control condition (sounds anchored to fixed speakers), crossing positive/negative audio valence within participants. The primary findings are that participants in the persona group were more likely to include sound in their impression drawings/writings (H1), and that within the persona group, positive personas increased social attraction, likability, and reduced perceived threat relative to negative personas (H2). The anchoring-by-valence interaction was not significant on any self-report measure, and no effects were found on perceived emotional states or behavioral measures. Study #2 (n = 8 audio designers) explores use cases and design patterns, reporting that audio personas are preferred in public and semi-public-private spaces for impression management and state signaling. The central claim is that audio personas can shape social perception and that body-anchoring is a key design feature for this effect.

Significance. If the claims hold, this paper opens a novel design space for augmenting face-to-face social interactions through body-anchored audio, connecting audio AR with impression management. The work has tangible strengths: the study is preregistered, uses a controlled mixed-factorial design with counterbalancing, and combines self-report, behavioral, and open-ended drawing/writing measures. The proof-of-concept system is a concrete technical contribution, and the design study provides convergent qualitative insights. However, the strongest causal claim—that body-anchoring, specifically, enables the effect—is undercut by a confound in the H1 contrast and by the absence of a significant anchoring-by-valence interaction on the self-report measures. The paper contributes a useful exploratory prototype and a set of findings that are promising but not conclusive regarding the role of body-anchoring per se. For the field, the concept itself is interesting enough to warrant further investigation, but the current evidence does not fully support the abstract's strong framing.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1.1, §4.13]
  2. [§4.10, §6.1] This comment covers the overinterpretation of non-significant interaction and exploratory pairwise tests.
  3. [§4.2.3]
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.5.1]
  2. [§4.1.2]
  3. [§4.9]
  4. [§6.1]
  5. [§1]

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper's claims are empirical preregistered results whose outcomes are measured independently of the manipulations; no derivation reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

This is an empirical HCI paper with two user studies and no mathematical derivation, fitted parameters, or model-based predictions. The central claim is that body-anchored audio cues ('audio personas') influence social perception. The independent variables are audio anchoring (body-anchored vs object-anchored) and audio valence (positive vs negative), and the dependent variables are impression drawings/writings, Likert-scale social attraction, likability, threat, perceived emotions, seat choice, and interpersonal distance. None of these outcomes is defined in terms of the independent variable by construction; a participant's rating of social attraction is not the same measurement event as the valence of the sound they heard. The preregistered hypotheses (Section 4.6) are directional empirical predictions, and the confirmatory statistics (e.g., social attraction p=0.002, threat p=0.008, likability p=0.03 in the audio persona group) are measured contrasts rather than restatements of the manipulation. The paper does not fit any parameter to data and then predict a closely related quantity; it does not invoke a uniqueness theorem; and it does not smuggle in an ansatz via citation. The authors do cite their own prior work (e.g., Bailenson et al. 2004 on transformed social interaction; Fauville et al. 2022 on impression formation from video-conference screenshots), but those citations are contextual and not load-bearing: the empirical validity of the current claims rests on the preregistered in-lab study reported here, not on those earlier papers. The paper's own limitation section (Section 6.3) explicitly acknowledges that the object-anchored control is one possible baseline and that future work should compare against no-audio or non-spatialized sound. That is a validity limitation, not circularity: even if the body-anchoring contrast is confounded with sound movement, the outcome measures are still independent of the manipulation by construction. Under the specified review standards, the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper's claims rest on assumptions about sound valence transfer, the fidelity of the headphone-based spatial audio system, the validity of the self-report and drawing measures, and the representativeness of the sample. No free parameters are fitted; the empirical design does not depend on numeric tuning.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Sounds selected from IADS-2/IADS-E with given valence ratings are effective positive and negative stimuli in a social context.
    The study relies on database valence ratings (brooks 7.28, forest 6.91, buzzing 1.92, hurricane 2.18) without independently validating them in the experimental social context. This is invoked in Section 4.1.2.
  • domain assumption A headphone-based system with VIVE trackers and Unity spatialization adequately simulates body-anchored audio for in-lab social interaction.
    The prototype's fidelity to real directional sound sources is not externally validated, and results may depend on this specific setup. This is the basis of the proof-of-concept system in Section 3.
  • domain assumption Self-report Likert scales and impression drawings/writings capture the intended social perception constructs (likability, threat, attraction, emotions).
    The study uses standard scales but drops two likability items post hoc to reach acceptable reliability, and the drawing/writing coding is subjective. This is invoked in Sections 4.5.1 and 4.5.3.
invented entities (1)
  • Audio Persona (body-anchored audio cue) independent evidence
    purpose: A social signal dynamically attached to a person's body to shape others' impressions in face-to-face interaction.
    The concept is operationalized in the prototype and empirically tested in Study #1. It is not an unobserved physical entity; it is a design concept with directly testable effects.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Audio Personas: Augmenting Social Perception via Body-Anchored Audio Cues." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KEK33S3C

@misc{pith2026250500956,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Audio Personas: Augmenting Social Perception via Body-Anchored Audio Cues},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KEK33S3C}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.00956}
}
read the original abstract

We introduce Audio Personas, enabling users to "decorate" themselves with body-anchored sounds in audio augmented reality. Like outfits, makeup, and fragrances, audio personas offer an alternative yet dynamic channel to augment face-to-face interactions. For instance, one can set their audio persona as rain sounds to reflect a bad mood, bee sounds to establish personal boundaries, or a playful "woosh" sound to mimic passing by someone like a breeze. To instantiate the concept, we implemented a headphone-based prototype with multi-user tracking and audio streaming. Our preregistered in-lab study with 64 participants showed that audio personas influenced how participants formed impressions. Individuals with positive audio personas were rated as more socially attractive, more likable, and less threatening than those with negative audio personas. Our study with audio designers revealed that audio personas were preferred in public and semi-public-private spaces for managing social impressions (e.g., personality) and signaling current states (e.g., emotions).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.00956 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Demonstrating the concept of audio personas, body-anchored audio cues to enhance face-to-face [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of the proof-of-concept system. (a) Spatial tracking using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Condition design in Study #1. (a) and (b) show the experience of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Key procedures in the Study #1: (a) The participant observed each research assistant twice as they [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A selection of impression drawings from participants in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Self-report measures of (a) social attraction and (b) perceived threat of others. We reported the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Self-report measures of (a) perceived likability of others and (b) sentiment intensity in impression [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Self-report measure of perceived emotional states of others. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Study #2 procedure. In the first half of the study, participants tried out the device prototype and were [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Participants’ preferences for using audio personas to communicate different types of messages. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Illustrations of sample audio persona designs from Study #2, with the intention of managing impres [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Illustrations of sample audio persona designs from Study #2, with the intention of signaling current [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Ranking of preferred social context to use audio personas. Public spaces were found to be the most [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Visualizations of the spatial locations of audio personas designed by each participant. Each subgraph [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Triggers for audio personas used in designs created by participants. These triggers could be used [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

143 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Audio Stream

    2024. Audio Stream. https://assetstore.unity.com/packages/tools/audio/audiostream-pcm-audio-for-unity-65411

    2024

  2. [2]

    Half-Life

    2024. Half-Life. https://www.half-life.com/en/home/

    2024

  3. [3]

    HTC VIVE

    2024. HTC VIVE. https://www.vive.com/

    2024

  4. [4]

    Meta Horizon

    2024. Meta Horizon. https://horizon.meta.com

    2024

  5. [5]

    Meta XR Audio SDK

    2024. Meta XR Audio SDK. https://assetstore.unity.com/packages/tools/integration/meta-xr-audio-sdk-264557

    2024

  6. [6]

    Multi Audio Listener

    2024. Multi Audio Listener. https://github.com/GaelVanhalst/MultiAudioListener

    2024

  7. [7]

    RootMotion Final IK

    2024. RootMotion Final IK. https://assetstore.unity.com/packages/tools/animation/final-ik-14290

    2024

  8. [8]

    Second Life

    2024. Second Life. https://secondlife.com

    2024

Show all 143 references
  1. [9]

    2024. VR Chat. https://hello.vrchat.com

    2024

  2. [10]

    Parastoo Abtahi, Mar Gonzalez-Franco, Eyal Ofek, and Anthony Steed. 2019. I’m a giant: Walking in large virtual environments at high speed gains. InProceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–13

    2019

  3. [11]

    Sun Joo Ahn, Joshua Bostick, Elise Ogle, Kristine L Nowak, Kara T McGillicuddy, and Jeremy N Bailenson. 2016. Experiencing nature: Embodying animals in immersive virtual environments increases inclusion of nature in self and involvement with nature.Journal of Computer-Mediated...

    2016

  4. [12]

    Jeremy N Bailenson, Andrew C Beall, Jack Loomis, Jim Blascovich, and Matthew Turk. 2004. Transformed social interaction: Decoupling representation from behavior and form in collaborative virtual environments.Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments13, 4 (2004), 428–441

    2004

  5. [13]

    Francesco Barbieri, Jose Camacho-Collados, Luis Espinosa Anke, and Leonardo Neves. 2020. TweetEval: Unified Benchmark and Comparative Evaluation for Tweet Classification. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020. Association for Computational Lin...

    2020 doi

  6. [14]

    BiLL Bahng Boyer. 2014. Urban echoes: The boombox and sonic mobility in the 1980s.The Oxford Handbook of Mobile Music Studies, Volume 11 (2014), 399

    2014

  7. [15]

    MM Bradley and PJ Lang. 2007. The international affective digitized sounds: affective ratings of sounds and instruction manual (Technical Report No. B-3). University of Florida.NIMH Center for the Study of Emotion and Attention, Gainesville, FL30 (2007)

    2007

  8. [16]

    I See by Your Outfit That You Are a Cowboy

    Katherine B Branstetter. 1975. " I See by Your Outfit That You Are a Cowboy": Attire as a Marker of Ethnic, Social, and Personal Identity. (1975)

    1975

  9. [17]

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology.Qualitative research in psychology 3, 2 (2006), 77–101

    2006

  10. [18]

    Oğuz’Oz’ Buruk, Çağlar Genç, İhsan Ozan Yıldırım, Mehmet Cengiz Onbaşlı, and Oğuzhan Özcan. 2021. Snowflakes: a prototyping tool for computational jewelry. InProceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–15

    2021

  11. [19]

    Hyeon Jeong Byeon, Seungjin Ha, and Uran Oh. 2023. Avocus: A voice customization system for online personas. In Extended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–6

    2023

  12. [20]

    Alessandro Carlini, Camille Bordeau, and Maxime Ambard. 2024. Auditory localization: a comprehensive practical review.Frontiers in Psychology15 (2024), 1408073

    2024

  13. [21]

    Naomi C Carroll and Andrew W Young. 2005. Priming of emotion recognition.The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A58, 7 (2005), 1173–1197

    2005

  14. [22]

    2024.Exploring augmented reality solutions to facilitate co-located engagement

    Biswapriyo Chakrabarty. 2024.Exploring augmented reality solutions to facilitate co-located engagement. Ph. D. Dissertation. University of British Columbia

    2024

  15. [23]

    Yi Fei Cheng, Laurie Heller, Stacey Cho, and David Lindlbauer. 2024. First or Third-Person Hearing? A Controlled Evaluation of Auditory Perspective on Embodiment and Sound Localization Performance(ISMAR ’24). IEEE. 0:30 Tao et al

    2024

  16. [24]

    Isabelle D Cherney, Clair S Seiwert, Tara M Dickey, and Judith D Flichtbeil. 2006. Children’s drawings: A mirror to their minds.Educational psychology26, 1 (2006), 127–142

    2006

  17. [25]

    Minsoo Choi, Alexandros Koilias, Matias Volonte, Dominic Kao, and Christos Mousas. 2023. Exploring the Appearance and Voice Mismatch of Virtual Characters. In2023 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality Adjunct (ISMAR-Adjunct). IEEE, 555–560

    2023

  18. [26]

    Tae Rang Choi and Yongjun Sung. 2018. Instagram versus Snapchat: Self-expression and privacy concern on social media.Telematics and informatics35, 8 (2018), 2289–2298

    2018

  19. [27]

    Yongsoon Choi. 2017. Designing Wearable Electronic Spectacle for Enhancing Social Impressions Emitting Sound and Smell.International Journal of Multimedia and Ubiquitous Engineering12, 4 (2017), 95–108

    2017

  20. [28]

    Yongsoon Choi, Adrian David Cheok, Xavier Roman, The Anh Nguyen, Kenichi Sugimoto, and Veronica Halupka

  21. [29]

    Ashley Colley, Minna Pakanen, Saara Koskinen, Kirsi Mikkonen, and Jonna Häkkilä. 2016. Smart handbag as a wearable public display-exploring concepts and user perceptions. InProceedings of the 7th Augmented Human International Conference 2016. 1–8

    2016

  22. [30]

    Jean Costa, Alexander T Adams, Malte F Jung, François Guimbretière, and Tanzeem Choudhury. 2016. EmotionCheck: leveraging bodily signals and false feedback to regulate our emotions. InProceedings of the 2016 ACM international joint conference on pervasive and ubiquitous comput...

    2016

  23. [31]

    Ilja Croijmans, Daniel Beetsma, Henk Aarts, Ilse Gortemaker, and Monique Smeets. 2021. The role of fragrance and self-esteem in perception of body odors and impressions of others.PloS one16, 11 (2021), e0258773

    2021

  24. [32]

    Amar D’Adamo, Marte Roel Lesur, Laia Turmo Vidal, Mohammad Mahdi Dehshibi, Daniel De La Prida, Joaquín R Diaz-Durán, Luis Antonio Azpicueta-Ruiz, Aleksander Väljamäe, and Ana Tajadura-Jiménez. 2024. SoniWeight Shoes: Investigating Effects and Personalization of a Wearable Soun...

    2024

  25. [33]

    Deborah Davis and William T Perkowitz. 1979. Consequences of responsiveness in dyadic interaction: Effects of probability of response and proportion of content-related responses on interpersonal attraction.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology37, 4 (1979), 534

    1979

  26. [34]

    I don’t Want to Wear a Screen

    Laura Devendorf, Joanne Lo, Noura Howell, Jung Lin Lee, Nan-Wei Gong, M Emre Karagozler, Shiho Fukuhara, Ivan Poupyrev, Eric Paulos, and Kimiko Ryokai. 2016. " I don’t Want to Wear a Screen" Probing Perceptions of and Possibilities for Dynamic Displays on Clothing. InProceedin...

    2016

  27. [35]

    Christine Dierk, Molly Jane Pearce Nicholas, and Eric Paulos. 2018. AlterWear: battery-free wearable displays for opportunistic interactions. InProceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–11

    2018

  28. [36]

    Jennica Falk and Staffan Björk. 1999. The BubbleBadge: a wearable public display. InChi’99 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems. 318–319

    1999

  29. [37]

    Géraldine Fauville, Anna CM Queiroz, Mufan Luo, Jeffrey Hancock, and Jeremy N Bailenson. 2022. Impression formation from video conference screenshots: The role of gaze, camera distance, and angle. (2022)

    2022

  30. [38]

    Ann Marie Fiore. 1993. Multisensory integration of visual, tactile, and olfactory aesthetic cues of appearance.Clothing and Textiles Research Journal11, 2 (1993), 45–52

    1993

  31. [39]

    Emma Frid, Roberto Bresin, Paolo Alborno, and Ludvig Elblaus. 2016. Interactive sonification of spontaneous movement of children—cross-modal mapping and the perception of body movement qualities through sound.Frontiers in neuroscience10 (2016), 521

    2016

  32. [40]

    Jerry Bryan Fuller, Tim Barnett, Kim Hester, Clint Relyea, and Len Frey. 2007. An exploratory examination of voice behavior from an impression management perspective.Journal of Managerial Issues(2007), 134–151

    2007

  33. [41]

    Enrico Furfaro, Frederic Bevilacqua, Nadia Berthouze, and Ana Tajadura-Jimenez. 2015. Sonification of virtual and real surface tapping: evaluation of behavior changes, surface perception and emotional indices.IEEE MultiMedia (2015)

    2015

  34. [42]

    Anna Fuste and Chris Schmandt. 2018. ARTextiles for Promoting Social Interactions Around Personal Interests. InExtended Abstracts of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’18). ACM. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3170427.3188589

    2018

  35. [43]

    Erving Goffman et al. 2002. The presentation of self in everyday life. 1959.Garden City, NY259 (2002)

    2002

  36. [44]

    2018.IceBreakware: designing wearable technologies for spatial awareness and social interactions

    Amos Golan. 2018.IceBreakware: designing wearable technologies for spatial awareness and social interactions. Ph. D. Dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology

    2018

  37. [45]

    Alba Gomez-Andres, Jennifer Grau-Sánchez, Esther Duarte, Antoni Rodriguez-Fornells, and Ana Tajadura-Jiménez

  38. [46]

    2007.Self-expression

    Mitchell S Green. 2007.Self-expression. OUP Oxford. Audio Personas: Augmenting Social Perception via Body-Anchored Audio Cues 0:31

    2007

  39. [47]

    Siqi Guo, Minsoo Choi, Dominic Kao, and Christos Mousas. 2024. Collaborating with my Doppelgänger: The Effects of Self-similar Appearance and Voice of a Virtual Character during a Jigsaw Puzzle Co-solving Task.Proceedings of the ACM on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniq...

    2024

  40. [48]

    Tom Gurion and Nori Jacoby. 2013. Audio-only augmented reality system for social interaction. InHCI International 2013-Posters’ Extended Abstracts: International Conference, HCI International 2013, Las Vegas, NV, USA, July 21-26, 2013, Proceedings, Part I 15. Springer, 322–326

    2013

  41. [49]

    Jonna Häkkilä, Ashley Colley, Paula Roinesalo, and Jani Väyrynen. 2017. Clothing integrated augmented reality markers. InProceedings of the 16th International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia. 113–121

    2017

  42. [50]

    Edward T Hall. 1963. A system for the notation of proxemic behavior.American anthropologist65, 5 (1963), 1003–1026

    1963

  43. [51]

    Edward T Hall. 1966. The hidden dimension.Garden City(1966)

    1966

  44. [52]

    Waldie E Hanser, Ruth E Mark, Wobbe P Zijlstra, and Ad JJM Vingerhoets. 2015. The effects of background music on the evaluation of crying faces.Psychology of Music43, 1 (2015), 75–85

    2015

  45. [53]

    Leslie A Hayduk. 1983. Personal space: Where we now stand.Psychological bulletin94, 2 (1983), 293

    1983

  46. [54]

    Seoyeon Hong, Mi R Jahng, Namyeon Lee, and Kevin R Wise. 2020. Do you filter who you are?: Excessive self- presentation, social cues, and user evaluations of Instagram selfies.Computers in Human Behavior104 (2020), 106159

    2020

  47. [55]

    Noura Howell, Laura Devendorf, Rundong Tian, Tomás Vega Galvez, Nan-Wei Gong, Ivan Poupyrev, Eric Paulos, and Kimiko Ryokai. 2016. Biosignals as social cues: Ambiguity and emotional interpretation in social displays of skin conductance. InProceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference...

    2016

  48. [56]

    Clayton Hutto and Eric Gilbert. 2014. Vader: A parsimonious rule-based model for sentiment analysis of social media text. InProceedings of the international AAAI conference on web and social media, Vol. 8. 216–225

    2014

  49. [57]

    Daniel Andre Ignacio, David R Gerkens, Erick Ryan Aguinaldo, Dina Arch, and Ruben Barajas. 2021. Music-like stimuli affect the emotional processing of words and facial expressions.Psychology of Music49, 3 (2021), 479–497

    2021

  50. [58]

    Ana Javornik, Ben Marder, Jennifer Brannon Barhorst, Graeme McLean, Yvonne Rogers, Paul Marshall, and Luk Warlop. 2022. ‘What lies behind the filter?’Uncovering the motivations for using augmented reality (AR) face filters on social media and their effect on well-being.Compute...

    2022

  51. [59]

    Janet G Johnson, Tommy Sharkey, Iramuali Cynthia Butarbutar, Danica Xiong, Ruijie Huang, Lauren Sy, and Nadir Weibel. 2023. UnMapped: Leveraging Experts’ Situated Experiences to Ease Remote Guidance in Collaborative Mixed Reality. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Hu...

    2023

  52. [60]

    2014.Two essays on analytical psychology

    Carl Gustav Jung. 2014.Two essays on analytical psychology. Routledge

    2014

  53. [61]

    Patrik N Juslin and Daniel Västfjäll. 2008. Emotional responses to music: The need to consider underlying mechanisms. Behavioral and brain sciences31, 5 (2008), 559–575

    2008

  54. [62]

    Randy W Kamphaus and Karen L Pleiss. 1991. Draw-a-Person techniques: Tests in search of a construct.Journal of School Psychology29, 4 (1991), 395–401

    1991

  55. [63]

    Viirj Kan, Katsuya Fujii, Judith Amores, Chang Long Zhu Jin, Pattie Maes, and Hiroshi Ishii. 2015. Social textiles: Social affordances and icebreaking interactions through wearable social messaging. InProceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and...

    2015

  56. [64]

    Dominic Kao, Rabindra Ratan, Christos Mousas, Amogh Joshi, and Edward F Melcer. 2022. Audio matters too: How audial avatar customization enhances visual avatar customization. InProceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–27

    2022

  57. [65]

    Elif Kutay Karaçor. 2016. Public vs. private: The evaluation of different space types in terms of publicness dimension. European Journal of Sustainable Development5, 3 (2016), 51–51

    2016

  58. [66]

    Jahanvash Karim, Robert Weisz, and Shafiq Ur Rehman. 2011. International positive and negative affect schedule short-form (I-PANAS-SF): Testing for factorial invariance across cultures.Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences15 (2011), 2016–2022

    2011

  59. [67]

    Benjamin Kenwright. 2020. There’s more to sound than meets the ear: Sound in interactive environments.IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications40, 4 (2020), 62–70

    2020

  60. [68]

    Angelika C Kern and Wolfgang Ellermeier. 2020. Audio in VR: Effects of a soundscape and movement-triggered step sounds on presence.Frontiers in Robotics and AI7 (2020), 20

    2020

  61. [69]

    Konstantina Kilteni, Raphaela Groten, and Mel Slater. 2012. The sense of embodiment in virtual reality.Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments21, 4 (2012), 373–387

    2012

  62. [70]

    Hayeon Kim and In-Kwon Lee. 2022. Studying the effects of congruence of auditory and visual stimuli on virtual reality experiences.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics28, 5 (2022), 2080–2090

    2022

  63. [71]

    Hayeon Kim, Jinhyung Park, and In-Kwon Lee. 2023. ” To Be or Not to Be Me?”: Exploration of Self-Similar Effects ofAvatars on Social Virtual Reality Experiences.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics(2023)

    2023

  64. [72]

    Jeanine Kirchner-Krath, Manuel Schmidt-Kraepelin, Sofia Schöbel, Mathias Ullrich, Ali Sunyaev, and Harald FO Von Korflesch. 2024. Outplay Your Weaker Self: A Mixed-Methods Study on Gamification to Overcome Procrastination 0:32 Tao et al. in Academia. InProceedings of the CHI C...

    2024

  65. [73]

    Martin Kocur, Florian Habler, Valentin Schwind, Paweł W Woźniak, Christian Wolff, and Niels Henze. 2021. Physio- logical and perceptual responses to athletic avatars while cycling in virtual reality. InProceedings of the 2021 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–18

    2021

  66. [74]

    Nikita Menon KP, Eldy S Lazaro Vasquez, Hannah Curran, Sasha De Koninck, and Laura Devendorf. 2023. Weaving Augmented Reality Markers. InAdjunct Proceedings of the 2023 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing & the 2023 ACM International Sympos...

    2023

  67. [75]

    Andrey Krekhov, Sebastian Cmentowski, and Jens Krüger. 2019. The illusion of animal body ownership and its potential for virtual reality games. In2019 IEEE Conference on Games (CoG). IEEE, 1–8

    2019

  68. [76]

    2009.Ice breakers: Short activities to encourage social interaction

    Bonnie J Krueger. 2009.Ice breakers: Short activities to encourage social interaction. Lorenz Educational Press

    2009

  69. [77]

    Jens Lange, Marc W Heerdink, and Gerben A Van Kleef. 2022. Reading emotions, reading people: Emotion perception and inferences drawn from perceived emotions.Current opinion in psychology43 (2022), 85–90

    2022

  70. [78]

    Paul J Laurienti, Robert A Kraft, Joseph A Maldjian, Jonathan H Burdette, and Mark T Wallace. 2004. Semantic congruence is a critical factor in multisensory behavioral performance.Experimental brain research158 (2004), 405–414

    2004

  71. [79]

    Mark R Leary and Robin M Kowalski. 1990. Impression management: A literature review and two-component model. Psychological bulletin107, 1 (1990), 34

    1990

  72. [80]

    Sharron J Lennon and Leslie L Davis. 1989. Clothing and human behavior from a social cognitive framework Part I: Theoretical perspectives.Clothing and Textiles Research Journal7, 4 (1989), 41–48

    1989

  73. [81]

    Joanne Leong, Pat Pataranutaporn, Yaoli Mao, Florian Perteneder, Ehsan Hoque, Janet M Baker, and Pattie Maes

  74. [82]

    Judith Ley-Flores, Laia Turmo Vidal, Elena Márquez Segura, Aneesha Singh, Frederic Bevilacqua, Francisco Cuadrado, Joaquín Roberto Díaz Durán, Omar Valdiviezo-Hernández, Milagrosa Sánchez-Martin, and Ana Tajadura-Jiménez

  75. [83]

    Benjamin J Li and Hui Min Lee. 2023. Filters uncovered: Investigating the impact of AR face filters and self-view on videoconference fatigue and affect.Telematics and Informatics Reports11 (2023), 100088

    2023

  76. [84]

    Mats Liljedahl. 2011. Sound for fantasy and freedom. InGame sound technology and player interaction: Concepts and developments. IGI Global, 22–43

    2011

  77. [85]

    Scott D Lipscombc. 2013. Playing with sound: The role of music and sound effects in gaming.The Psychology of Music in Multimedia(2013), 289

    2013

  78. [86]

    Bruce" Liu, Vladimir Kirilyuk, Xiuxiu Yuan, Alex Olwal, Peggy Chi, Xiang

    Xingyu" Bruce" Liu, Vladimir Kirilyuk, Xiuxiu Yuan, Alex Olwal, Peggy Chi, Xiang" Anthony" Chen, and Ruofei Du

  79. [87]

    W John Livesley and Dennis Basil Bromley. 1973. Person perception in childhood and adolescence. (1973)

    1973

  80. [88]

    Nidhya Logeswaran and Joydeep Bhattacharya. 2009. Crossmodal transfer of emotion by music.Neuroscience letters 455, 2 (2009), 129–133

    2009

  81. [89]

    Angella Mackey, Ron Wakkary, Stephan Wensveen, Annika Hupfeld, and Oscar Tomico. 2020. Alternative Presents for Dynamic Fabric. InProceedings of the 2020 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS ’20). ACM. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3357236.3395447

    2020

  82. [90]

    Rosa Mikeal Martey and Mia Consalvo. 2011. Performing the looking-glass self: Avatar appearance and group identity in Second Life.Popular Communication9, 3 (2011), 165–180

    2011

  83. [91]

    Massimiliano Masullo, Luigi Maffei, Tina Iachini, Mariachiara Rapuano, Federico Cioffi, Gennaro Ruggiero, and Francesco Ruotolo. 2021. A questionnaire investigating the emotional salience of sounds.Applied Acoustics182 (2021), 108281

    2021

  84. [92]

    James L May and Phyllis Ann Hamilton. 1980. Effects of musically evoked affect on women’s interpersonal attraction toward and perceptual judgments of physical attractiveness of men.Motivation and Emotion4 (1980), 217–228

    1980

  85. [93]

    David McGookin and Stephen Brewster. 2012. PULSE: the design and evaluation of an auditory display to provide a social vibe. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1263–1272

    2012

  86. [94]

    David McGookin, Stephen Brewster, and Pablo Priego. 2009. Audio bubbles: Employing non-speech audio to support tourist wayfinding. InHaptic and Audio Interaction Design: 4th International Conference, HAID 2009 Dresden, Germany, September 10-11, 2009 Proceedings 4. Springer, 41–50

    2009

  87. [95]

    Kimberly A Miller. 1997. Dress: Private and secret self-expression.Clothing and Textiles Research Journal15, 4 (1997), 223–234

    1997

  88. [96]

    Florian Mueller and Matthew Karau. 2002. Transparent hearing. InCHI’02 extended abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 730–731. Audio Personas: Augmenting Social Perception via Body-Anchored Audio Cues 0:33

    2002

  89. [97]

    Elizabeth D Mynatt, Maribeth Back, Roy Want, Michael Baer, and Jason B Ellis. 1998. Designing audio aura. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. 566–573

    1998

  90. [98]

    Lennart E Nacke, Mark N Grimshaw, and Craig A Lindley. 2010. More than a feeling: Measurement of sonic user experience and psychophysiology in a first-person shooter game.Interacting with computers22, 5 (2010), 336–343

    2010

  91. [99]

    Bryan C Pijanowski, Almo Farina, Stuart H Gage, Sarah L Dumyahn, and Bernie L Krause. 2011. What is soundscape ecology? An introduction and overview of an emerging new science.Landscape ecology26 (2011), 1213–1232

    2011

  92. [100]

    Inka Rantala, Ashley Colley, and Jonna Häkkilä. 2018. Smart Jewelry: Augmenting Traditional Wearable Self- Expression Displays. InProceedings of the 7th ACM International Symposium on Pervasive Displays (PerDis ’18). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3205873.3205891

    2018

  93. [101]

    Juan Sebastian Rios, Daniel John Ketterer, and Donghee Yvette Wohn. 2018. How Users Choose a Face Lens on Snapchat. InCompanion of the 2018 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (CSCW ’18). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3272973.3274087

    2018

  94. [102]

    Paula Roinesalo, Juho Rantakari, Lasse Virtanen, and Jonna Häkkilä. 2016. Clothes integrated visual markers as self-expression tool. InProceedings of the 18th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services Adjunct (MobileHCI ’16). ACM. ...

    2016

  95. [103]

    2000.Here&There: an augmented reality system of linked audio

    Joseph Michael Rozier. 2000.Here&There: an augmented reality system of linked audio. Ph. D. Dissertation. Mas- sachusetts Institute of Technology

    2000

  96. [104]

    Ulrike Schultze and Matthew Michael Leahy. 2009. The avatar-self relationship: Enacting presence in second life. (2009)

    2009

  97. [105]

    Cristina Segalin, Fabio Celli, Luca Polonio, Michal Kosinski, David Stillwell, Nicu Sebe, Marco Cristani, and Bruno Lepri. 2017. What your Facebook profile picture reveals about your personality. InProceedings of the 25th ACM international conference on Multimedia. 460–468

    2017

  98. [106]

    Adeeba Siddiqui. 2021. Social media and its role in amplifying a certain idea of beauty.Infotheca—Journal for Digital Humanities21, 1 (2021), 73–85

    2021

  99. [107]

    Andra Siibak. 2009. Constructing the self through the photo selection-visual impression management on social networking websites.Cyberpsychology: Journal of psychosocial research on cyberspace3, 1 (2009), 1

    2009

  100. [108]

    Marjan Sikora, Mladen Russo, Jurica Ðerek, and Ante Jurčević. 2018. Soundscape of an archaeological site recreated with audio augmented reality.ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications (TOMM)14, 3 (2018), 1–22

    2018

  101. [109]

    Aneesha Singh, Marusa Hrobat, Suxin Gui, Nadia Bianchi-Berthouze, Judith Ley-Flores, Frederic Bevilacqua, Joaquin R Diaz Duran, Elena MÁrquez Segura, and Ana Tajadura-Jiménez. 2024. Pushed by Sound: Effects of Sound and Movement Direction on Body Perception, Experience Quality...

    2024

  102. [110]

    Charles Spence. 2013. Just how important is spatial coincidence to multisensory integration? Evaluating the spatial rule.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences1296, 1 (2013), 31–49

    2013

  103. [111]

    Dominik Storek, Jan Stuchlik, and Frantisek Rund. 2015. Modifications of the surrounding auditory space by augmented reality audio: Introduction towarped acoustic reality. (2015)

    2015

  104. [112]

    Abu Yousuf Swapan, Joo Hwa Bay, and Dora Marinova. 2019. Importance of the residential front yard for social sustainability: Comparing sense of community levels in semi-private-public open spaces.Journal of Green Building 14, 2 (2019), 177–202

    2019

  105. [113]

    Ana Tajadura and Daniel Västfjäll. 2008. Auditory-induced emotion-A neglected channel for communication in HCI. Emotion in HCI(2008), 81

    2008

  106. [114]

    Ana Tajadura-Jiménez, Maria Basia, Ophelia Deroy, Merle Fairhurst, Nicolai Marquardt, and Nadia Bianchi-Berthouze

  107. [115]

    Ana Tajadura-Jiménez, Galini Pantelidou, Pawel Rebacz, Daniel Västfjäll, and Manos Tsakiris. 2011. I-space: the effects of emotional valence and source of music on interpersonal distance.PloS one6, 10 (2011), e26083

    2011

  108. [116]

    Ana Tajadura-Jiménez, Manos Tsakiris, Torsten Marquardt, and Nadia Bianchi-Berthouze. 2015. Action sounds update the mental representation of arm dimension: contributions of kinaesthesia and agency.Frontiers in psychology 6 (2015), 689

    2015

  109. [117]

    Ana Tajadura-Jiménez, Aleksander Väljamäe, Frédéric Bevilacqua, and Nadia Bianchi-Berthouze. 2018. Principles for Designing Body-Centered Auditory Feedback.The Wiley handbook of human computer interaction1 (2018), 371–403

    2018

  110. [118]

    Henri Tajfel. 1974. Social identity and intergroup behaviour.Social science information13, 2 (1974), 65–93

    1974

  111. [119]

    Leila Takayama and Clifford Nass. 2010. Throwing voices: The psychological impact of the spatial height of projected voices. InProceedings of the 2010 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work. 91–94

    2010

  112. [120]

    Alexander Todorov, Ron Dotsch, Jenny M Porter, Nikolaas N Oosterhof, and Virginia B Falvello. 2013. Validation of data-driven computational models of social perception of faces.Emotion13, 4 (2013), 724. 0:34 Tao et al

    2013

  113. [121]

    Leandro Miletto Tonetto, Cristiano Porto Klanovicz, and Charles Spence. 2014. Modifying action sounds influences people’s emotional responses and bodily sensations.i-Perception5, 3 (2014), 153–163

    2014

  114. [122]

    2011.Life on the Screen

    Sherry Turkle. 2011.Life on the Screen. Simon and Schuster

    2011

  115. [123]

    Laia Turmo Vidal, José Manuel Vega-Cebrián, María Concepción Valdez Gastelum, Elena Márquez Segura, Judith Ley-Flores, Joaquin R Diaz Duran, and Ana Tajadura-Jiménez. 2024. Body Sensations as Design Material: An Approach to Design Sensory Technology for Altering Body Perceptio...

    2024

  116. [124]

    Mikko Viinikainen, Jari Kätsyri, and Mikko Sams. 2012. Representation of perceived sound valence in the human brain.Human brain mapping33, 10 (2012), 2295–2305

    2012

  117. [125]

    Yanan Wang, Shijian Luo, Yujia Lu, Hebo Gong, Yexing Zhou, Shuai Liu, and Preben Hansen. 2017. AnimSkin: Fabri- cating Epidermis with Interactive, Functional and Aesthetic Color Animation. InProceedings of the 2017 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS ’17). ACM. ht...

    2017

  118. [126]

    Hiroki Watanabe and Tsutomu Terada. 2020. Manipulatable auditory perception in wearable computing. InProceedings of the Augmented Humans International Conference. 1–12

    2020

  119. [127]

    Mark Weiser and John Seely Brown. 1996. Designing calm technology.PowerGrid Journal1, 1 (1996), 75–85

    1996

  120. [128]

    Andrea Stevenson Won, Jeremy Bailenson, Jimmy Lee, and Jaron Lanier. 2015. Homuncular flexibility in virtual reality.Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication20, 3 (2015), 241–259

    2015

  121. [129]

    Jane E Workman and Kim KP Johnson. 1991. The role of cosmetics in impression formation.Clothing and Textiles Research Journal10, 1 (1991), 63–67

    1991

  122. [130]

    Jing Yang, Amit Barde, and Mark Billinghurst. 2022. Audio augmented reality: A systematic review of technologies, applications, and future research directions.journal of the audio engineering society70, 10 (2022), 788–809

    2022

  123. [131]

    Jing Yang, Yves Frank, and Gábor Sörös. 2019. Hearing is believing: synthesizing spatial audio from everyday objects to users. InProceedings of the 10th Augmented Human International Conference 2019. 1–9

    2019

  124. [132]

    Jing Yang, Prasanth Sasikumar, Huidong Bai, Amit Barde, Gábor Sörös, and Mark Billinghurst. 2020. The effects of spatial auditory and visual cues on mixed reality remote collaboration.Journal on Multimodal User Interfaces14, 4 (2020), 337–352

    2020

  125. [133]

    Wanlu Yang, Kai Makita, Takashi Nakao, Noriaki Kanayama, Maro G Machizawa, Takafumi Sasaoka, Ayako Sugata, Ryota Kobayashi, Ryosuke Hiramoto, Shigeto Yamawaki, et al . 2018. Affective auditory stimulus database: An expanded version of the International Affective Digitized Soun...

    2018

  126. [134]

    Nick Yee and Jeremy Bailenson. 2007. The Proteus effect: The effect of transformed self-representation on behavior. Human communication research33, 3 (2007), 271–290

    2007

  127. [135]

    Jamil Zaki. 2013. Cue integration: A common framework for social cognition and physical perception.Perspectives on Psychological Science8, 3 (2013), 296–312

    2013

  128. [136]

    Marcel Zentner, Didier Grandjean, and Klaus R Scherer. 2008. Emotions evoked by the sound of music: characterization, classification, and measurement.Emotion8, 4 (2008), 494

    2008

  129. [137]

    Yiran Zhao, Yujie Tao, Grace Le, Rui Maki, Alexander Adams, Pedro Lopes, and Tanzeem Choudhury. 2023. Affective Touch as Immediate and Passive Wearable Intervention.Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies6, 4 (2023), 1–23

    2023

  130. [2011]

    In Proceedings of the 8th international conference on advances in computer entertainment technology

    Sound perfume: designing a wearable sound and fragrance media for face-to-face interpersonal interaction. In Proceedings of the 8th international conference on advances in computer entertainment technology. 1–8

  131. [2015]

    InProceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems

    As light as your footsteps: altering walking sounds to change perceived body weight, emotional state and gait. InProceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems. 2943–2952

  132. [2020]

    Enriching footsteps sounds in gait rehabilitation in chronic stroke patients: a pilot study.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences1467, 1 (2020), 48–59

    2020

  133. [2021]

    Inextended abstracts of the 2021 CHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

    Exploring the use of real-time camera filters on embodiment and creativity. Inextended abstracts of the 2021 CHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–7

    2021

  134. [2023]

    InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

    Visual captions: augmenting verbal communication with on-the-fly visuals. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–20

    2023

  135. [2024]

    Co-Designing Sensory Feedback for Wearables to Support Physical Activity through Body Sensations.Proceed- ings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies8, 1 (2024), 1–31

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.