pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.08632 · v1 · pith:DZDM5FO3new · submitted 2026-06-07 · 💻 cs.ET · cs.MM

xSense Design Cards: Guiding the Design of Multisensory Experiences

Ceylan Be\c{s}evli , Carlos Velasco , Marianna Obrist This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 17:25 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.ET cs.MM
keywords multisensory experiencesdesign cardsHCIsensory designexperience designresponsible innovationtechnology integrationuser experience
0
0 comments X

The pith

The xSense Design Cards introduce four card types to systematically design and evaluate multisensory experiences in HCI.

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

Designing multisensory experiences requires combining elements across senses like touch and smell, but HCI lacks tools and shared vocabulary for this. The paper presents xSense Design Cards with four types to address this gap. Experience Cards set purpose, context, and audience. Sensory Cards break down multisensory concepts into elements and events. Technology Cards prompt relevant tech considerations. Exploration Cards guide reflection on broader context and responsible innovation. These support structured design, reflection, and evaluation while aiming to broaden vocabulary in the multisensory HCI community.

Core claim

This work introduces the xSense Design Cards and their theoretical grounding, showing how they support structured design, reflection, and evaluation of an experience's multisensory composition. The four card types are Experience Cards that define purpose, context, and audience; Sensory Cards that break down multisensory concepts into elements and events; Technology Cards that prompt consideration of relevant technologies; and Exploration Cards that guide reflection on the broader context, including responsible innovation.

What carries the argument

xSense Design Cards, a set of four card types (Experience, Sensory, Technology, Exploration) that structure the design process for multisensory experiences.

If this is right

  • Designers can use the cards to systematically combine sensory elements across touch, taste, smell and more.
  • The cards enable evaluation of an experience's multisensory composition through structured reflection.
  • They prompt explicit consideration of relevant technologies during the design process.
  • Exploration Cards encourage integration of responsible innovation principles into multisensory projects.
  • The approach stimulates discussion and shared vocabulary within the multisensory HCI community.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If widely adopted, the cards could standardize how multisensory prototypes are documented and compared in research papers.
  • The card structure might be adapted for use in non-HCI domains such as sensory marketing or product development.
  • Empirical validation through workshops with diverse practitioner groups would test applicability beyond the initial contexts.
  • Digital versions of the cards could enable remote collaboration and integration with prototyping software.

Load-bearing premise

The four proposed card types together with their theoretical grounding are sufficient to systematically create, evaluate, and broaden the vocabulary for multisensory experiences across diverse contexts and audiences.

What would settle it

A comparative study where designers using xSense cards produce multisensory experiences with less clearly articulated sensory composition or responsible innovation considerations than those using existing ad-hoc methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.08632 by Carlos Velasco, Ceylan Be\c{s}evli, Marianna Obrist.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overview of the xSense Design Cards categories [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: xSense Cards’ contents with example cards from each category showing the prompt questions. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Designing multisensory experiences involves the deliberate combination of sensory elements to shape specific impressions for a given audience. Advances in technologies beyond audiovisual modalities now make it feasible to design across touch, taste, smell, and more. However, HCI still lacks the tools and shared vocabulary needed to systematically create and evaluate such experiences. The xSense Design Cards address this gap with four card types: (1) Experience Cards define purpose, context, and audience; (2) Sensory Cards break down multisensory concepts into elements and events; (3) Technology Cards prompt consideration of relevant technologies; and (4) Exploration Cards guide reflection on the broader context, including responsible innovation. This work introduces the cards and their theoretical grounding, showing how they support structured design, reflection, and evaluation of an experience's multisensory composition. By presenting xSense, we aim to broaden the vocabulary for multisensory design and stimulate discussion within the growing multisensory HCI community.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

0 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that xSense Design Cards address the lack of tools and shared vocabulary in HCI for multisensory experiences (beyond audiovisual) by introducing four card types—Experience Cards (purpose, context, audience), Sensory Cards (elements and events), Technology Cards (relevant technologies), and Exploration Cards (broader context and responsible innovation)—along with their theoretical grounding; it illustrates their use to support structured design, reflection, and evaluation of multisensory compositions, with the goal of broadening vocabulary and stimulating discussion in the multisensory HCI community.

Significance. If the cards function as described for structured support, the work could provide a practical, accessible design tool that helps systematize multisensory composition and foster shared language in an emerging area of HCI; this is a modest but useful contribution for a design-tool paper, particularly if it includes concrete usage examples that can be adopted or extended by practitioners.

minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the phrasing 'showing how they support structured design, reflection, and evaluation' would benefit from a brief forward reference to the specific sections or figures that contain the usage illustrations or case examples.
  2. The manuscript would be strengthened by adding a short dedicated section (or subsection) that explicitly describes the card development process, even at a high level, to clarify how the four types and their theoretical grounding were derived.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive summary of the xSense Design Cards paper and for recommending minor revision. No specific major comments were raised in the report.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

The paper introduces xSense Design Cards as a descriptive design tool with four card types grounded in existing multisensory HCI literature. No equations, fitted parameters, predictions, or derivations are present. The central claim is the introduction of the cards themselves to support structured design and broaden vocabulary, without any self-referential reduction, self-citation load-bearing premises, or renaming of known results. The argument is self-contained as a contribution of a new artifact rather than a closed derivation chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 1 invented entities

The paper's contribution is the invention and description of the design cards; no mathematical free parameters, domain axioms, or external physical entities are invoked.

invented entities (1)
  • xSense Design Cards (four types) no independent evidence
    purpose: To provide structured guidance and shared vocabulary for multisensory experience design
    New artifact introduced by the paper; no independent evidence of effectiveness supplied in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5694 in / 1010 out tokens · 23462 ms · 2026-06-27T17:25:02.379583+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Gregory D Abowd and Elizabeth D Mynatt. 2000. Charting past, present, and future research in ubiquitous computing.ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI)7, 1 (2000), 29–58

    2000

  2. [2]

    Melike Balkaya and Gökçe Elif Baykal. 2024. When Human-Food Interaction Meets Value-Sensitive Design: Card-Based Design Tool. InAdjunct Proceedings of the 2024 Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction(Uppsala, Sweden) (NordiCHI ’24 Adjunct). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 11, 5 pages. doi:10.1145/3677045.3685425

    work page doi:10.1145/3677045.3685425 2024

  3. [3]

    Gokçe Elif Baykal, Tilbe Goksun, and Asim Evren Yantaç. 2018. Customiz- ing Developmentally Situated Design (DSD) Cards: Informing Designers about Preschoolers’ Spatial Learning. InProceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Hu- man Factors in Computing Systems(Montreal QC, Canada)(CHI ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–9. doi:1...

    work page doi:10.1145/3173574.3174166 2018

  4. [4]

    Ceylan Beşevli, Lei Gao, Narsimlu Kemsaram, Giada Brianza, Orestis Georgiou, Sriram Subramanian, and Marianna Obrist. 2025. SONARIOS: A Design Futuring- Driven Exploration of Acoustophoresis. InProceedings of the 2025 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 740–753. doi:10.1145/371533...

    work page doi:10.1145/3715336.3735775 2025

  5. [5]

    Tilde Bekker and Alissa N. Antle. 2011. Developmentally situated design (DSD): making theoretical knowledge accessible to designers of children’s technology. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Vancouver, BC, Canada)(CHI ’11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2531–2540. doi:10.1145/1978942.1979312

    work page doi:10.1145/1978942.1979312 2011

  6. [6]

    Michael Mose Biskjaer, Peter Dalsgaard, and Kim Halskov. 2014. A constraint- based understanding of design spaces. InProceedings of the 2014 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems(Vancouver, BC, Canada)(DIS ’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 453–462. doi:10.1145/2598510. 2598533

    work page doi:10.1145/2598510 2014

  7. [7]

    Erick G Chuquichambi, Enric Munar, Charles Spence, and Carlos Velasco. 2024. Individual differences in sensitivity to taste-shape crossmodal correspondences. Food Quality and Preference115 (2024), 105110

    2024

  8. [8]

    Patricia Cornelio, Carlos Velasco, and Marianna Obrist. 2021. Multisensory integration as per technological advances: A review.Frontiers in neuroscience15 (2021), 652611

    2021

  9. [9]

    Patricia Cornelio, Chi Thanh Vi, Giada Brianza, Emanuela Maggioni, and Mari- anna Obrist. 2023. Smell and taste-based interactions enabled through advances in digital technology. InHandbook of Human Computer Interaction. Springer International Publishing, 1–31

    2023

  10. [10]

    Antle, and Carman Neustaedter

    Ying Deng, Alissa N. Antle, and Carman Neustaedter. 2014. Tango cards: a card-based design tool for informing the design of tangible learning games. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems(Vancouver, BC, Canada)(DIS ’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 695–704. doi:10.1145/2598510.2598601

    work page doi:10.1145/2598510.2598601 2014

  11. [11]

    Anna Fenko, Hendrik NJ Schifferstein, and Paul Hekkert. 2010. Shifts in sen- sory dominance between various stages of user–product interactions.Applied ergonomics41, 1 (2010), 34–40

    2010

  12. [12]

    Halperin, Evan Schmitz, Yen Nee Chew, and Yuan-Chi Tseng

    Gary Hsieh, Brett A. Halperin, Evan Schmitz, Yen Nee Chew, and Yuan-Chi Tseng

  13. [13]

    InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Hamburg, Germany)(CHI ’23)

    What is in the Cards: Exploring Uses, Patterns, and Trends in Design Cards. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Hamburg, Germany)(CHI ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 765, 18 pages. doi:10.1145/3544548.3580712

    work page doi:10.1145/3544548.3580712 2023

  14. [14]

    Sandjar Kozubaev, Chris Elsden, Noura Howell, Marie Louise Juul Søndergaard, Nick Merrill, Britta Schulte, and Richmond Y. Wong. 2020. Expanding Modes of Reflection in Design Futuring. InProceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Honolulu, HI, USA)(CHI ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–15. do...

    work page doi:10.1145/3313831.3376526 2020

  15. [15]

    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, 4 (2004), 405–414

    2004

  16. [16]

    K-Y Monica Lee, Alistair Paterson, John R Piggott, and Graeme D Richardson

  17. [17]

    Origins of flavour in whiskies and a revised flavour wheel: A review.Journal of the Institute of Brewing107, 5 (2001), 287–313

    2001

  18. [18]

    Andrés Lucero and Juha Arrasvuori. 2010. PLEX Cards: a source of inspiration when designing for playfulness. InProceedings of the 3rd International Confer- ence on Fun and Games(Leuven, Belgium)(Fun and Games ’10). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 28–37. doi:10.1145/1823818.1823821

    work page doi:10.1145/1823818.1823821 2010

  19. [19]

    Asifa Majid. 2015. Cultural factors shape olfactory language.Trends in cognitive sciences19, 11 (2015), 629–630

    2015

  20. [20]

    Paul Milgram, Haruo Takemura, Akira Utsumi, and Fumio Kishino. 1995. Aug- mented reality: A class of displays on the reality-virtuality continuum. InTele- manipulator and telepresence technologies, Vol. 2351. Spie, 282–292

    1995

  21. [21]

    Kosuke Motoki, Lawrence E Marks, and Carlos Velasco. 2023. Reflections on cross- modal correspondences: Current understanding and issues for future research. Multisensory Research37, 1 (2023), 1–23

    2023

  22. [22]

    Ann C Noble, Rich A Arnold, Bryce M Masuda, Suzanne D Pecore, Janice O Schmidt, and Peter M Stern. 1984. Progress towards a standardized system of wine aroma terminology.American Journal of Enology and Viticulture35, 2 (1984), 107–109

    1984

  23. [23]

    Marianna Obrist, Rob Comber, Sriram Subramanian, Betina Piqueras-Fiszman, Carlos Velasco, and Charles Spence. 2014. Temporal, affective, and embodied characteristics of taste experiences: A framework for design. InProceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 2853–2862

    2014

  24. [24]

    Marianna Obrist and Carlos Velasco. 2025. Multisensory experiences: Formation, realization, and responsibilities.Commun. ACM68, 4 (2025), 50–59

    2025

  25. [25]

    Claire Petitmengin. 2006. Describing one’s subjective experience in the second person: An interview method for the science of consciousness.Phenomenology and the Cognitive sciences5, 3 (2006), 229–269

    2006

  26. [26]

    Francesca Polletta, Pang Ching Bobby Chen, Beth Gharrity Gardner, and Alice Motes. 2011. The sociology of storytelling.Annual review of sociology37, 1 (2011), 109–130

    2011

  27. [27]

    Roope Raisamo, Ismo Rakkolainen, Päivi Majaranta, Katri Salminen, Jussi Rantala, and Ahmed Farooq. 2019. Human augmentation: Past, present and future.Inter- national Journal of Human-Computer Studies131 (2019), 131–143

    2019

  28. [28]

    Robin Roy and James P Warren. 2019. Card-based design tools: A review and analysis of 155 card decks for designers and designing.Design Studies63 (2019), 125–154

    2019

  29. [29]

    Stefan Scheydt, Maria Müller Staub, Fritz Frauenfelder, Gunnar H Nielsen, Jo- hann Behrens, and Ian Needham. 2017. Sensory overload: A concept analysis. International journal of mental health nursing26, 2 (2017), 110–120

    2017

  30. [30]

    Charles Spence. 2025. Reflecting on The Merging of the Senses: A Cognitive Psychology Perspective.Multisensory Research38, 4-5 (2025), 231–253

    2025

  31. [31]

    Stanley S Stevens. 1957. On the psychophysical law.Psychological review64, 3 (1957), 153

    1957

  32. [32]

    Jack Stilgoe, Richard Owen, and Phil Macnaghten. 2020. Developing a framework for responsible innovation. InThe ethics of nanotechnology, geoengineering, and clean energy. Routledge, 347–359

    2020

  33. [33]

    2020.Multisensory experiences: Where the senses meet technology

    Carlos Velasco and Marianna Obrist. 2020.Multisensory experiences: Where the senses meet technology. Oxford University Press

    2020

  34. [34]

    2025.Multisensory experiences: Where the senses meet technology

    Carlos Velasco and Marianna Obrist. 2025.Multisensory experiences: Where the senses meet technology. Oxford University Press

    2025

  35. [35]

    Carlos Velasco and Charles Spence. 2018. The multisensory analysis of prod- uct packaging framework. InMultisensory packaging: Designing new product experiences. Springer, 191–223

    2018

  36. [36]

    Carlos Velasco, Yunwen Tu, and Marianna Obrist. 2018. Towards Multisensory Storytelling with Taste and Flavor. InProceedings of the 3rd International Work- shop on Multisensory Approaches to Human-Food Interaction(Boulder, CO, USA) (MHFI’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 2, 7 pages. doi:10.1145/3279954.3279956

    work page doi:10.1145/3279954.3279956 2018

  37. [37]

    Jing Xue, Bruna Beatriz Petreca, Christopher Dawes, and Marianna Obrist. 2023. FabTouch: A Tool to Enable Communication and Design of Tactile and Affective Fabric Experiences. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Hamburg, Germany)(CHI ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 476, 16 pa...

    work page doi:10.1145/3544548 2023