Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 48 references

Cybernetic Marionette: Channeling Collective Agency Through a Wearable Robot in a Live Dancer-Robot Duet

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a live audience's felt agency was decoupled from their actual power: viewers believed their votes shaped a dancer-robot duet, yet voting patterns across four performances were strikingly consistent, making the piece…

desk verdict A vivid performance-led study of felt vs. exercised agency, worth reading and worth reviewing, but the voting analysis cannot distinguish collective patterns from a few hyper-voters. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.10079 v1 pith:RFHKB43K submitted 2025-06-11 cs.HC cs.RO

Anup Sathya , Jiasheng Li , Zeyu Yan , Adriane Fang , Bill Kules , Jonathan David Martin , Huaishu Peng This is my paper
classification cs.HCcs.RO
keywords dancerobotshuman-robotinteractioninteractiveperformanceswearablesagencyperformanceledresearchcollective
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

This paper reports on Dance 2, a live performance in which audience members vote through their phones to influence a wearable robot moving on a dancer's body. Post-show surveys of 150 respondents showed that most felt they were genuinely interacting with the robot and that their choices affected the performance. Yet the logged votes across four public performances were strikingly consistent: normalized override ratios at six decision prompts varied only slightly ($\sigma/\mu$ between 0.034 and 0.135). The paper argues this gap shows that the audience's felt agency exceeded their actual power, and that the choreography, timing, and interface framing subtly steered collective choices. The work is offered as a live analogy for algorithmically curated digital systems where agency is felt but not exercised.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is a three-way agency loop. Audience votes are cast through a lightweight phone interface and visualized live on stage; a wearable robot based on the Calico platform travels along a silicone track stitched to the dancer's costume; and the dancer pauses, resists, or reacts to the robot's behavior, feeding cues back to the audience. The analytical device that carries the argument is the normalized override ratio at each of the six Part 4 prompts, with $\sigma/\mu$ used to measure cross-performance consistency. The authors deliberately kept an unlimited-votes-per-person mechanic after an early glitch, arguing that it surfaced how individuals try to amplify their voice within a collective system, while still normalizing the data to represent the group's choices.

What would settle it

Conduct the same six voting prompts under a strict one-vote-per-person cap and compare the override ratios with the unlimited-voting condition; a large shift would show that repeated voting by a few individuals, not collective will, produced the consistency. Alternatively, log the robot's actual commanded motions at each prompt and check whether they match the winning option; systematic mismatches would show that the audience's choices did not change the robot's behavior at all.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is an empirical case of perceived agency decoupled from actual power. Audience members overwhelmingly reported that their votes influenced the robot and dancer, and two-thirds reported feeling connected to other audience members through the shared act of voting. But the consolidated voting data show stable override behavior across four performances, with the mean override ratio varying from 0.378 at prompt e to 0.846 at prompt f, and cross-performance consistency as tight as $\sigma/\mu = 0.034$. The paper's conclusion is that the audience's collective choices were subtly shaped by the system's design, choreography, and emotional framing, so participants experienced meaningful control even when their collective behavior followed pre-structured paths.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that normalized vote ratios represent a collective decision, even though the interface allowed unlimited votes per person, so a handful of devoted audience members could have cast many repeated votes; a second unverified assumption is that the backstage operator actually executed the winning option as specified, since no robot-behavior log accompanies the vote data.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the decoupling holds, interactive systems should be judged by what outcomes they actually allow users to shape, not just by whether users feel engaged.
  • Perceived agency can be designed into a system independently of real power, which means felt control is a designable material rather than a guarantee of influence.
  • The normalized override ratio offers a cheap, generalizable diagnostic for hidden steering in any shared decision-making interface, from live polls to platform recommendation votes.
  • The paper's framework of agentive behavior, experienced agency, and actual power gives participatory design a vocabulary for discussing the gap between those three things.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test would re-run the same six prompts with a strict one-vote-per-person cap; if override ratios change substantially, the unlimited voting mechanic, not collective will, was driving the consistent pattern.
  • Logging the robot's commanded movements and comparing them against winning votes would test whether felt influence ever translated into executed behavior; the paper does not include such a log.
  • The same normalized-ratio method could be applied to televised audience polls and app-based town-hall votes, where participants report engagement but outcome distributions look too stable across demographics.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents Dance^2, a 15-minute interactive dance performance in which audience members vote via their phones to either continue or override the choreography of a wearable robot attached to a dancer. The authors describe the five-part performance structure, the technical implementation based on the Calico on-body robot, a ten-month performance-led design process, and results from four public performances. Reported findings are two-fold: a post-performance survey (150 voluntary respondents) suggests that audience members felt a strong sense of connection and perceived influence, while logged voting data from six prompts in Part 4 show override ratios that the authors describe as 'strikingly consistent' across performances (Table 2, σ/μ between 0.034 and 0.135). The paper interprets this tension between felt agency and consistent voting outcomes as evidence that the audience's collective choices were subtly shaped by choreography, framing, and interface design, drawing on Breel's distinction between agentive behavior and the experience of agency and on broader HCI discourse about perceived versus actual control.

Significance. The paper's strength is its honest, situated account of a designed interactive performance and its explicit engagement with a theoretically meaningful distinction—agentive behavior, experience of agency, and actual power. The authors are transparent about the exploratory nature of the work, explicitly disclaiming generalizability, and they avoid fitted parameters or over-quantified claims about motivation. The artifact itself is a reasonable case study for performance-led HCI research, and the discussion of system design, choreographic framing, and ethical data collection contains useful provocations. If the empirical claims about the consistency of collective voting and the felt-versus-exercised power gap can be adequately supported, the paper would make a valuable contribution to HCI discourse on agency in participatory and algorithmically curated systems. However, as presented, the central empirical conclusion rests on a methodological premise that the data do not substantiate.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5.2, Table 2, Figure 8] The voting data are logged as vote counts, not participant counts, because 'participants were not required to vote—and were allowed to vote multiple times per prompt' (§5.2). The normalization described in §5.2 rescales each prompt's total votes to a common scale; it cannot recover the number of unique voters per prompt. Consequently, the override ratios in Table 2 are vote shares, not person shares. If a small subset of highly engaged audience members cast many votes at some prompts, the reported μ and σ/μ would describe that subset's behavior rather than a collective decision. The paper's central claim—that 'their collective behavior across four performances followed consistent patterns' (§7) and that this consistency demonstrates 'subtle shaping' by system design—is therefore not supported by the logged data as described. The authors could remedy this by reporting per-prompt unique-voter distributions, or, if such data are unavailable, by explicitly reframing the finding as vote-level consistency with the caveat that it may reflect hyper-voting dynamics.
  2. [§5.1, Figure 7] The survey findings are reported as percentages without per-item response counts, confidence intervals, or any adjustment for the fact that only 150 of over 200 audience members responded voluntarily. For example, '81% of respondents agreed' and '64–65% felt emotionally or perceptually connected' are stated without the denominator for each item (e.g., whether all 150 answered every item) and without any measure of uncertainty. This makes it difficult to assess the stability of the perceived-agency claim, and it also precludes a meaningful comparison between the survey results and the voting data. The authors should report per-item n and, where possible, confidence intervals or at least note item-level missingness; they should also acknowledge that voluntary response may overrepresent engaged audience members, which is relevant because the paper's argument contrasts felt agency with actual collective behavior.
  3. [§3.1, §5.2] The paper never verifies that the audience's 'winning' choice actually changed the robot's behavior. The system description states that a backstage operator controls the robot via a dashboard, and the audience interface streams voting data, but no operator-side robot-command log or time-synced log of robot state is presented. Without such a log, the survey item 'My choices affected the robot's behavior' (Figure 7) can only be interpreted as a report about perceived influence, possibly driven by the projected vote visualization and the dancer's reactions, not about verifiable changes in robot motion. This means the 'actual power' half of the felt-versus-exercised-power distinction is unmeasured. The authors should provide a log of robot commands or otherwise explicitly state that no behavioral verification exists and adjust the discussion accordingly.
  4. [§5.2, Table 2] The 'strikingly consistent' description is based only on descriptive statistics (μ and σ/μ) computed across four performances, with no baseline, null model, or inferential test. With four data points per prompt, the observed variability could be consistent with chance or with stable prompt-specific properties (such as the action being offered) that have nothing to do with collective agency. Moreover, the prompts differ in action and dramatic context, so the a–f arc could reflect the wording of each choice rather than an emergent collective decision. The authors should provide a more principled comparison (e.g., a permutation test with a null model of random voting) or, at minimum, temper the wording from 'strikingly consistent' to a more qualified claim about apparent similarity across shows.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§7] The conclusion contains a typo: 'four performances' is written as 'fours performances'.
  2. [Figure 8 caption] The caption states that the charts show 'a normalized ratio between votes to continue the choreography and votes to override the choreography,' while Table 2 reports the override ratio; the wording should make clear that the plotted quantity is the override share (override votes divided by total votes), not a ratio of two vote counts.
  3. [Figure 8] The labels 'avg votes' and 'stdev' are not defined in the caption or text; it would help to state that these are the mean and standard deviation of total votes per prompt across the performances, or clarify what they refer to if that is not the case.
  4. [§5.1] The bar chart in Figure 7 would be more informative if the exact percentage and number of respondents for each Likert item were provided, rather than only a visual distribution.
  5. [§6.5] The statement that 'Had we tracked individual behaviors—vote timing, frequency, shifts in response—we might have constructed more detailed portraits of how agency was distributed' is an important acknowledgment that the current data cannot characterize the distribution of voting across participants; this limitation should be moved forward into §5.2 where the voting analysis is presented, so that the reader encounters it at the point of use.
  6. [References] Some references have incompletely formatted metadata (e.g., reference [27] begins with a URL without a title, and several URLs include raw publisher strings); these should be cleaned up for publication.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's agency claim is an observational comparison of survey responses and vote-share data, not a derivation from fitted inputs or self-cited premises.

full rationale

No circular step meets the bar of quotable reduction. The paper contains no fitted parameters, equations, or predictions derived from fitted inputs: the voting analysis in §5.2 normalizes raw vote counts into ratios to compare across performances, and the paper explicitly acknowledges that this normalization cannot identify unique voters ('participants were not required to vote, and were allowed to vote multiple times per prompt, we normalized the voting data'). That is a threat to construct validity — a ratio of votes is not necessarily a ratio of people, and a few hyper-voters could drive the reported consistency — but it is not circularity, because the reported 'strikingly consistent' patterns are not defined as, nor fitted to, the survey measures of perceived agency. The central empirical claim contrasts two independent measurements: self-reported felt influence (Figure 7) and aggregated vote outcomes (Figure 8, Table 2). The interpretation that system design, choreography, and emotional framing steered choices is an inference from observed regularity, not an output forced by the design parameters. The hardware self-citations ([5], [35]) concern the Calico wearable robot platform and are not load-bearing for the agency argument, which rests on external theory (Breel [13], Fischer-Lichte [23], interactive-theatre literature) and independently collected audience data. The paper also candidly discloses the granularity limitation in §6.5 ('this choice limited the granularity of insight we could obtain'), further confirming that no hidden fitted input is being renamed as a finding. Accordingly, the appropriate finding is no significant circularity, score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim is an interpretive synthesis of survey and voting data, so there are no numerical free parameters or invented theoretical entities. The analysis depends on several domain assumptions about self-report validity, normalization of repeated votes, and whether the backstage execution actually followed the votes.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Breel's distinction between agentive behavior and the experience of agency is a valid lens for collective phone voting in a robot-augmented dance.
    Used throughout Sections 2.3, 4, and 6.1; the entire interpretation is framed through this distinction.
  • domain assumption Voluntary Likert respondents accurately reported their experienced agency and were representative of the audience.
    Section 5.1 bases perceived-agency claims on 150 volunteers among roughly 200 attendees, with no control for self-selection.
  • domain assumption Normalized override ratios represent collective choice despite the unlimited-votes mechanic.
    Section 5.2 normalizes votes because participants could vote repeatedly, but no unique-voter counts are provided.
  • domain assumption The backstage operator executed the winning option, so votes causally changed robot behavior.
    Section 3.1 describes the operator controlling the robot based on votes, but no robot-behavior log is reported to verify what actually changed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cybernetic Marionette: Channeling Collective Agency Through a Wearable Robot in a Live Dancer-Robot Duet." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RFHKB43K

@misc{pith2026250610079,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cybernetic Marionette: Channeling Collective Agency Through a Wearable Robot in a Live Dancer-Robot Duet},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RFHKB43K}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.10079}
}
read the original abstract

We describe DANCE^2, an interactive dance performance in which audience members channel their collective agency into a dancer-robot duet by voting on the behavior of a wearable robot affixed to the dancer's body. At key moments during the performance, the audience is invited to either continue the choreography or override it, shaping the unfolding interaction through real-time collective input. While post-performance surveys revealed that participants felt their choices meaningfully influenced the performance, voting data across four public performances exhibited strikingly consistent patterns. This tension between what audience members do, what they feel, and what actually changes highlights a complex interplay between agentive behavior, the experience of agency, and power. We reflect on how choreography, interaction design, and the structure of the performance mediate this relationship, offering a live analogy for algorithmically curated digital systems where agency is felt, but not exercised.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.10079 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An overview of Dance2 , a live interactive performance exploring how collective audience input influences a dancer￾robot duet. Left — The dancer performs in real time with a wearable robot whose movements are shaped by audience decisions. Right — An audience member engages with the voting interface, making choices that interfere with and shape the unfolding choreography. Abstract We describe Dance2 , an interactive … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Snapshots of different parts of the performance. Top to bottom - When the audience walks into the venue they can [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. The voting interface used by the audience on a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The performer’s costume on a mannequin. Three [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A ten-month timeline of the performance-led research agenda. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Early exploration and development of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Self-reported audience responses regarding the per [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Synthesized voting data from Part 4 of all the per [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    d.].Fundamentals of contact Improvisation

    [n. d.].Fundamentals of contact Improvisation. https://www.bodyresearch.org/ contact-improvisation/fundamentals-of-contact-improvisation/

    work page

  2. [2]

    [n. d.]. Marina Abramović | Rhythm 0. https://www.guggenheim.org/artwork/ 5177

    work page

  3. [3]

    A Game of You

    2015. Conductive Ensemble plays "A Game of You". https://vimeo.com/150031596

    work page arXiv 2015

  4. [4]

    Sarah Fdili Alaoui and Jean-Marc Matos. 2021. RCO : Investigating Social and Technological Constraints through Interactive Dance. InProceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Yokohama Japan, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445513

    arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    Ostrowski, and Chien-Ming Huang

    Victor Nikhil Antony, Clara Jeon, Jiasheng Li, Ge Gao, Huaishu Peng, Anastasia K. Ostrowski, and Chien-Ming Huang. 2025. The Design of On-Body Robots for Older Adults. InProceedings of the 2025 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction(Melbourne, Australia)(HRI ’25). IEEE Press, 589–598

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    Chinmayi Arun. 2019. On WhatsApp, rumours, lynchings, and the Indian Gov- ernment.Economic & Political Weekly54, 6 (2019)

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    I Don’t Even Remember What I Read

    Amanda Baughan, Mingrui Ray Zhang, Raveena Rao, Kai Lukoff, Anastasia Schaadhardt, Lisa D. Butler, and Alexis Hiniker. 2022. “I Don’t Even Remember What I Read”: How Design Influences Dissociation on Social Media. InCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New Orleans LA USA, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3501899

    arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    Steve Benford, Chris Greenhalgh, Andy Crabtree, Martin Flintham, Brendan Walker, Joe Marshall, Boriana Koleva, Stefan Rennick Egglestone, Gabriella Giannachi, Matt Adams, Nick Tandavanitj, and Ju Row Farr. 2013. Performance- Led Research in the Wild.ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction20, Sathya, et al. 3 (July 2013), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.11...

    work page arXiv 2013

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    Dan Bennett, Oussama Metatla, Anne Roudaut, and Elisa D. Mekler. 2023. How does HCI Understand Human Agency and Autonomy?. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Hamburg Germany, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3580651

    2023

  2. [10]

    Hal Berghel. 2018. Malice domestic: The Cambridge analytica dystopia.Computer 51, 05 (2018), 84–89

    2018

  3. [11]

    Borgmann

    A. Borgmann. 1984.Technology and the character of contemporary life: a philo- sophical inquiry. University of Chicago Press. https://books.google.com/books? id=XcxUPwAACAAJ tex.lccn: lc84008639

    1984

  4. [12]

    Astrid Breel. 2022. Facilitating narrative agency in experiential theatre. In Experiential Theatres. Routledge, 74–79

    2022

  5. [13]

    Astrid Breel. 2025. Meaningful agency in participatory performance: a contextual approach.Studies in Theatre and Performance45, 1 (2025), 23–44

    2025

  6. [14]

    Cut Piece

    Kevin Concannon. 2008. Yoko Ono’s "Cut Piece": From Text to Performance and Back Again.PAJ: A Journal of Performance and Art30, 3 (2008), 81–93. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30135150 Publisher: Performing Arts Journal, Inc

    2008

  7. [15]

    Patricia Cornelio, Patrick Haggard, Kasper Hornbaek, Orestis Georgiou, Joanna Bergström, Sriram Subramanian, and Marianna Obrist. 2022. The sense of agency in emerging technologies for human–computer integration: A review.Frontiers in Neuroscience16 (2022), 949138

    2022

  8. [16]

    David Coyle, James Moore, Per Ola Kristensson, Paul Fletcher, and Alan Blackwell

  9. [17]

    Edward L Deci and Richard M Ryan. 2012. Self-determination theory.Handbook of theories of social psychology1, 20 (2012), 416–436

    2012

  10. [18]

    Michela Del Vicario, Alessandro Bessi, Fabiana Zollo, Fabio Petroni, Antonio Scala, Guido Caldarelli, H Eugene Stanley, and Walter Quattrociocchi. 2016. The spreading of misinformation online.Proceedings of the national academy of Sciences113, 3 (2016), 554–559

    2016

  11. [19]

    Paradiso, Chris Schmandt, and Sean Follmer

    Artem Dementyev, Hsin-Liu (Cindy) Kao, Inrak Choi, Deborah Ajilo, Maggie Xu, Joseph A. Paradiso, Chris Schmandt, and Sean Follmer. 2016. Rovables: Miniature On-Body Robots as Mobile Wearables. InProceedings of the 29th Annual Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology...

    2016

  12. [20]

    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. InProceedi...

    2016

  13. [21]

    Sarah Fdili Alaoui. 2019. Making an Interactive Dance Piece: Tensions in Integrating Technology in Art. InProceedings of the 2019 on Designing In- teractive Systems Conference. ACM, San Diego CA USA, 1195–1208. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3322276.3322289

    2019

  14. [22]

    Sarah Fdili Alaoui, Thecla Schiphorst, Shannon Cuykendall, Kristin Carlson, Karen Studd, and Karen Bradley. 2015. Strategies for Embodied Design: The Value and Challenges of Observing Movement. InProceedings of the 2015 ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity and Cognition. ACM, G...

    2015

  15. [23]

    2008.The transformative power of perfor- mance: a new aesthetics

    Erika Fischer-Lichte and Saskya Jain. 2008.The transformative power of perfor- mance: a new aesthetics. Routledge

    2008

  16. [24]

    Batya Friedman. 1996. Value-sensitive design.Interactions3, 6 (Dec. 1996), 16–23. https://doi.org/10.1145/242485.242493

    1996

  17. [25]

    Batya Friedman and Helen Nissenbaum. 1996. User autonomy: who should control what and when?. InConference companion on Human factors in computing systems common ground - CHI ’96. ACM Press, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, 433. https://doi.org/10.1145/257089.257434

    1996

  18. [26]

    Heidegger

    M. Heidegger. 1982.The question concerning technology, and other essays. Harper- Collins. https://books.google.com/books?id=oeV9q6kWG38C tex.lccn: 77087181

    1982

  19. [27]

    https://www.nytimes.com/by/photographs-and-videos-by-kelsey-mcclellan. [n. d.]. Silicon Valley’s Big, Bold Sci-Fi Bet on the Device That Comes After the Smartphone — nytimes.com. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/09/ technology/silicon-valleys-big-bold-sci-fi-bet-on-the-device-t...

    2023

  20. [28]

    Vera Liao, James Choi, Kaiyue Fan, Sean A

    Kai Lukoff, Ulrik Lyngs, Himanshu Zade, J. Vera Liao, James Choi, Kaiyue Fan, Sean A. Munson, and Alexis Hiniker. 2021. How the Design of YouTube Influences User Sense of Agency. InProceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Yokohama Japa...

    2021

  21. [29]

    Arunesh Mathur, Gunes Acar, Michael J Friedman, Eli Lucherini, Jonathan Mayer, Marshini Chetty, and Arvind Narayanan. 2019. Dark patterns at scale: Findings from a crawl of 11K shopping websites.Proceedings of the ACM on human- computer interaction3, CSCW (2019), 1–32

    2019

  22. [30]

    1994.Understanding media: The extensions of man

    Marshall McLuhan. 1994.Understanding media: The extensions of man. MIT press

    1994

  23. [31]

    2011.The filter bubble: What the Internet is hiding from you

    Eli Pariser. 2011.The filter bubble: What the Internet is hiding from you. Penguin Press

    2011

  24. [32]

    Jacques Rancière and Gregory Elliott. 2025. From The Emancipated Spectator. InThe Performance Studies Reader. Routledge, 318–321

    2025

  25. [33]

    Rina Raphael. 2017. Netflix CEO Reed Hastings: Sleep Is Our Competi- tion. https://www.fastcompany.com/40491939/netflix-ceo-reed-hastings-sleep- is-our-competition

    2017

  26. [34]

    Chris Salter. 2016. INDETERMINATE ACTS.Transmission in Motion: The Tech- nologizing of Dance(2016), 215

    2016

  27. [35]

    Anup Sathya, Jiasheng Li, Tauhidur Rahman, Ge Gao, and Huaishu Peng. 2022. Calico: Relocatable On-cloth Wearables with Fast, Reliable, and Precise Loco- motion.Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies6, 3 (Sept. 2022), 1–32. https://d...

    2022 doi

  28. [36]

    Lingareddy, and Marshini Chetty

    Brennan Schaffner, Neha A. Lingareddy, and Marshini Chetty. 2022. Understand- ing Account Deletion and Relevant Dark Patterns on Social Media.Proceed- ings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction6, CSCW2 (Nov. 2022), 1–43. https://doi.org/10.1145/3555142

    2022 doi

  29. [37]

    1998.Designing the user interface: strategies for effective human-computer-interaction(3rd ed ed.)

    Ben Shneiderman. 1998.Designing the user interface: strategies for effective human-computer-interaction(3rd ed ed.). Addison Wesley Longman, Reading, Mass

    1998

  30. [38]

    LeBaron (Eds.)

    Jürgen Streeck, Charles Goodwin, and Curtis D. LeBaron (Eds.). 2011.Embodied interaction: language and body in the material world. Cambridge University Press, New York. OCLC: ocn703205183

    2011

  31. [39]

    1987.Plans and situated actions: The problem of human- machine communication

    Lucille Alice Suchman. 1987.Plans and situated actions: The problem of human- machine communication. Cambridge university press

    1987

  32. [40]

    Sullivan, Sarah Fdili Alaoui, Pierre Godard, and Liz Santoro

    John D. Sullivan, Sarah Fdili Alaoui, Pierre Godard, and Liz Santoro. 2023. Embrac- ing the messy and situated practice of dance technology design. InProceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference. ACM, Pittsburgh PA USA, 1383–1397. https://doi.org/10.114...

    2023

  33. [41]

    Oscar Thörn, Peter Knudsen, and Alessandro Saffiotti. 2020. Human-Robot Artistic Co-Creation: a Study in Improvised Robot Dance. In2020 29th IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO- MAN). 845–850. https://doi.org/10.1109/RO-MAN47096.2020.9223446

    2020

  34. [42]

    S. Turkle. 2017.Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. Basic Books. https://books.google.com/books?id=AjFXDgAAQBAJ

    2017

  35. [43]

    Bigham, and Henny Admoni

    Stephanie Valencia, Amy Pavel, Jared Santa Maria, Seunga (Gloria) Yu, Jeffrey P. Bigham, and Henny Admoni. 2020. Conversational Agency in Augmentative and Alternative Communication. InProceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Honolulu H...

    2020

  36. [44]

    2005.What things do: Philosophical reflections on technology, agency, and design

    Peter-Paul Verbeek. 2005.What things do: Philosophical reflections on technology, agency, and design. Penn State Press

    2005

  37. [45]

    Yimin Xiao, Cartor Hancock, Sweta Agrawal, Nikita Mehandru, Niloufar Salehi, Marine Carpuat, and Ge Gao. 2025. Sustaining Human Agency, Attending to Its Cost: An Investigation into Generative AI Design for Non-Native Speakers’ Language Use. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conferen...

    2025

  38. [46]

    Clint Zeagler. 2017. Where to wear it: functional, technical, and social considera- tions in on-body location for wearable technology 20 years of designing for wear- ability. InProceedings of the 2017 ACM International Symposium on Wearable Com- puters. ACM, Maui Hawaii, 150–1...

    2017

  39. [47]

    Qiushi Zhou, Cheng Cheng Chua, Jarrod Knibbe, Jorge Goncalves, and Eduardo Velloso. 2021. Dance and Choreography in HCI: A Two-Decade Retrospective. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Yokohama Japan, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1...

    2021

  40. [2012]

    In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Austin, Texas, USA)(CHI ’12)

    I did that! Measuring users’ experience of agency in their own actions. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Austin, Texas, USA)(CHI ’12). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2025–2034. https://doi.org/10.1145/22076...

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.