Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Hyperform specification: designing and interacting with self-reconfiguring materials

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Personal and Ubiquitous Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We are on the verge of realizing a new class of material that need not be machined or molded in order to make things. Rather, the material forms and re-forms itself according to software programmed into its component elements. These self-reconfiguring materials are composed of robotic modules that coordinate with each other locally to produce global behaviors. These robotic materials can be used to realize a new class of artifact: a shape that can change over time, i.e., a four-dimensional shape or a hyperform. Hyperforms present several opportunities: objects such as furniture could exhibit dynamic behaviors, could respond to tangible and gestural input, and end-users could customize their form and behavior. To realize these opportunities, the tangible interaction community must begin to consider how we will create and interact with hyperforms. The behaviors that hyperforms can perform will be constrained by the capabilities of the self-reconfiguring materials they are made of. By considering how we will interact with hyperforms, we can inform the design of these systems. In this paper, we discuss the life cycle of a hyperform and the roles designers and end-users play in interacting with hyperforms at these various stages. We consider the interactions such a system could afford as well as how underlying hardware and software affect this interaction. And we consider the extent to which several current hardware systems, including our own prismatic cubes (Weller et al. in Intelligent Robots and Systems. IEEE, 2009), can support the hyperform interactions we envision.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Although in the future a hyperform may be able to sense someone pushing on its surface and actuate to create the impression that the shape is being physically manipulated in real time, implementing such a behavior demands sophisticated sensing and actuation. The ‘sticky hands’ technique is a useful approximation that can be implemented with simple controllers and inexpensive sensors.

  2. Although the sticky hands gesture could be seen as signalling a command, it is useful to distinguish posing gestures used to directly manipulate the geometry of a structure from more abstract signalling gestures used to trigger arbitrary behaviors.

References

  1. Anderson D, Frankel J, Marks J, Leigh D, Ryall K, Sullivan E, Yedidia J (1999) Building virtual structures with physical blocks. In: User interface software and technology (UIST). ACM, pp 71–72

  2. Butler Z, Kotay K, Rus D, Tomita K (2002) Generic decentralized control for a class of self-reconfigurable robots. In: International conference on robotics and automation (ICRA). IEEE, pp 809–816

  3. Christensen DJ, Østergaard EH, Lund HH (2004) Metamodule control for the atron self-reconfigurable robotic system. In: Intelligent autonomous systems (IAS), pp 685–692

  4. Esposito C, Paley WB, Ong J (1995) Of mice and monkeys: a specialized input device for virtual body animation. In: Symposium on interactive 3D graphics, pp 109–114

  5. Jorgensen MW, Østergaard EH, Lund HH (2004) Modular atron: modules for a self-reconfigurable robot. In: Intelligent robots and systems (IROS). IEEE, pp 2068–2073

  6. Karagozler ME, Campbell JD, Fedder GK, Goldstein SC, Weller MP, Yoon BW (2007) Electrostatic latching for inter-module adhesion, power transfer, and communication in modular robots. In: Intelligent robots and systems (IROS). IEEE, pp 2779–2786

  7. LeClerc V, Parkes A, Ishii H (2007) Senspectra: a computationally augmented physical modeling toolkit for sensing and visualization of structural strain. In: Human factors in computing (CHI). ACM, pp 801–804

  8. Lynch N, Segala R, Vaandrager F (2003) Hybrid I/O automata. J Inf Computing 185(1):105–157

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. Merrill D, Kalanithi J, Maes P (2007) Siftables: towards sensor network user interfaces. In: Tangible and embedded interaction (TEI). ACM, pp 75–78

  10. Murata S, Yoshida E, Kamimura A, Kurokawa H, Tomita K, Kokaji S (2002) M-tran: self-reconfigurable modular robotic system. Trans Mech 7(4):431–441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Parkes A, LeClerc V, Ishii H (2006) Glume: exploring materiality in a soft augmented modular modeling system. In: Ext. abstracts of human factors in computing (CHI). ACM, pp 1211–1216

  12. Raffle H, Parkes A, Ishii H (2004) Topobo: a constructive assembly system with kinetic memory. In: Human factors in computing (CHI). ACM, pp 647–654

  13. Rosa MD, Goldstein SC, Lee P, Campbell JD, Pillai P (2006) Scalable shape sculpting via hole motion: motion planning in lattice-constrained module robots. In: International conference on robotics and automation (ICRA). IEEE, pp 1462–1468

  14. Rus D, Vona M (2001) Crystalline robots: self-reconfiguration with compressible unit modules. Autonomous Robots 10(1):107–124

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Schweikardt E, Gross MD (2006) roblocks: A robotic construction kit for mathematics and science education. In: International conference on multimodal interfaces (ICMI). ACM, pp 72–75

  16. Shneiderman B (1983) Direct manipulation: a step beyond programming languages. Computer 16(8):57–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Stoy K, Nagpal R (2004) Self-reconfiguration using directed growth. In: Distributed autonomous robotic systems (DARS), pp 1–10

  18. Suh JW, Homans SB, Yim M (2002) Telecubes: mechanical design of a module for self-reconfigurable robotics. In: International conference on robotics and automation (ICRA). IEEE, pp 4095–4101

  19. Theraulaz G, Bonabeau E (1995) Modelling the collective building of complex architectures in social insects with lattice swarms. J Theor Biol 177(4):381–400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Watanabe R, Itoh Y, Asai M, Kitamura Y, Kishino F, Kikuchi H (2004) The soul of activecube—implementing a flexible, multimodal, three-dimensional spatial tangible interface. In: Advanced computer entertainment technology (ACE). ACM, pp 173–180

  21. Weller MP, Do EY-L, Gross MD (2008) Posey: instrumenting a poseable hub and strut construction toy. In: Tangible and embedded interaction (TEI). ACM, pp 39–46

  22. Weller MP, Do EY-L, Gross MD (2009) Exploring architectural robotics with the human hive. In: Creativity and cognition (C&C), ACM (to appear)

  23. Weller MP, Do EY-L, Gross MD (2009) An optocoupled poseable ball and socket joint for computationally enhanced construction kits. In: Robot communication and coordination (RoboComm). IEEE, pp 1–6

  24. Weller MP, Kirby BT, Brown HB, Gross MD, Goldstein SC (2009) Design of prismatic cube modules for convex corner traversal in 3D. In: Intelligent robots and systems (IROS), IEEE (to appear)

  25. Yim M, Duff DG, Roufas KD (2000) Polybot: a modular reconfigurable robot. In: International conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), pp 514–520

  26. Yim M, Shen WM, Salemi B, Rus D, Moll M, Lipson H, Klavins E, Chirikjian GS (2007) Modular self-reconfigurable robot systems. Robotics Automation 14(1):43–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Yim M, Shirmohammadi B, Sastra J, Park M, Dugan M, Taylor C (2007) Towards robotic self-reassembly after explosion. In: Intelligent robots and systems (IROS). IEEE, pp 2767–2772

  28. Yu CH, Willems FX, Ingber D, Nagpal R (2007) Self-organization of environmentally-adaptive shapes on a modular robot. In: Intelligent robots and systems (IROS). IEEE, pp 2353–2360

  29. Zykov V, Mytilinaios E, Desnoyer M, Lipson H (2007) Evolved and designed self-reproducing modular robotics. Trans Robotics 23(2):308–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under Grants ITR-0326054 and CNS-0428738.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Computational Design Lab, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA

    Michael Philetus Weller & Mark D. Gross

  2. Computer Science Department, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA

    Seth Copen Goldstein

Authors
  1. Michael Philetus Weller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mark D. Gross
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Seth Copen Goldstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Philetus Weller.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Weller, M.P., Gross, M.D. & Goldstein, S.C. Hyperform specification: designing and interacting with self-reconfiguring materials. Pers Ubiquit Comput 15, 133–149 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-010-0315-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-010-0315-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation