skip to main content
10.1145/3491101.3503809acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
extended-abstract

Augmenting the Human Perception of Comfort through Interactive AI

Published:28 April 2022Publication History

ABSTRACT

Comfort in work environments is highly influenced by indoor environmental quality–the combined effects of acoustics, thermal, lighting, air quality, and so forth. These physical parameters can impair productivity, and also can be a threat to health, and compromise the well-being. This dissertation work explores the opportunities for interactive artificial intelligence to bring radical changes in human experiences within built environments. The research description outlines four case studies that bring tailored notifications and actions to users in order to improve their comfort in the personal and social context in office buildings as well as at home.

References

  1. Jose Abdelnour-Nocera and Melissa Densmore. 2017. A review of perspectives and challenges for international development in information and communication technologies. Annals of the International Communication Association 41, 3-4(2017), 250–257.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Hamed S Alavi, Elizabeth F Churchill, Mikael Wiberg, Denis Lalanne, Peter Dalsgaard, Ava Fatah Gen Schieck, and Yvonne Rogers. 2019. Introduction to human-building interaction (HBI): Interfacing HCI with architecture and urban design. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 26, 2(2019), 6.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Alicia C Allan, Veronica Garcia-Hansen, Gillian Isoardi, and Simon S Smith. 2019. Subjective assessments of lighting quality: A measurement review. Leukos 15, 2-3 (2019), 115–126.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Ofra Amir, Ece Kamar, Andrey Kolobov, and Barbara J. Grosz. 2016. Interactive Teaching Strategies for Agent Training. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (New York, New York, USA) (IJCAI’16). AAAI Press, New York, NY, USA, 804–811.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. John Annett. 2002. Subjective rating scales: science or art?Ergonomics 45, 14 (2002), 966–987.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Yutaka Arakawa. 2020. Augmented Workplace: Human-Sensor Interaction for Improving the Work Environment. In Proceedings of the Augmented Humans International Conference (Kaiserslautern, Germany) (AHs ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 35, 2 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3384657.3385334Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Victoria Bellotti, Maribeth Back, W. Keith Edwards, Rebecca E. Grinter, Austin Henderson, and Cristina Lopes. 2002. Making Sense of Sensing Systems: Five Questions for Designers and Researchers. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA) (CHI ’02). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 415–422. https://doi.org/10.1145/503376.503450Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Alan F. Blackwell. 2015. Interacting with an Inferred World: The Challenge of Machine Learning for Humane Computer Interaction. In Proceedings of The Fifth Decennial Aarhus Conference on Critical Alternatives (Aarhus, Denmark) (CA ’15). Aarhus University Press, Aarhus N, 169–180. https://doi.org/10.7146/aahcc.v1i1.21197Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Maurizio Caon, Vincent Menuz, and Johann A. R. Roduit. 2016. We Are Super-Humans: Towards a Democratisation of the Socio-Ethical Debate on Augmented Humanity. In Proceedings of the 7th Augmented Human International Conference 2016 (Geneva, Switzerland) (AH ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 26, 4 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/2875194.2875223Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Xuxu Chen, Yu Zheng, Yubiao Chen, Qiwei Jin, Weiwei Sun, Eric Chang, and Wei-Ying Ma. 2014. Indoor Air Quality Monitoring System for Smart Buildings. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing(Seattle, Washington) (UbiComp ’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 471–475. https://doi.org/10.1145/2632048.2632103Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Patrick Chwalek, David Ramsay, and Joseph A Paradiso. 2021. Captivates: A Smart Eyeglass Platform for Across-Context Physiological Measurement. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies 5, 3 (2021), 1–32.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Stanley D. Clark and Lorne Olfman. 1999. Influencing the Decision to Telework—Testing the Simplified Decision Model. In Proceedings of the 1999 ACM SIGCPR Conference on Computer Personnel Research (New Orleans, Louisiana, USA) (SIGCPR ’99). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 65–72. https://doi.org/10.1145/299513.299618Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Adrian K Clear, Samantha Mitchell Finnigan, Patrick Olivier, and Rob Comber. 2018. ThermoKiosk: Investigating Roles for Digital Surveys of Thermal Experience in Workplace Comfort Management. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–12.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Marios Constantinides, Sanja Šćepanović, Daniele Quercia, Hongwei Li, Ugo Sassi, and Michael Eggleston. 2020. ComFeel: Productivity is a Matter of the Senses Too. Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol. 4, 4, Article 123 (Dec. 2020), 21 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3432234Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Audrey Desjardins, Ron Wakkary, and William Odom. 2015. Investigating genres and perspectives in HCI research on the home. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 3073–3082.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. William W Gaver, John Bowers, Kirsten Boehner, Andy Boucher, David WT Cameron, Mark Hauenstein, Nadine Jarvis, and Sarah Pennington. 2013. Indoor weather stations: investigating a ludic approach to environmental HCI through batch prototyping. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 3451–3460.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Ece Kamar. 2016. Directions in Hybrid Intelligence: Complementing AI Systems with Human Intelligence. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence(New York, New York, USA) (IJCAI’16). AAAI Press, New York, NY, USA, 4070–4073.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. CP Karthikeyan and Anand A Samuel. 2008. CO2-dispersion studies in an operation theatre under transient conditions. Energy and Buildings 40, 3 (2008), 231–239.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. SeungJun Kim and Anind K Dey. 2016. Augmenting human senses to improve the user experience in cars: applying augmented reality and haptics approaches to reduce cognitive distances. Multimedia Tools and Applications 75, 16 (2016), 9587–9607.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Sunyoung Kim, Muyang Li, Jennifer Senick, and Gediminas Mainelis. 2020. Designing to engage children in monitoring indoor air quality: a participatory approach. In Proceedings of the Interaction Design and Children Conference. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 323–334.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Sunyoung Kim, Eric Paulos, and Jennifer Mankoff. 2013. inAir: a longitudinal study of indoor air quality measurements and visualizations. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2745–2754.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Sunyoung Kim, Jennifer A Senick, and Gediminas Mainelis. 2019. Sensing the invisible: Understanding the perception of indoor air quality among children in low-income families. International journal of child-computer interaction 19 (2019), 79–88.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Amit Kramer and Karen Z Kramer. 2020. The potential impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on occupational status, work from home, and occupational mobility.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Gierad Laput, Yang Zhang, and Chris Harrison. 2017. Synthetic Sensors: Towards General-Purpose Sensing. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Denver, Colorado, USA) (CHI ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 3986–3999. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025773Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Wei Liu, Gert Pasman, Pieter Jan Stappers, and Jenneke Taal-Fokker. 2012. Making the Office Catch up: Comparing Generation Y Interactions at Home and Work. In Proceedings of the Designing Interactive Systems Conference (Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom) (DIS ’12). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 697–700. https://doi.org/10.1145/2317956.2318061Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Paul Lukowicz, Antonio Krüger, Andreas Bulling, Youn-Kyung Lim, Shwetak N Patel, Biyi Fang, Qiumin Xu, Taiwoo Park, and Mi Zhang. 2016. AirSense: an intelligent home-based sensing system for indoor air quality analytics. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 109–119. https://doi.org/10.1145/2971648.2971720Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. James G March. 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization science 2, 1 (1991), 71–87.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Akhil Mathur, Marc Van den Broeck, Geert Vanderhulst, Afra Mashhadi, and Fahim Kawsar. 2015. Tiny habits in the giant enterprise: understanding the dynamics of a quantified workplace. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 577–588. https://doi.org/10.1145/2750858.2807528Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Samantha Mitchell Finnigan and Adrian K Clear. 2020. ”No powers, man!”: A Student Perspective on Designing University Smart Building Interactions. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–14.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Jimmy Moore, Pascal Goffin, Miriah Meyer, Philip Lundrigan, Neal Patwari, Katherine Sward, and Jason Wiese. 2018. Managing in-home environments through sensing, annotating, and visualizing air quality data. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies 2, 3 (2018), 1–28.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Dan Norbäck. 1995. Subjective indoor air quality in schools–the influence of high room temperature, carpeting, fleecy wall materials and volatile organic compounds (VOC). Indoor Air 5, 4 (1995), 237–246.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Michael Papinutto, Julien Nembrini, and Denis Lalanne. 2020. “Working in the dark?” investigation of physiological and psychological indices and prediction of back-lit screen users’ reactions to light dimming. Building and Environment 186 (2020), 107356.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Paul A Pavlou. 2018. Internet of Things–Will Humans be Replaced or Augmented?Marketing Intelligence Review 10, 2 (2018), 42–47.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. AK Persily. 1996. The relationship between indoor air quality and carbon dioxide.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Roope Raisamo, Ismo Rakkolainen, Päivi Majaranta, Katri Salminen, Jussi Rantala, and Ahmed Farooq. 2019. Human augmentation: Past, present and future. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 131 (2019), 131–143.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Clemens Schartmüller, Sayan Sarcar, Andreas Riener, Andrew L Kun, Orit Shaer, Linda Ng Boyle, and Shamsi Iqbal. 2020. Automated Cars as Living Rooms and Offices: Challenges and Opportunities. In Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–4.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Mike Schell and Dan Int-Hout. 2001. Demand Control Ventilation Using CO2. ASHRAE journal 43, 2 (2001), 18–29.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Marcel Schweiker, Maíra André, Farah Al-Atrash, Hanan Al-Khatri, Rea Risky Alprianti, Hayder Alsaad, Rucha Amin, Eleni Ampatzi, Alpha Yacob Arsano, Elie Azar, 2020. Evaluating assumptions of scales for subjective assessment of thermal environments–Do laypersons perceive them the way, we researchers believe?Energy and Buildings 211(2020), 109761.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. James E Sheedy, Sowjanya Gowrisankaran, and John R Hayes. 2005. Blink rate decreases with eyelid squint. Optometry and vision science 82, 10 (2005), 905–911.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. James E Sheedy, Susan D Truong, JOHN R HAYES, 2003. What are the visual benefits of eyelid squinting?Optometry and vision science 80, 11 (2003), 740–744.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Ben Shneiderman. 2020. Human-centered artificial intelligence: Reliable, safe & trustworthy. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction 36, 6(2020), 495–504.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Yifang Si, Junqi Yu, Nan Wang, Xisheng Ding, Teng Guo, and Longfei Yuan. 2016. Indoor comfort assessment of objective and subjective information by fusion and fuzzy inference decision. Intelligent Buildings International 8, 4 (2016), 234–245.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. Stephen Snow. 2018. Indoor Air Quality: Opportunities for behaviour change towards healthier offices, a two-part report.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Stephen Snow, Michael Oakley, 2019. Performance by Design: Supporting Decisions Around Indoor Air Quality in Offices. In Proceedings of the 2019 on Designing Interactive Systems Conference. ACM, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 99–111.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. G Spagnoli, G Tranfo, and R Moccaldi. 1996. Air quality in operating theatres: The occupational point of view. Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in Hospitals; Maroni, M., Ed 36, 1(1996), 113–117.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Christoph Stahl, Dimitra Anastasiou, and Thibaud Latour. 2018. Social Telepresence Robots: The Role of Gesture for Collaboration over a Distance. In Proceedings of the 11th PErvasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments Conference (Corfu, Greece) (PETRA ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 409–414. https://doi.org/10.1145/3197768.3203180Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Yoshinao Takemae, Takehiko Ohno, Ikuo Yoda, and Shinji Ozawa. 2006. Estimating Human Interruptibility in the Home for Remote Communication. In CHI ’06 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Montréal, Québec, Canada) (CHI EA ’06). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1397–1402. https://doi.org/10.1145/1125451.1125709Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Nadine Von Frankenberg und Ludwigsdorff, Sebastian Peters, Bernd Brügge, Vivian Loftness, and Azizan Aziz. 2016. Effective Visualization and Control of the Indoor Environmental Quality in Smart Buildings. In Software Engineering (Workshops). Software Engineering, Software Engineering, 124–129.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. John Wenskovitch and Chris North. 2020. Interactive Artificial Intelligence: Designing for the” Two Black Boxes” Problem. Computer 53, 8 (2020), 29–39.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. Peter Wide 2008. Human-Based Sensing–Sensor Systems to Complement Human Perception. International Journal on Smart Sensing and Intelligent Systems 1, 1(2008), 57–69.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  51. Peter Wide, Emil Petriu, and Mel Siegel. 2010. Sensing and perception for rehabilitation and enhancement of human natural capabilities. In 2010 IEEE International Workshop on Robotic and Sensors Environments. IEEE, IEEE, IEEE, 1–6.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  52. Gabrielle Wong-Parodi, M Beatrice Dias, and Michael Taylor. 2018. Effect of Using an Indoor Air Quality Sensor on Perceptions of and Behaviors Toward Air Pollution (Pittsburgh Empowerment Library Study): Online Survey and Interviews. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 6, 3 (2018), e48. https://doi.org/10.2196/mhealth.8273Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  53. Sailin Zhong, Hamed S Alavi, and Denis Lalanne. 2020. Hilo-wear: Exploring Wearable Interaction with Indoor Air Quality Forecast. In Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 8.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Sailin Zhong, Denis Lalanne, and Hamed Alavi. 2021. The Complexity of Indoor Air Quality Forecasting and the Simplicity of Interacting with It – A Case Study of 1007 Office Meetings. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 47, 19 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445524Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Augmenting the Human Perception of Comfort through Interactive AI
        Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          CHI EA '22: Extended Abstracts of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
          April 2022
          3066 pages
          ISBN:9781450391566
          DOI:10.1145/3491101

          Copyright © 2022 Owner/Author

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 28 April 2022

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • extended-abstract
          • Research
          • Refereed limited

          Acceptance Rates

          Overall Acceptance Rate6,164of23,696submissions,26%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader

        HTML Format

        View this article in HTML Format .

        View HTML Format