11/11: Pedro Lopes

[ehuppert]

Comment below with a well-developed group question about the reading for this week's workshop.

One person can submit on the group's behalf and put the Group Name in the submission for credit.

Please post your question by Wednesday 11:59 PM, and upvote at least three of your peers' comments on Thursday prior to the workshop. You need to use 'thumbs-up' for your reactions to count towards 'top comments,' but you can use other emojis on top of the thumbs up.

[GabeNicholson]

Gabriel Nicholson, Wenqian Zhang, Xin Tang (Group 2F).

Hello professor Lopes, in your paper "Trigeminal-based Temperature Illusions", is it possible that there is an additive effect of being immersed in a virtual "cold" environment that adds to the trigeminal stimulant. For instance, looking at a picture of icy mountains or playing a game with a cold environment (Skyrim for instance) doesn't make me feel cold, but could it be the case that the trigeminal stimulation effect, does make the virtual environment have a real effect following the mint stimulation?

Also, in your paper, "Preemptive Action: Accelerating Human Reaction using Electrical Muscle Stimulation Without Compromising Agency," what are the implications for this approach toward the larger philosophical debate on free will. If Haptic devices can give the illusion of free will, wouldn't that mean that the brain is predisposed toward being fooled of its own agency? It appears that this "illusion" isn't just a bug in the system since it's able to be systematically created in all of the subjects in the experiment, so is it reasonable to conclude that it is a stable feature of the human mind?

[chuqingzhao]

Alex Williamson, Chuqing Zhao, Mike Packard, Yijing Zhang(group 2d)

Are there any potential dangers in learning to rely on an artificial sensation, limiting reliance on evolutionary sensation? For example, would the olfactory warmth/cold mechanism create a danger of going out in the cold in Chicago without wearing warm clothing?

A secondary/alternative question would be: How do you think about the long term biological and social impacts of the use of advanced human-computer integration devices? Similarly, how do you study these impacts?

[jinfei1125]

Group: (2K) Baotong Zhang, Koichi Onogi, Senling Shu, Jinfei Zhu

For the paper: Preemptive Action: Accelerating Human Reaction using Electrical Muscle Stimulation Without Compromising Agency

Thanks for sharing your study with us! It is an amazing paper demonstrating the possibility of preemptive force-feedback systems and how they come to accelerate the reaction time without losing discretions. We can see the future significant impacts on people's life, especially for those disabled. Also, given that one co-author is from Sony CSL, we would assume this EMS could also be applied with VR/AR/Robotics on the filed. Or even probably gamification to study more underlying patterns of human?

As students from computational social science, we would love to hear your opinions on this new technology's influnce on the social science world. What's your insignt on this? Thank you so much!

[fiofiofiona]

Group 1F: Fiona Lee, Zhiqian Chen, Sudhamshu Hosamane and Javad Eshtiyagh

Hello prof. Lopes, thank you for sharing your research at our workshop. We enjoyed reading your papers, and we have a few questions. Research in HCI is growing at a fast rate. Today, researchers are working on cutting-edge technologies such as Neuralink. Despite the many advantages, there are some ethical concerns about fairness, government misuse, and machines gaining too much control. What are the governments’ responsibilities in regulating and imposing standards? What steps should researchers take to ensure their work is not going to have unethical implications?

Thank you!

[ShiyangLai]

Group 1M: Shiyang Lai, Jiehan Liu, Zhibin Chen, Peihan Gao, Partha Kadambi

Hello prof. Lopes, thank you for sharing your research at our workshop. Our group has came up with two alternative questions.

For paper "Next Steps in Human-Computer Integration", it seems like in HInt, both human and software act with autonomy, how to take sides when computer and human goals are in conflict? what should be initiative and transparency of computer with respect to human agency?

For paper "Trigeminal-based Temperature Illusions", we think the use of odors may give people the illusion of temperature to a certain extent. However, temperature is continuous and the odors seem to only make people get the feeling of "cold" and "hot" which are only vague and general temperature concepts. Is there a way, such as mixing odors, to make people feel continuous temperature changes (for example, from -10 degrees Celsius to 30 degrees Celsius)?

We are looking forward to your sharing!

[yierrr]

Group 1A: Angelica Bosko, Chongyu Fang, Yier Ling, Zheng He

Our main question is regarding the Trigeminal-based Temperature Illusions paper: What is the mechanism behind scents triggering feelings? For example, mint itself gives freshness, but it is often warm when people tend to use mint, so why mint does not trigger a feeling of warmness instead? If the feeling can be interfered by the environment, how may a dynamic process evolve?

[ValAlvernUChic]

Group 1C: Val Alvern Cueco Ligo, Rui Chen, Max Kramer, Yutai Li

Qns: What measures and considerations should we have to ensure that this social integration of HInt devices won't exacerbate (or at least minimize) an already critical digital divide seen between different demographics? E.g. High vs low socioeconomic status, elderly vs young. The paper " Next Steps in Human-Computer Integration" addresses infrastructural barriers (clocks not being available for eg.) but we're thinking more about other social spaces - labor, education, etc – where unequal internet/technology access has already been shown to privilege one group over another.

[Thiyaghessan]

Group 2A: Thiyaghessan, Eliot Weinsteint, Sushan Zhao, Linhui Wu

Professor, does the body physiologically respond to thrse perceptions of warmth or cooling? Do hairs stand or do sweat glands activate? Or is this merely a mental perception.

If we reach a stage where physiological responses can be induced, I have a rather cliche question; at what point does the distinction between what is real and what is simulated vanish?

Additionally, how can we deal with the fallout/unforeseen adverse effects from such advancements? I am sure that accusations of "playing god" come to mind and these have the potential to fuel bitter partisan divisions. How can we empower individuals to make informed choices regarding the technology they choose to implement and how do we work to ensure that those who cannot afford to/choose not to are not unfairly disadvantaged in society?

[pranathiiyer]

Group 1B: Pranathi, Qishen Fu, Guangyuan Chen, Yuxuan Chen

Thanks for sharing your work professor! I had two questions regarding your work.

1. You speak of digital divide and cutural bias as a challenge in Human Computer Interaction. Is this divide avoidable? Intuitively, won't this divide increase as we adopt more advanced forms of technology? On the contrary, Can HInt not be looked as a method to remove the divide by some extent by helping people with any kinds of disabilities? Can you share an example or an instance where embedded bias was discovered? And if so how can one deal with issues like these in HInt?

2. How sensitive is a system like EMS? Is it specifically trained for an object like a pen or a can, or can the same systems work for objects such as a pen and a knife?While this does not qualify as preemptive action, are systems like these able to factor human judgement and increase speed of an action once initiated by an individual?

[taizeyu]

Group2H: Egemen Pamukcu, Ning Tang, Taize Yu, Gin Zheng

By reading these papers, we could find that Human-computer interaction can be used in a lot of areas like sports, feeling, etc. therefore, if this kind of technology can be used in more places? And when we are using this technology, is there anything we should care about in physical ways and social ways. In physical aspects: if this technology will affect the human body. In social aspect: if this technology will affect human’s life. For example, children take too much time on VR games. we think we need more research on these points

[AlexPrizzy]

Group 2L: Jingwen Ni, Alex Przybycin, Allison Towey, David Xu, Sirui Zhou

We have a question about the goals and ethics surround Human Computer Integration. If such technology actually lifts the abilities of a person, It could exacerbate the issue of digital divide and inequality could be worsened as one presumably could hypothesize that the rich could prioritize/monopolize both hardware and software of higher performances to them. Are there agreed upon standards for what is acceptable in human computer integration? Is it generalized for the average human or adaptive to individual differences? If there is significant money to be made by these improvements, how can we ensure independent companies do not use this technology for harmful uses?

[hsinkengling]

Group 1H: Yuetong Bai, Boya Fu, Zhiyun Hu, Hsin-Keng Ling

Hi Prof. Lopes Our questions are regarding Next Steps in Human-Computer Integration.

1. In the article “Next Steps in Human-Computer Integration”, you mentioned about potential negative impacts on the mental and physical health that those fancy technologies could bring to people, which could potentially decrease people’s life quality. From the three articles, we can see that human and computer technology integration could bring many conveniences to people as well, so when designing a new human-computer integration, how should the researchers balance the positive and negative impact that may put on people? For instance, people may get addicted to VR technology and it is still experimental, but VR also connects people closer than phone calls, so when researchers develop VR, what drives them to launch the technology?

2. As is common with most technologies, it’s often the case that people, when given a new technology, can invent uses for them far beyond what the inventors had in mind. Do you think there are inherent limits in how people could come to use HCI devices? To put it another way, in the two-dimensional space drawn out on figure 2, is it possible that beyond the level of agency designed as part of the technology, people can not only increase their own agency as they play around with the technology, but also potentially alter the scale (or perhaps other properties) of the technology as well? Can or should engineers design with that playfulness in mind?

[borlasekn]

Group 1E: Kaya Borlase, Luiqi Guo, Xin Li, and Zoey Jiao

Thank you for sharing your expertise with us.

For your paper "Accelerating Human Reaction using Electrical Muscle Stimulation Without Compromising Agency", we were wondering: Would the agency and reaction time of the participants have some deviation due to their gender and age? Since I noticed that in the two user studies, there were only one or two women out of twelve participants in each study, and the average age was about 25 years old.

For your paper "Next Steps in Human-Computer Integration", we were wondering: You discussed lots of challenges of HInt systems, I am curious about how you rank these challenges? Which of them are more likely to be dealt with in the near future? And which of them might be the inside shortcoming of HInt systems? For the first challenge, you identified five key types of HInt, including epidermis and dermis body contact. As I could see from the pictures and the descriptions that these devices could make people feel uncomfortable for a relatively long term, how could you find volunteers for these human-compatible technology experiments? Do you need to find the effect on individuals with different ages or genders to test biocompatible devices? And for the Digital Divide in Challenge 3, I agree that those expensive and advanced devices could be unavailable for the poor. But since the availability is crucial, I wonder if the cost of these devices will be reduced when they become more mature later?

[afchao]

Group 1N: Naiyu Jiang, Jora Li, Henry Lin, Dehong Lu, Alfred Chao

Thank you for sharing your work with our group!

The readings dealt, at varying levels of specificity, with the broad topic of human-computer integration. Focusing on the "Preemptive Action" paper, and at risk of posing a strange-sounding question: what's so great about a sense of agency? The concept has intuitive appeal, but A): there are a wide variety of common human activities which occur with unconscious automaticity, but confer no sense of "I've lost control" (e.g. prepared learning, homeostatic maintenance, startle responses, etc.); it could be argued that significant portions of the human life go on behind the proverbial scenes despite our persistent convictions that the conscious "we" are its authors B): it is unclear what the benefit of a sense of agency is; the claim made in this paper is that "The sense of agency allows us to recognize ourselves as the agent of a particular behavior, enabling us to build a self that is independent from the external world", but are we meant to infer that this sort of recognition is desirable in all cases? For example, clinical populations characterized by an overabundance of internally-directed thought may grow paralyzed when faced with trivial decisions on account of their extreme sense of agency and apartness C): it is unclear that the loss of sense of agency is worse than the potential gains of human-computer integration (assuming these are mutually exclusive). If we imagine an integrated device that gathers personal data, applies them to some predictive model of relationship success, and nudges our attentional salience mechanisms toward individuals who we are predicted to get along well with, it would be clear that this device is substantially affecting our claim to agency but at the same time there may still be individuals interested in trading away that agency for the benefits gained from a deeper integration with computational devices D): as is implied above, a fully-realized human-computer integration program may extend into the realm of directly modulating functional dynamics of the brain. It may sound like an argument to absurdity (and one assuming a similarly fantastic realization of neuroscience at that), but this notion should extend to our own sense of agency as well. In other words, we could be able to devise an integrated device that acts on our sense of agency itself. If this was the case, it would appear to obviate the entire sense of agency question in perhaps the least agent-y way possible!

The case may simply be that accepting our computer-integrated existences will mean accepting a diminished sense of agency in everyday life just as how the benefits of our modern always-online existences come with their particular drawbacks - even ones specific to how we perceive our own agency (for example: the common sentiment that being reachable 24/7 diminishes the extent to which we control our lives). Is this necessarily a bad thing worth devoting extraordinary resources and effort to avoiding? Is it an uncomfortable but unavoidable consequence of the general attempt to exceed our innate human capacities? Referring back to the reading, a sense of agency is described as "one of the most primal mechanisms", but it seems like part of the philosophy of human-computer integration is that we may one day transcend our shared inheritance of those primal origins

[mdvadillo]

Group 2I: Lingfeng Shan, Daniela Vadillo, Zimei Xia, William Zhu

Our group had questions about the unintended consequences and risks of such a technology. The first question regards the experiments ran on Kasahara, Nishida, Lopes (2019) These experiments were conducted under a setting where the user and the system had the same goal: to touch the dot. In this case, the system and the EMS have timely information of the dot and can make the correct decisions faster than the user. But how does the system react if we relax the assumption that participant and system have the same goal? In other words, if the system's goal is different from the user's, could EMS result in worse user experienced than Haptic actuation systems?

The second question is the following: we noticed that, in conjunction, the three papers in the sequence reveal the potential danger of HInt. Specifically the findings in Kasahara, Nishida, Lopes (2019) describe a way to grant people a feeling of control while better controlling them, which in today's age with the idea of a Metaverse come to increased relevance, how do we promote better integration while ensure people are not overly-manipulated?

In a similar line of thought, Brooks, Nagels, Lopes (2020) provide finding that are beneficial to the disabled community, but it also blurs the boundary between the real and virtual world. When both human and machine have some control over society, what does the form of that society look like? What is the economic landscape like if both machine and human have economic power?

[MengChenC]

Group 1D: Zixu Chen, MengChen Chung, Yujing Huang, Feihong Lei

Based on the same logic, our senses are evoked by the nerves on the sensory organs rather than the organs themselves, and this approach should be able to apply to other sensory systems such as vision, somatic sensation, etc. But it may be more complicated when involving in different sensory systems, what are some potential applications and what will be the ethical concerns we need to keep in mind based on the Human-Computer Integration Agenda?

[chrismaurice0]

Group 2M Chenming Zhang, Xin Su, Yujing Sun, Chris Maurice

Companies like Facebook (now Meta) believe the future is in VR and the metaverse. We do not believe that strongly in VR as Mark Zukerberg that in the future we are all going to own a VR set let alone meet up in the metaverse, but maybe we are missing something? Where do you see VR existing in the future? How will we use it? Further, an important part of human-computer integration is the human aspect. How can you convince individuals to participate in your trials let alone a life that entails extending the human body with an additional robotic arm? These examples you present (wearables, cybernetics, intellect augmentation, and cyborgs) are a spectrum of human-computer integration. Many would be comfortable with a wearable, not many would be comfortable with a tail extension controlled by body movements. How do you convince humans to let more and more sophisticated computers become part of their lives? Why Should we let computers become more and more of our life? How can you address privacy concerns? Lastly, as a writing center tutor, one question I ask any student who sees me is "So what?", so I would pose the same question to you: So what, why should we care about your research?

[helyap]

Group 2J: Zhe Zhang, Emily Yeh, Kuitai Wang, Yi Qian, Helen Yap

Hi Professor Lopes,

Thank you for sharing your work with us. In regards to the paper, “Trigeminal-based Temperature Illusions,” our group member Kuitai had the following comment and question:

The research questions and experimental design of this article are very interesting. Researchers have discovered that certain odors not only trigger the sense of smell, but also trigger the trigeminal nerve of the nose to produce the illusion of temperature. Because this nerve has receptors that respond to temperature and chemicals. Researchers will explore the role of the trigeminal nerve in more details in the future. But I think the key to the problem lies in the temperature-related receptors of the trigeminal nerve. It just so happens that the discovery of receptors for temperature is an important research result of the Nobel Prize winners in Physiology or Medicine in 2021. Through the research of David Julius, we learned that it is the ion channels related to TRPV1 and TRPM8 that enable our nervous system to feel the stimuli brought by the external environment, such as cold, heat, and pain. TRPM8 is a receptor that responds to cold. The protein encoded by the TRPV1 gene responds to high temperatures. They can be activated at a range of different temperatures. Studying them allows us to understand how temperature differences generate electrical signals in the nervous system. So I wonder why researchers will study the finer details of temperature illusion: the speed of change from one temperature to another, the number of different temperature levels in the future when the research on temperature perception is so mature? And I’m curious why researchers study the role of the trigeminal nerve instead of continuing to explore receptors for temperature? I think it is receptors for temperature that cause our feelings, and receptors for temperature are obviously the key.

Related to HInt work more generally, our group is curious to learn about areas of collaboration between HInt researchers and social scientists broadly and how we can leverage Hint to solve social science questions.

Further, what is your opinion on when we will see the paradigm of integration and what societal factors influence the adoption of technology? Especially as various agents from the public sector, private sector, and governments have varied opinions and perceived threats related to HInt, is collective approval required to develop this technology?

[hshi420]

Group 2C: Fengyi Zheng, Lu Zhang, Taichi Tsujikawa, Haohan Shi

Trigeminal-based Temperature Illusions: Does other haptic cues also assist the perception of temperature? e.g. the feeling of stepping on snow or stepping on sand. Also, this paper makes us think of 4D movie. Since its debuting in 2010, 4D movie theaters are less successful than expected. Some temperature effects can be less pleasant. The cost of developing the temperature illusion related to VR game is not neglectable for game publishers as well. We wonder if the application is going to be limited.

Next Steps in Human-Computer Integration: We have questions regarding how to ensure the safety of the data and the computer devices in human-compatible technology. It harms individuals severely when hackers hack into deep implanted devices, or if they can get individual data through those devices. What are some other ethical concerns? In addition, how to quantify the possible damage that can be done on participants' body or mind in early stage of development? Purely theoretical?

[hhx2207061197]

Group 1L: Elliot Delahaye, Hongxian Huang, Xi Cheng, Yutong Li Hi Professor, we have the following several questions: (a) Reading 3：It is exciting to learn that human-computer integration is the major topic for the next era, extending what has been doing in the field of human-computer interaction. However, several challenges exist and we are most attracted to its effects on identity and behavior. Since devices used in human-computer integration has a much tighter relationship with humans, you mentioned that we may adjust the design to contain individual differences. Apart from the cultural, or gender differences you mentioned, we think the circumstances where the devices are put into use also matter. For example, the human-computer integration may be most useful to help disabled people, so consider their unique needs and circumstances can be very important. Of course, apart from disabled people, there can be other main themes where people apply human-computer integration. Therefore, our question is, do you think it necessary to analyze the contexts where people use Hint the most, and what factors should researchers, engineers, and designers consider when designing the programs and devices for the use in different contexts? (b) Reading 1：I notice that in the preemptive action paper, participants of the study were hired from the local institution whose ages are around 26.5 (study 1) and 24.6 (study 2). I am wondering if the results would vary if younger or older people were tested. Would this be a potential concern of your results? (c) Reading 2: The authors mentioned that “We explore a temperature illusion that uses low-powered electronics and enables the miniaturization of simple warm and cool sensations”, and “We demonstrate how our device renders warmth and cooling sensations in virtual experiences.” I just want to know have you tested this device in the extreme hot and cool temperatures?

Thanks!

[S-Omkar-K]

Hello Professor, Thank you very much for sharing your work.

Whenever I read about some new development with new technology, I always question and inspect the potential aspects of the application of the said technology.

Keeping this as a premise, I wanted to know how the new advancements in HCI can impact behavioural change, what would their applications be in this sector, and how the derived insights can be used to tackle mental challenges. Also, do you see a future where we derive insights from HCI applications being used to counter induce and control behavioural aspects of the human mind? Something on the lines of what Neuralink is doing. On what scale can this be done w.r.t the human mind and how accessible will it be for the whole spectrum of people.

If so it happens, how and what is to be kept in check in terms of regulations and policies to counter the misuse of the technology?

Thanks!

[awaidyasin]

2G: Awaid Yasin, Yao Yao, Shengwenxin Ni, Kaylah Thomas

1. Human-Compter Integration is cool! However, I am concerned about ethical issues. Since we are attempting to extend our body with electronic devices, there's a possibility for malicious virus invasion and controlled our body against our free wills. How would you address such a concern? Or perhaps it's still early to consider such questions?

2. In Table 1 of “Next Steps in Human-Computer Integration,” the authors propose that the integration era of Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) is based on blurred boundaries between humans and machines. However, moving forward in Figure 3, the authors then highlight a few types of HCI---all of which seem to be tangible/concrete in their existence with strongly demarcated boundaries. For example, although pacemaker permanently becomes a part of one’s body, it is both tangible and has an independent existence. I was wondering whether HCI should also encapsulate unobserved human interaction with technology. So, for instance, something as simple as using social media over smartphone should be classified as HCI especially when it causes some of the same complications in the perception of self (e.g., we form one perception of our self based on what others think) as we except from more tangible and conventional integrations.

Thanks

[Hongkai040]

Group 2B: Wanxi Zhou, Coco Yu, Justin Soll, Hongkai Mao Hi, professor, thank you for sharing your research at our workshop! We have questions with regard to the design and consequences of Human-Computer integration devices.

In social sciences, we have many guidelines and rules need to follow when human subjects are involved in research projects like respect for person. Does Human-Computer Integration area have similar or totally different guidelines for designing Human-Computer Integration devices ?

And, so far, it seems that the devices are mainly about augmenting efficiency, which are used in relatively simple, ethical-free environments. But, what if we use those devices in rather complicated situations? For example, with regard to the reaction time one, how would a Human-Computer Integration device be responsible for a tragic accident? How would the user be held responsible? On one hand, driver's action would have been predicated by this technology, but on the other they really would feel as if they were the one in control.

[JadeBenson]

For Group 1K:

I think our main question for the readings are about the ethical implications. If we can anticipate people’s movement and integrate these systems to move them while making them feel in control - what could be some consequences of misinterpreting movement or influencing people’s agency to act in ways they feel responsible for?

[sabinahartnett]

Group 1J: Lynette Dang, Silvan Baier, Yingxuan Liu, Sabina Hartnett

Next Steps in Human-Computer Integration

“How do we interact with computers?” towards“How are humans and computers integrated?”

If we are considering computer as our equal, isn't it at odds with the principle of user-centered design (UCD) ? How are we going to stick with UCD for technologies mentioned in this paper? Or do you predict that in the future, user experience will be emphasized less but instead, we will be focusing more on integrating human and computers better together? → can any design be truly abstracted from humans? What do you predict are next steps in this direction towards how humans and computers are integrated? Might this be a balance of ‘ease’ for both parties (human convenience and computer speed/ease of translation/integration?)

Trigeminal-based Temperature Illusions

the speed of change from one temperature to another, the number of different temperature levels, and compare these with other existing approaches.

as a VR headset user- it is quite inspiring to see that we can actually mimic different environment by the scent. The 1J group would like to ask: Is any of those ingredients addictive or can be turned into addictive compose? How do you perceive this as a potentially making more people being addictive to gaming or to the scent?

[JunoWuu]

Group 2E: Juno Wu, Nikki Ting, Roberto Rondo Garces, and Franco Mendes.

For prolonged applications, we wonder if people can get used to the EMS actuation such that the EMS preemptive time can be gradually decreased without having a negative effect on perceived agency. That is, as people get used to reacting faster (i.e., through muscle memory the preemption gain leads to a reduction in the typical reaction time), would it be possible to provide even more preemption without a decrease in agency?

[bningdling]

Group 2F(Sophie Wang, Xin Tang)

Thermoelectric elements are helpful to maximize VR realism, and the effectiveness of Peltier in regards to creating different temperatures among two conductors is fascinating, but how do they solve the problem power? The size of Peltier seems very small, so this probably is an advantage it has compared to air conditioning units, but how exactly is the size of the latter?

[YLHan97]

Group 1G (Yulun Han, Tanzima Chowdhury) Hi professor, Thank you so much for sharing such interesting topic! The viewpoints in the article also brought me many new inspirations.

1. In the “Trigeminal-based Temperature Illusions”, you have mentioned, through a wearable device based on micropumps and an atomizer, the user can experience warmth or coolness by emitting a hot smell to the user. I think this is a very innovative breakthrough. Wearable devices used to be perceived as visual, but now they can add haptic sensations or thermal sensation. So, I really want to ask, what industries can wearable devices that increase the sense of temperature change be applied? And, what specific benefits can such devices bring to society and individuals?

2. The question about haptic technology: The field is ever-involving, and I think especially, Professor Lopes stating the challenges is extremely vital to go forward. However, with the idea of the integration between the technology and user, it seems that the goal is for the interaction to be 'second skin' to the human. Usually, with the advent of technology, eventually, the users work around it, rather than the other way (even though it seems otherwise). Essentially, will haptic technology change our perceptions on what is tactile and what is meant to be felt?

[yhchou0904]

Group 1I: Yile Chen, Yu-Hsuan Chou, Jasmine Huang, Jingnan Liu The researches reveal lots of bright future of HCI, including a fascinating picture of possible applications in data collection, integration of human and machine, or simulation of different environments for researchers to build experiments under different circumstances.

1. One part of the research we would like to know is about the measurement of sense of agency in the paper of accelerating human reaction with EMS. The paper mentioned that the sense of agency is measured by a questionnaire. However, it seems that this kind of self-report might vary from person to person. Is there any control or randomization in recruiting participants? Or is there a statement of representativeness that allows us to extend the research to some group of people?
2. Though the EMS paper frames agency in a more technical user experience perspective, with a social science lens, agency (& power) could embed broader significances. If the integration evolves further, would it be possible that users may have a hard time distinguishing their own motives and identities from those imposed by the technology? How could one deal with such blurriness, and what are the potential physical and mental backlashes? Also, the accountability issue (mentioned in the HInt paper) may, to some extent, relate to the agency. If we could not tell who controls the move, how could we determine who is responsible?