skip to main content
10.1145/2702123.2702220acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open Access

Trap it!: A Playful Human-Biology Interaction for a Museum Installation

Published:18 April 2015Publication History

ABSTRACT

We developed Trap it!, a human-biology interaction (HBI) medium encompassing a touchscreen interface, microscopy, and light projection. Users can interact with living cells by drawing on a touchscreen displaying the microscope view of the cells. These drawings are projected onto the microscopy field as light patterns, prompting observable movement in phototactic responses. The system design enables stable and robust HBI and a wide variety of programmed activities (art, games, and experiments). We investigated its affordances as an exhibit in a science museum in both facilitated and unfacilitated contexts. Overall, it had a low barrier of entry and fostered rich communication among visitors. Visitors were particularly excited upon realizing that the interaction involved real organisms, an understanding that was facilitated by the eyepiece on the physical system. With the results from user study, we provide our observations, insights and guidelines for designing HBI as a permanent museum exhibit.

References

  1. Alberts, B., Prioritizing Science Education. Science 328, 5977 (2010), 405.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Barsanti, L., Evangelista, V., Passarelli, V., Frassanito, A.M., and Gualtieri, P., Fundamental questions and concepts about photoreception and the case of Euglena gracilis. Integrative Biology 4, 1 (2012), 22--36.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Bilda, Z., Edmonds, E., and Candy, L., Designing for creative engagement. Design Studies 29, 6 (2008), 525--540.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Blikstein, P. Gears of our childhood: constructionist toolkits, robotics, and physical computing, past and future. In Proc. IDC 2013, ACM Press (2013), 173--182. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Block, F., Horn, M.S., Phillips, B.C., Diamond, J., Evans, E.M., and Chia, S., The DeepTree Exhibit: Visualizing the Tree of Life to Facilitate Informal Learning. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 18, 12 (2012), 2789--2798. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Boisvert, D.L. and Slez, B.J., The relationship between exhibit characteristics and learning-associated behaviors - 10 in a science museum discovery space. Science Education 79, 5 (1995), 503--518.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Brody, M., Bangert, A., and Dillon, J., Assessing learning in informal science contexts. Commissioned Paper by the National Research Council for Science Learning in Informal Environments Committee, (2009).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Cheok, A.D., Kok, R.T., Tan, C., Fernando, O.N.N., Merritt, T., and Sen, J.Y.P. Empathetic living media. In Proc. DIS 2008, ACM Press (2008), 465--473. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Chua, K.C., Qin, Y., Block, F., Phillips, B., Diamond, J., Evans, E.M., Horn, M.S., and Shen, C. FloTree: a multi-touch interactive simulation of evolutionary processes. In Proc. ITS 2012, ACM Press (2012), 299--302. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Frederickson, R.M., Fluidigm. Biochips get indoor plumbing. Chemistry & biology 9, 11 (2002), 1161.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Hamidi, F. and Baljko, M. Rafigh: a living media interface for speech intervention. In Proc. CHI 2014, ACM Press (2014), 1817--1820. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Harvey, H., Havard, M., Magnus, D., Cho, M., & Riedel-Kruse, I. , Innocent fun or microslavery? : Public Responses to and Ethical Analysis of Biotic Games. Hasting Center Report, (2014), 1--28.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Heath, C., Lehn, D.V., and Osborne, J., Interaction and interactives: collaboration and participation with computer-based exhibits. Public Understanding of Science 14, 1 (2005), 91--101.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Hertz, G., Cockroach controlled mobile robot. Garnet Hertz-Http://conceptlabcom, (2008).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Hinrichs, U., Schmidt, H., and Carpendale, S., EMDialog: Bringing Information Visualization into the Museum. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 14, 6 (2008), 1181--1188. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Horn, M., Leong, Z.A., Block, F., Diamond, J., Evans, E.M., Phillips, B., and Shen, C. Of BATs and APEs: an interactive tabletop game for natural history museums. In Proc. CHI 2012, ACM Press (2012), 2059--2068. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Horn, M.S., Solovey, E.T., Crouser, R.J., and Jacob, R.J.K. Comparing the use of tangible and graphical programming languages for informal science education. In Proc. CHI 2009, ACM Press (2009), 975--984. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Hornecker, E. and Stifter, M. Learning from interactive museum installations about interaction design for public settings. In Proc. OzCHI 2006, ACM Press (2006), 135--142. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Karsenty, T. and Fievez, A., The iPad in education: uses, benefits, and challenges. (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Kuribayashi, S. and Wakita, A. PlantDisplay: turning houseplants into ambient display. In Proc. CHI 2006, ACM Press (2006), 40. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Lee, S.A., Chung, A.M., Cira, N., and Riedel-Kruse, I.H. Tangible interactive microbiology for informal science education. In Proc. TEI 2015, ACM Press (2015), Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Littleford, R.A., Culture of Protozoa in the Classroom. The American Biology Teacher 22, 9 (1960), 551--559.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Mertens, M. and Meißner, T.O., Wir waren Space Invaders: Geschichten vom Computerspielen. Katrin Blumenkamp, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Ozasa, K., Lee, J., Song, S., Hara, M., and Maeda, M., Two-dimensional optical feedback control of Euglena confined in closed-type microfluidic channels. Lab on a Chip 11, 11 (2011), 1933--1940.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Papert, S., Mindstorms: children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books, Inc., 1980. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Ramey-Gassert, L., Walberg, H.J., and Walberg, H.J., Reexamining connections: Museums as science learning environments. Science Education 78, 4 (1994), 345--363.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Reas, C. and Fry, B., Processing: programming for the media arts. AI & SOCIETY 20, 4 (2006), 526--538. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Rein, M.L. and Deussing, J.M., The optogenetic (r) evolution. Molecular Genetics and Genomics 287, 2 (2012), 95--109.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Riedel-Kruse, I.H., Chung, A.M., Dura, B., Hamilton, A.L., and Lee, B.C., Design, engineering and utility of biotic games. Lab on a Chip 11, 1 (2011), 14--22.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Schweingruber, H.A. and Fenichel, M., Surrounded by Science: Learning Science in Informal Environments. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Sellers, J., Arcade fever: the fan's guide to the golden age of video games. Running Press Book Publishers, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Stage, E.K., Asturias, H., Cheuk, T., Daro, P.A., and Hampton, S.B., Opportunities and Challenges in Next Generation Standards. Science 340, 6130 (2013), 276--277.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. The Tech Museum of Innovation. TechTag. Available from: http://my.thetech.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. van Eck, W. and Lamers, M.H., Hybrid BiologicalDigital Systems in Artistic and Entertainment Computing. Leonardo 46, 2 (2013), 151--158.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Wessnitzer, J., Asthenidis, A., Petrou, G., and Webb, B. A cricket-controlled robot orienting towards a sound source. In Proc. TAROS 2011, Springer-Verlag Press (2011), 1--12. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Whitesides, G.M., The origins and the future of microfluidics. Nature 442, 7101 (2006), 368--373.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Wolken, J.J., Euglena: The Photoreceptor System for Phototaxis*. The Journal of Protozoology 24, 4 (1977), 518--522.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Trap it!: A Playful Human-Biology Interaction for a Museum Installation

        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 '15: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
          April 2015
          4290 pages
          ISBN:9781450331456
          DOI:10.1145/2702123

          Copyright © 2015 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part 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 components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 18 April 2015

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          CHI '15 Paper Acceptance Rate486of2,120submissions,23%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader