PaperlayerView exact revision on arXiv

Source-linked AI summary

Perceived Acceptability of Sensory Augmentation

Michel Witter, Alwin de Rooij, Michel van Dartel, Emiel Krahmer

arXiv:2610.34451v1cs.HC

TL;DR

Differences in sensory perception can constrain shared experiences between deaf and hearing museum visitors, and acceptable tactile SA configurations remain a design question. The paper surveys 307 participants about hypothetical museum configurations; temperature was the most acceptable sensation, and acceptability varied by sensation and body part without hearing-status interactions.

  • Problem

    The study asks which tactile SA configurations are acceptable to deaf and hearing people, since sensory differences can limit shared museum experiences.

    Source: §1 · p. 2, §2.1 · p. 2

  • Method

    A scenario-based survey assessed hypothetical museum SA configurations with 307 participants using an adapted acceptance model and questions about tactile sensations and body locations.

    Source: §2.5 · p. 4, §3.2 · p. 5

  • Results

    Temperature was the most acceptable sensation (M = 3.39, SD = 0.95), and body-part acceptability varied without an interaction with hearing status.

    Source: §4.2 · p. 8, §4.3 · p. 9

  • Takeaways & Limitations

    The findings indicate that acceptability in shared public environments depends primarily on embodied design factors, such as tactile quality and body location, rather than hearing status.

    Source: §7 · p. 13

    Hypothetical scenarios limit ecological validity because participants did not wear, learn, or socially negotiate the stimuli in use.

    Source: §6.2 · p. 13

Abstract

from arXiv · show

Sensory augmentation (SA) can extend how people perceive and engage with public environments through the body, offering opportunities to support shared multimodal experiences between deaf and hearing visitors. Designing such systems requires understanding which combinations of tactile stimuli and body locations users perceive as acceptable. We examined the perceived acceptability of fictitious yet feasible SA configurations in a museum use-case. Using a modified technology acceptance model, we surveyed 307 deaf and hearing participants about tactile stimulus types and body locations. The results showed significant effects of stimulus type and body location on acceptance, but no interactions with hearing status. Participants generally preferred temperature-based stimuli, subtle movement, texture, and tickling over vibration, and distal over proximal body locations. These findings suggest that tactile SA design should be guided primarily by embodied and contextual factors rather than hearing status, informing future systems for shared multimodal experience in public cultural settings.

1 INTRODUCTION

Sensory augmentation may support shared experiences by conveying information through existing senses, but inclusive design requires understanding how people accept different tactile sensations and body locations. This study asks which tactile SA configurations are acceptable to deaf and hearing people.

1 INTRODUCTION

  • Differences in sensory perception can restrict shared experiences such as museum visits, motivating SA as a way to extend perception beyond naturally available senses.The authors note that tactile stimuli can convey information without interfering with vision or hearing and can be integrated into bodily interactions.Source: §1 · p. 2
  • Sensory augmentation conveys information from novel sensory domains through existing modalities, but insufficiently inclusive design contributes to usability and acceptance issues.The authors frame SA as an experiential coupling of body, technology, and environment, not only as a technology.Source: §1 · p. 2
  • The design challenge includes choosing how, where, and with what tactile quality the body experiences augmentation.Related work is presented as demonstrating augmentation through a coupling of body, technology, and environment.Source: §1 · p. 2
  • The study asks which tactile sensory augmentation configurations are acceptable to both deaf and hearing people.The authors focus on whether acceptability differs by hearing status.Source: §1 · p. 2

2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

The background frames tactile sensory augmentation as a possible support for shared museum experiences, while emphasizing that acceptability depends on sensory, bodily, and contextual factors. It motivates assessing these factors across hearing status.

2.1 Supporting Shared Museum Experiences

  • Sensory differences can limit shared museum experiences beyond language, while existing communication technologies do not address differences in sensory experience.Tactile SA is presented as an alternative that translates imperceptible environmental signals into perceivable stimuli.Source: §2.1 · p. 2

2.5 The Present Study

  • The study examines which tactile SA sensations and body locations are acceptable for deaf and hearing people in a shared museum context.It scopes possible combinations because deploying SA technologies is complex and time-consuming.Source: §2.1 · p. 3, §2.5 · p. 4

2.2 Measuring Perceived Acceptability

  • The Spagnolli model is suited to hypothetical SA acceptance because it addresses anticipated comfort, social acceptability, and perceived intrusion alongside usefulness and attitude.The passage contrasts this model with TAM and UTAUT, which were designed primarily for task-oriented systems.Source: §2.2 · p. 3

2.4 Hearing Status

  • The study distinguishes hearing status and hard-of-hearing participants by reported hearing ability, while noting that audiological categories do not capture all communication practices and identities.In Deaf Studies, lowercase “deaf” refers to hearing loss and capitalized “Deaf” to cultural and linguistic community identification.Source: §2.4 · pp. 3–4

2.3 Tactile Actuators and Their Body Locations

  • Tactile acceptability varies with stimulus, body location, bodily sensitivity, signal interpretability, and social acceptability, while existing studies often use limited samples and stimulus ranges.Current actuator designs are well validated in laboratories but less studied in real-world use, where user integration, usability, and acceptance also matter.Source: §2.3 · p. 3, §2.5 · p. 4

3 METHOD

The authors used an online, scenario-based survey to assess tactile SA acceptability in a museum context. It combined acceptance ratings with preferences for sensations and body locations, then analyzed differences by hearing status.

3.1 Study Design

  • The scenario-based survey design draws on prior fictitious or minimal-exposure scenarios and acceptance models for wearable sensing devices.The cited work describes usefulness, effort, and context beliefs as predictors of adoption.Source: §3.1 · p. 4

3.2 Participants and Sampling

  • After data cleaning, 307 participants remained from hearing, hard-of-hearing, and deaf recruitment groups.Participants were adults, fluent in English, had at least an undergraduate degree, and had no additional disabilities.Source: §3.2 · p. 5

3.3 Materials and Measurements

3.4 Procedure

  • The online survey presented an introduction, consent, demographics, and an explanation of the technology before participants answered the study questions.The survey took approximately 15 minutes to complete.Source: §3.4 · p. 6

3.5 Data Processing and Analysis

  • The analysis used Welch’s t-test for hearing-status differences, mixed-design ANOVAs for sensation and general body-part ratings, and a logistic mixed-effects model for specific locations.The analyses included reliability and assumption checks, corrected post-hoc comparisons, and excluded detailed-location categories with fewer than ten observations.Source: §3.5 · pp. 7–8

4 RESULTS

Across the main analyses, acceptability differed by sensation type and body location, while the observed patterns did not vary by hearing status.

4.1 General Acceptability According to Hearing Status

  • General acceptability did not differ significantly between hearing and hearing-impaired participants (M = 5.11 vs. M = 5.18, p = .511).Source: §4.1 · p. 8

4.2 Acceptability of Sensation Types on the Body

  • Temperature was most acceptable (M = 3.39, SD = 0.95), significantly above movement, texture, tickling, and vibration; stretch was least acceptable.The sensation-type effect was significant: F(6.16, 1878.86) = 55.06, p < .001, ηₚ² = .153.Source: Figure 3 · p. 8, §4.2 · p. 8

4.3 Acceptability of Tactile Stimuli on Different Body Parts

  • Arms were the most acceptable body part and the head the least, with a significant body-part effect and no hearing-status interaction.The body-part effect was F(2.51, 764.17) = 257.10, p < .001, ηₚ² = .46.Source: Figure 4 · p. 9, §4.3 · p. 9

4.4 Preference and Non-preference for Specific Body Locations

  • Preferences varied across specific body locations (χ²(16) = 322.04, p < .001), without significant hearing-status effects; wrist, hand, arms, and shoulder were preferred, while head, face, and torso areas were often avoided.Table 2 reports frequencies and percentages for preferred and non-preferred locations.Source: §4.4 · pp. 9–10, Table 2 · p. 10

5 ADDITIONAL ANALYSES

Additional analyses largely replicated sensation and body-location rankings across impairment levels, while showing small overall acceptability differences by impairment severity.

5.1 General Acceptability Across Degrees of Hearing Impairment

  • General acceptability did not differ significantly across impairment groups.Severe impairment and deafness were combined (n = 8) because their separate sample sizes were small.Source: §5.1 · p. 10, §5 · p. 10

5.2 Acceptability of Sensation Types

  • Sensation-type rankings replicated without an interaction by impairment degree, but overall acceptability showed a small impairment effect, with severe/deaf participants lower than mild/moderate participants.Temperature remained most acceptable, but was not significantly above movement or texture in this analysis.Source: §5.2 · pp. 10–11, Figure 5 · p. 11

5.3 Acceptability Across Body Parts

  • In the hearing-impairment sample, acceptability differed by body part (F(2.54, 350.10) = 39.20, p < .001, ηₚ² = 0.22), and hearing impairment had a small significant main effect (F(2, 138) = 3.53, p = .032, ηₚ² = 0.05).Ratings were arms (M = 3.53, SD = 1.03), legs (M = 3.18, SD = 0.98), torso (M = 2.91, SD = 1.05), and head (M = 2.04, SD = 0.89); arms were most acceptable and head least acceptable.Source: §5.3 · pp. 11–12

5.4 Preference and Non-preference for Specific Body Locations Across Degrees of Hearing Impairment

  • Preferred and non-preferred locations varied significantly, but neither pattern showed a significant impairment-status effect or interaction.Preferred locations included wrist/hand, upper and lower arm, and shoulder; non-preferred locations included head, face, breast, buttocks, neck, and pelvis. Categories with fewer than ten observations were excluded.Source: §5.4 · p. 12

6 DISCUSSION

Acceptability varied with tactile stimulus and body location, but not hearing status. The discussion interprets these patterns as evidence that embodied design factors matter and identifies limits of hypothetical scenarios, sample balance, and group assignment.

6.1 Main Findings

  • The discussion identifies effects of stimulus type and body location, no hearing-status difference, and a limited role for sensory background in acceptability.These are the study’s two empirical effects, one null effect, and theoretical implication.Source: §6.1 · p. 12
  • Deaf and hearing participants showed no differences in acceptability or preferences for tactile stimuli and body locations, despite potentially different tactile-signal interpretations.The discussion says those interpretation differences do not translate into preferences for SA stimuli or locations.Source: §6.1 · p. 12
  • Vibrotactile stimuli were less preferred than other tactile stimuli by both deaf and hearing participants.This contrasts with studies suggesting deaf people attribute greater informational value to tactile cues.Source: §6.1 · p. 12
  • Preferred body locations are described as largely stable across user groups and driven more by perceived usefulness and situational context than hearing status.The discussion notes that deaf people rely more on vision and touch for environmental awareness, navigation, and social attunement.Source: §6.1 · p. 13
  • Acceptability is interpreted as depending more on stimulus quality, body location, and fit with everyday bodily activity than on hearing status.The discussion frames acceptability as a constraint on body–technology–environment coupling before deployment.Source: §6.1 · p. 13

6.2 Limitations

  • Hypothetical scenarios enable systematic comparisons but limit ecological validity, so findings reflect initial perceived acceptability rather than acceptance after adaptation.Participants did not wear, learn, or socially negotiate the stimuli; sensorimotor integration over time makes usability, cognitive load, and experiential value difficult to judge from scenarios alone.Source: §6.2 · p. 13
  • Imbalanced hearing-status groups limit subgroup-comparison reliability, with small fully deaf or severe-hearing-loss groups leaving uncertainty about lower acceptability scores.The discussion calls for larger, more balanced samples for more reliable comparisons.Source: §6.2 · p. 13
  • Combining participants in Qualtrics and separating groups post hoc using Prolific IDs required time and attention.The authors note that a marker question could have simplified group assignment.Source: §6.2 · p. 13

7 CONCLUSION

This paper examines perceived acceptability of tactile sensory augmentation in a museum setting. It finds no significant differences between deaf and hearing participants and points to embodied design factors as primary considerations for shared public environments.

7 CONCLUSION

  • In shared public environments, acceptability depends primarily on embodied design factors, including tactile quality, body location, and anticipated fit among body, technology, and context.The conclusion argues hearing status should not determine tactile SA design choices.Source: §7 · p. 13
  • No significant differences between deaf and hearing participants appeared across all three sub-questions.Source: §7 · p. 13
  • The study identified acceptable tactile stimuli and body locations as empirical guidance for designing sensory augmentation technologies for public multimodal environments.Source: §7 · p. 14
Loading 2610.34451v1…