pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.04489 · v1 · pith:XIT5KMBMnew · submitted 2026-06-03 · 💻 cs.HC · cs.ET

Speculating the Impacts of Mediated Social Touch Technology

Russian (Ruo-Xuan) Wu , Tim Moesgen , Myung Jin (MJ) Kim , Xinyan Yu , Naoki Kameyama , Anusha Withana , Marius Hoggenmueller , Luke Hespanhol This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 04:45 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC cs.ET
keywords mediated social touchfuture rippleshaptic interfacessociotechnical impactsspeculative designparticipatory workshopsRSR pipeline
0
0 comments X

The pith

Workshops using Future Ripples identify intervention points across the record-synthesize-reproduce pipeline for mediated social touch technologies.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper investigates the broader sociotechnical impacts of Mediated Social Touch technologies, which record, synthesize, and reproduce touch experiences across space and time. Existing research emphasizes direct benefits such as reducing loneliness, yet this work applies the Future Ripples method in workshops to surface wider effects. Three workshops with 24 participants including users, experts, and researchers produced collective visions of scenarios, opportunities, threats, and responses. Qualitative analysis distilled these into four themes and three challenges, yielding concrete design insights.

Core claim

Through workshops applying the Future Ripples method, participants envisioned future scenarios for MST technologies and identified opportunities, threats, and actionable responses. Qualitative analysis organized these into four themes and three distinctive challenges, offering haptics researchers intervention points across the RSR pipeline to inform MST design alongside methodological insights from the method's application.

What carries the argument

The Future Ripples method applied in participatory workshops to speculate on MST impacts by generating scenarios, opportunities, threats, and responses that map to the record-synthesize-reproduce pipeline.

If this is right

  • Haptics researchers gain specific intervention points in the record, synthesize, and reproduce stages to shape MST design.
  • Four themes and three challenges provide a structured way to anticipate and respond to sociotechnical effects.
  • Methodological insights support adapting Future Ripples for other haptic technology explorations.
  • Designers can move beyond individual benefits to address collective opportunities and threats in future scenarios.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The identified challenges could be used to develop ethical checklists for haptic interface teams before deployment.
  • Similar speculation workshops might be run for related technologies such as remote VR touch or wearable social signals.
  • Policy discussions around digital communication tools could incorporate the themes to weigh mediated touch regulations.
  • Prototype testing could validate whether incorporating workshop responses reduces the predicted negative impacts.

Load-bearing premise

The Future Ripples method applied in workshops with 24 participants can generate reliable insights into the broader sociotechnical impacts of MST that go beyond the direct benefits highlighted in existing research.

What would settle it

A follow-up study of deployed MST systems that finds no evidence of the speculated opportunities, threats, or challenges across the RSR pipeline would falsify the workshop-derived insights.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.04489 by Anusha Withana, Luke Hespanhol, Marius Hoggenmueller, Myung Jin (MJ) Kim, Naoki Kameyama, Russian (Ruo-Xuan) Wu, Tim Moesgen, Xinyan Yu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: In our work we present: (i) Future Ripples workshops on Mediated Social Touch (MST), (ii) four identified themes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Workshop Activities Details. In this diagram, we visualised the different focuses of each workshop by presenting the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Example weak signals (left & right, white) presented by participants that were used to inform the what-ifs (centre) in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Summary of workshops. Based on the five “what-if” prompts formulated with participants in three workshops, we [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Physical creation of ripples during WS3 (left) and its digitised counterpart used in WS1 and WS2 (right). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Visualisation of RSR Pipeline. Building on a previous paper [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Mapping participants’ actionable steps to different stages of the RSR pipeline. From top to bottom, physical harassment [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: A3.1: Actionable Steps Template [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

With growing research on haptic interfaces, Mediated Social Touch (MST) technologies offer the potential to record, synthesise, and reproduce (RSR) touch experiences across space and time, enabling, for instance, a hug from afar and from the past. Although much of the existing research highlights the direct benefits of these systems, such as reducing loneliness and providing emotional support, little attention has been paid to their broader sociotechnical impacts. To address this gap, we used the Future Ripples method to speculate on possible effects of MST. We conducted three workshops with 24 participants, including potential users, domain experts, and haptics researchers. Throughout these sessions, participants collectively envisioned possible future scenarios, alongside opportunities and threats, and proposed actionable responses. Our qualitative analysis organised these insights into four themes and three distinctive challenges. These findings offer haptics researchers intervention points across the RSR pipeline to inform MST design, alongside methodological insights from applying Future Ripples to MST technology.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper applies the Future Ripples speculative method in three workshops with 24 participants (potential users, domain experts, and haptics researchers) to explore broader sociotechnical impacts of Mediated Social Touch (MST) technologies, which support recording, synthesising, and reproducing (RSR) touch across space and time. Qualitative analysis of participant-generated scenarios, opportunities, threats, and responses yields four themes and three distinctive challenges, positioned as intervention points across the RSR pipeline plus methodological notes on the Future Ripples approach.

Significance. If the themes and challenges are robustly grounded, the work supplies concrete, participant-derived considerations for haptics researchers that extend beyond the direct benefits (e.g., loneliness reduction) already emphasised in the literature, potentially supporting more responsible MST design. The methodological reflections on adapting Future Ripples to MST also offer a reusable template for speculative inquiry in HCI.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract / Methods] Abstract and Methods section: the qualitative analysis is described only at the level of outcome (four themes, three challenges) with no account of the procedure used to derive themes from workshop transcripts or artefacts, no mention of coding approach, inter-coder agreement, member checking, or other validation steps. Because the central claim rests on these participant-generated insights as reliable intervention points, the absence of this detail is load-bearing.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive feedback highlighting the need for greater transparency in our qualitative analysis. We agree this is a substantive point and will revise the manuscript accordingly to provide the requested procedural details.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / Methods] Abstract and Methods section: the qualitative analysis is described only at the level of outcome (four themes, three challenges) with no account of the procedure used to derive themes from workshop transcripts or artefacts, no mention of coding approach, inter-coder agreement, member checking, or other validation steps. Because the central claim rests on these participant-generated insights as reliable intervention points, the absence of this detail is load-bearing.

    Authors: We agree that the Methods section requires additional detail on the analysis procedure to support the reliability of the derived themes and challenges. In the revision we will expand this section to describe the full process: how workshop transcripts and artefacts were prepared, the specific coding approach (thematic analysis following an inductive approach), steps taken for theme development and refinement, any measures of inter-coder agreement, and validation procedures such as discussion among the research team. The abstract will remain at a high level as is conventional, but we will ensure the Methods section now provides the load-bearing procedural account. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

The paper is an exploratory qualitative study that applies the Future Ripples method in workshops with external participants to generate speculative scenarios on MST impacts. No derivation chain, equations, fitted parameters, or first-principles results exist that could reduce to inputs by construction. Claims rest on participant-generated themes and challenges rather than self-definitions, self-citations, or renamed known results. The work explicitly scopes its contribution to methodological notes and intervention points derived from external input, with no load-bearing internal reductions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that the Future Ripples workshop method can surface actionable sociotechnical insights; no free parameters or invented entities are introduced.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The Future Ripples method is suitable for identifying opportunities, threats, and responses in emerging technologies such as MST.
    Invoked to structure the three workshops and subsequent qualitative organization into themes and challenges.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5733 in / 1239 out tokens · 39697 ms · 2026-06-28T04:45:17.333288+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Csaba Antonya and Silviu Butnariu. 2022. Preservation of Cultural Heritage Using Virtual Reality Technologies and Haptic Feedback: A Prototype and Case Study on Antique Carpentry Tools.Applied Sciences12, 16 (2022), 8002. doi:10. 3390/app12168002

    2022

  2. [2]

    Flemisch, Kenta Hashiura, Hsin-Ni Ho, Arata Horie, Keigo Inukai, Jieun Kim, Nicole Krämer, Takumi Kuhara, Sven Martin, Stephanie M

    Giulia Barbareschi, Ximing Shen, Yulan Ju, Diego Compagna, Frank O. Flemisch, Kenta Hashiura, Hsin-Ni Ho, Arata Horie, Keigo Inukai, Jieun Kim, Nicole Krämer, Takumi Kuhara, Sven Martin, Stephanie M. Mueller, Aiko Murata, Gernot Oberfell, Mark Paterson, Mina Shibasaki, Anna Spiegel, Celia Spooden, Heiko Stoff, Rikako Sumida, Yoshihiro Tanaka, Sohei Wakisa...

    work page doi:10.18154/rwth-2025-03151 2025

  3. [3]

    Julian Bleecker. 2022. Design Fiction: A Short Essay on Design, Science, Fact, and Fiction. InMachine Learning and the City(1 ed.), Silvio Carta (Ed.). Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, United States, 561–578. doi:10.1002/9781119815075.ch47

    work page doi:10.1002/9781119815075.ch47 2022

  4. [4]

    Leonardo Bonanni, Cati Vaucelle, Jeff Lieberman, and Orit Zuckerman. 2006. TapTap: a haptic wearable for asynchronous distributed touch therapy. InCHI’06 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems. 580–585

    2006

  5. [5]

    Leonardo Bonanni, Cati Vaucelle, Jeff Lieberman, and Orit Zuckerman. 2006. TapTap: a haptic wearable for asynchronous distributed touch therapy. InCHI ’06 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’06). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 580–585. doi:10. 1145/1125451.1125573

    arXiv 2006

  6. [6]

    Hadley, and Leah Zaidi

    Stuart Candy, Cher Potter, Danah Abdulla, Ahmed Ansari, Paola Antonelli, Tina Auer, James Auger, Nik Baerten, Ralph Borland, Tim Boykett, Anne Burdick, Ece Canli, Kuo-Hua Chen, David Delgado, Alida Draudt, Jake Dunagan, Tony Fry, Nik Gaffney, J.J. Hadley, and Leah Zaidi. 2019.Design and Futures. Tamkang University Press, Taipei

    2019

  7. [7]

    Asta Cekaite and Lorenza Mondada. 2020. Towards an Interactional Approach to Touch in Social Encounters. InTouch in Social Interaction(1 ed.), Asta Cekaite and Lorenza Mondada (Eds.). Routledge, 1–26. doi:10.4324/9781003026631-1

    work page doi:10.4324/9781003026631-1 2020

  8. [8]

    Victoria Clarke and Virginia Braun. 2014. Thematic Analysis. InEncyclopedia of Critical Psychology. Springer, New York, NY, USA, 1947–1952. doi:10.1007/978-1- 4614-5583-7_311

    work page doi:10.1007/978-1- 2014

  9. [9]

    Patricia Cornelio, Stephen Hughes, Orestis Georgiou, William Frier, Martin Maunsbach, Madhan Kumar Vasudevan, and Marianna Obrist. 2023. Responsible Innovation of Touchless Haptics: A Prospective Design Exploration in Social Interaction. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Com- puting Systems (CHI ’23). Association for Computing M...

    work page doi:10.1145/3544548.3581228 2023

  10. [10]

    That’s important, but

    Kimberly Do, Rock Yuren Pang, Jiachen Jiang, and Katharina Reinecke. 2023. “That’s important, but... ”: How Computer Science Researchers Anticipate Unin- tended Consequences of Their Research Innovations. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–16. ...

    work page doi:10.1145/3544548.3581347 2023

  11. [11]

    Felix Anand Epp, Tim Moesgen, Antti Salovaara, Emmi Pouta, and İdil Gaziu- lusoy. 2022. Reinventing the Wheel: The Future Ripples Method for Activating Anticipatory Capacities in Innovation Teams. InDesigning Interactive Systems Conference. ACM, Virtual Event Australia, 387–399. doi:10.1145/3532106.3534570

    work page doi:10.1145/3532106.3534570 2022

  12. [12]

    Stefanie M Erk, Alexander Toet, and Jan BF Van Erp. 2015. Effects of mediated social touch on affective experiences and trust.PeerJ3 (2015), e1297

    2015

  13. [13]

    Merle Fairhurst and Irene Valori. 2023. A functional framework for multisensory and interactive mediated social touch experiences. InProceedings of the 2023 ACM International Conference on Interactive Media Experiences Workshops. ACM, Nantes France, 46–51. doi:10.1145/3604321.3604349

    work page doi:10.1145/3604321.3604349 2023

  14. [14]

    Kahn Jr., and Alan Borning

    Batya Friedman, Peter H. Kahn Jr., and Alan Borning. 2008. Value Sensitive Design and Information Systems. InThe Handbook of In- formation and Computer Ethics. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Hoboken, NJ, USA, 69–101. doi:10.1002/9780470281819.ch4 Section: 4 _eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/9780470281819.ch4

    work page doi:10.1002/9780470281819.ch4 2008

  15. [15]

    Alberto Gallace and Charles Spence. 2010. The science of interpersonal touch: an overview.Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews34, 2 (2010), 246–259

    2010

  16. [16]

    Anne Galloway and Catherine Caudwell. 2018. Speculative design as research method. InUndesign(1 ed.), Gretchen Coombs, Andrew McNamara, and Gavin Sade (Eds.). Routledge, London, 85–96. doi:10.4324/9781315526379-8

    work page doi:10.4324/9781315526379-8 2018

  17. [17]

    Daniel Gooch and Leon Watts. 2012. YourGloves, hothands and hotmits: devices to hold hands at a distance. InProceedings of the 25th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology (UIST ’12). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 157–166. doi:10.1145/2380116.2380138

    work page doi:10.1145/2380116.2380138 2012

  18. [18]

    Antal Haans and Wijnand IJsselsteijn. 2006. Mediated social touch: a review of current research and future directions.Virtual Reality9, 2-3 (Jan. 2006), 149–159. doi:10.1007/s10055-005-0014-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s10055-005-0014-2 2006

  19. [19]

    Bigham, Johannes Schöning, Ehsan Hoque, Jason Ernst, Yonatan Bisk, Luigi De Russis, Lana Yarosh, Bushra Anjum, Danish Contractor, and Cathy Wu

    Brent Hecht, Lauren Wilcox, Jeffrey P. Bigham, Johannes Schöning, Ehsan Hoque, Jason Ernst, Yonatan Bisk, Luigi De Russis, Lana Yarosh, Bushra Anjum, Danish Contractor, and Cathy Wu. 2021. It’s Time to Do Something: Mitigating the Negative Impacts of Computing Through a Change to the Peer Review Process. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2112.09544 arXiv:2112.09544 [cs]

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2112.09544 2021

  20. [20]

    Michel Hohendanner, Chiara Ullstein, Dohjin Miyamoto, Emma F Huffman, Gudrun Socher, Jens Grossklags, and Hirotaka Osawa. 2024. Metaverse Per- spectives from Japan: A Participatory Speculative Design Case Study.Proceed- ings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction8, CSCW2 (Nov. 2024), 1–51. doi:10.1145/3686939

    work page doi:10.1145/3686939 2024

  21. [21]

    Michel Hohendanner, Chiara Ullstein, Bukola Abimbola Onyekwelu, Amelia Katirai, Jun Kuribayashi, Olusola Babalola, Arisa Ema, and Jens Grossklags. 2025. Initiating the Global AI Dialogues: Laypeople Perspectives on the Future Role of genAI in Society from Nigeria, Germany and Japan. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Sy...

    work page doi:10.1145/3706598.3714322 2025

  22. [22]

    Jussi Holopainen, Yuxuan Huang, Joongi Shin, Erkka Nissinen, and Andrés Lucero

  23. [23]

    InProceedings of the 2025 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference

    Infinity Book: Speculating Literary Expressions in the Age of Generative AI. InProceedings of the 2025 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference. ACM, Madeira Portugal, 1430–1454. doi:10.1145/3715336.3735735

    work page doi:10.1145/3715336.3735735 2025

  24. [24]

    Gijs Huisman. 2017. Social touch technology: A survey of haptic technology for social touch.IEEE transactions on haptics10, 3 (2017), 391–408

    2017

  25. [25]

    Gijs Huisman. 2022. An interaction theory account of (mediated) social touch. Frontiers in Psychology13 (2022), 830193

    2022

  26. [26]

    Carey Jewitt, Sara Price, Kerstin Leder Mackley, Nikoleta Yiannoutsou, and Dou- glas Atkinson. 2019. Digital Touch Ethics and Values. InInterdisciplinary Insights for Digital Touch Communication, Carey Jewitt, Sara Price, Kerstin Leder Mack- ley, Nikoleta Yiannoutsou, and Douglas Atkinson (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, 107–122. doi:10.1007/978...

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-24564-1_7 2019

  27. [27]

    Carey Jewitt, Sara Price, Jürgen Steimle, Gijs Huisman, Lili Golmohammadi, Narges Pourjafarian, William Frier, Thomas Howard, Sima Ipakchian Askari, Michela Ornati, et al. 2021. Manifesto for digital social touch in crisis.Frontiers in Computer Science3 (2021), 754050

    2021

  28. [28]

    Merel Jung, Anouk Keizer, Gijs Huisman, Laura Dima, Karen Lancel, Hermen Maat, and Jan van Erp. 2024. Digital Social Touch Toolkit: a research tool for studying attitudes towards digital touch.Eurohaptics 20241, 1 (June 2024), 3. doi:10.5281/ZENODO.12601161 Publisher: Zenodo

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.12601161 2024

  29. [29]

    1991.Legitimate Peripheral Participation in Communities of Practice

    Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger. 1991.Legitimate Peripheral Participation in Communities of Practice. Cambridge University Press, 89–118. doi:10.1017/ CBO9780511815355

    1991

  30. [30]

    Madelaine Ley and Nathan Rambukkana. 2021. Touching at a distance: digital intimacies, haptic platforms, and the ethics of consent.Science and Engineering Ethics27, 5 (2021), 63

    2021

  31. [31]

    Vera Liao and Michael Muller

    Q. Vera Liao and Michael Muller. 2019. Enabling Value Sensitive AI Sys- tems through Participatory Design Fictions. doi:10.48550/arXiv.1912.07381 arXiv:1912.07381 [cs]

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.1912.07381 2019

  32. [32]

    Yiyue Luo, Chao Liu, Young Joong Lee, Joseph DelPreto, Kui Wu, Michael Foshey, Daniela Rus, Tomás Palacios, Yunzhu Li, Antonio Torralba, and Wojciech Matusik

  33. [33]

    Nature Communications15, 1 (Jan

    Adaptive tactile interaction transfer via digitally embroidered smart gloves. Nature Communications15, 1 (Jan. 2024), 868. doi:10.1038/s41467-024-45059-8

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-024-45059-8 2024

  34. [34]

    Kouta Minamizawa, Yasuaki Kakehi, Masashi Nakatani, Soichiro Mihara, and Susumu Tachi. 2012. TECHTILE toolkit: a prototyping tool for design and education of haptic media. InProceedings of the 2012 Virtual Reality International Conference (VRIC ’12). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–2. doi:10.1145/2331714.2331745

    work page doi:10.1145/2331714.2331745 2012

  35. [35]

    Frederik Ølgaard Jensen, Sigurd Dalsgaard Pedersen, and Minna Pakanen. 2024. SuspenderMender - Designing for a Shared Management of Anxiety in Higher Education Context Through a Pair of Wearables Simulating Physical Touch. In Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction(Cork, Ireland)(TEI ’24). Ass...

    work page doi:10.1145/3623509.3633393 2024

  36. [36]

    Unintended Consequences

    Nassim Parvin and Anne Pollock. 2020. Unintended by Design: On the Political Uses of “Unintended Consequences”.Engaging Science, Technology, and Society6 (Aug. 2020), 320–327. doi:10.17351/ests2020.497

    work page doi:10.17351/ests2020.497 2020

  37. [37]

    Michael Polanyi. 1997. The Tacit Dimension. InKnowledge in Organizations (1 ed.), Laurence Prusak (Ed.). Routledge, New York, NY, USA, 135–146. doi:10. 4324/9780080509822

    1997

  38. [38]

    Stefano Puntoni, Rebecca Walker Reczek, Markus Giesler, and Simona Botti. 2021. Consumers and Artificial Intelligence: An Experiential Perspective.Journal of Marketing85, 1 (2021), 131–151. doi:10.1177/0022242920953847

    work page doi:10.1177/0022242920953847 2021

  39. [39]

    Roberts, Phil D

    James A. Roberts, Phil D. Young, and Meredith E. David. 2025. The Epidemic of Loneliness: A 9-Year Longitudinal Study of the Impact of Passive and Active Social Media Use on Loneliness.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin(2025), 01461672241295870. doi:10.1177/01461672241295870

    work page doi:10.1177/01461672241295870 2025

  40. [40]

    Anton Poikolainen Rosén, Chiara Rossitto, Fatemeh Bakhshoudeh, Rob Comber, and Stanley J Greenstein. 2025. Yarn as a Means to Give Form to Entanglements of Regulation, Design and Sustainability Practices. InProceedings of the 2025 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference. ACM, Madeira Portugal, 2534–2548. doi:10.1145/3715336.3735410

    work page doi:10.1145/3715336.3735410 2025

  41. [41]

    Epp, and Tim Moesgen

    Camilo Sanchez, Anton Poikolainen Rosén, Antti Salovaara, Felix A. Epp, and Tim Moesgen. 2024. Peering through Time. InMore-Than-Human Design in Practice(1 ed.). Routledge, London, 209–222. doi:10.4324/9781003467731-18

    work page doi:10.4324/9781003467731-18 2024

  42. [42]

    Camilo Sanchez, Sui Wang, Kaisa Savolainen, Felix Anand Epp, and Antti Salo- vaara. 2025. Let’s Talk Futures: A Literature Review of HCI’s Future Orientation. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Sys- tems (CHI ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–36. doi:10.1145/3706598.3713759

    work page doi:10.1145/3706598.3713759 2025

  43. [43]

    Vivian Shen, Tucker Rae-Grant, Joe Mullenbach, Chris Harrison, and Craig Shultz. 2023. Fluid Reality: High-Resolution, Untethered Haptic Gloves using Electroosmotic Pump Arrays. InProceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. ACM, San Francisco CA USA, 1–20. doi:10.1145/3586183.3606771

    work page doi:10.1145/3586183.3606771 2023

  44. [44]

    Mohit Singhal, Chen Ling, Pujan Paudel, Poojitha Thota, Nihal Kumarswamy, Gianluca Stringhini, and Shirin Nilizadeh. 2023. SoK: Content Moderation in Social Media, from Guidelines to Enforcement, and Research to Practice. In 2023 IEEE 8th European Symposium on Security and Privacy (EuroS&P). 868–895. doi:10.1109/EuroSP57164.2023.00056

    work page doi:10.1109/eurosp57164.2023.00056 2023

  45. [45]

    Jack Stilgoe, Richard Owen, and Phil Macnaghten. 2017. Developing a framework for responsible innovation*. InThe Ethics of Nanotechnology, Geoengineering, and Clean Energy. Routledge, London. Num Pages: 13

    2017

  46. [46]

    Miriam Sturdee, Joseph Lindley, Conor Linehan, Chris Elsden, Neha Kumar, Tawanna Dillahunt, Regan Mandryk, and John Vines. 2021. Consequences, Schmonsequences! Considering the Future as Part of Publication and Peer Review in Computing Research. InExtended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’21). Association ...

    work page doi:10.1145/3411763.3441330 2021

  47. [47]

    Juulia T Suvilehto, Enrico Glerean, Robin IM Dunbar, Riitta Hari, and Lauri Nummenmaa. 2015. Topography of social touching depends on emotional bonds between humans.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences112, 45 (2015), 13811–13816

    2015

  48. [48]

    Harunobu Taguchi, Youichi Kamiyama, Kenta Kan, Yulan Ju, Arata Horie, Yoshi- hiro Tanaka, Hironori Ishikawa, and Kouta Minamizawa. 2023. Multichannel Haptic Communication Platform with Wearable Sensing and Display. InSIG- GRAPH Asia 2023 Emerging Technologies(Sydney, NSW, Australia)(SA ’23). As- sociation for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Articl...

    work page doi:10.1145/3610541.3614573 2023

  49. [49]

    Peiris, Yongsoon Choi, Vuong Thuong, and Sha Lai

    James Keng Soon Teh, Adrian David Cheok, Roshan L. Peiris, Yongsoon Choi, Vuong Thuong, and Sha Lai. 2008. Huggy Pajama: a mobile parent and child hugging communication system. InProceedings of the 7th international conference on Interaction design and children (IDC ’08). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 250–257. doi:10.1145/1463689.1463763

    work page doi:10.1145/1463689.1463763 2008

  50. [50]

    Jan B. F. Van Erp, Karon E. MacLean, Gregory J. Gerling, Carey Jewitt, and Alexander Toet. 2023. Editorial: Social touch.Frontiers in Computer Science5 (July 2023), 1255784. doi:10.3389/fcomp.2023.1255784

    work page doi:10.3389/fcomp.2023.1255784 2023

  51. [51]

    Jan B. F. Van Erp and Alexander Toet. 2015. Social Touch in Human-Computer Interaction. 2 (2015). doi:10.3389/fdigh.2015.00002

    work page doi:10.3389/fdigh.2015.00002 2015

  52. [52]

    Lorenzo Vianello, Emek Barış Küçüktabak, Matthew Short, Clément Lhoste, Lorenzo Amato, Kevin Lynch, and Jose Pons. 2024. Exoskeleton-Mediated Phys- ical Human-Human Interaction for a Sit-to-Stand Rehabilitation Task. In2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). 4521–4527. doi:10.1109/ICRA57147.2024.10610796

    work page doi:10.1109/icra57147.2024.10610796 2024

  53. [53]

    2025.Co-Creating Futures: A Practical Guide to Speculation Workshops Connecting Research, Design, and Society

    Kristin Werner and Antje Nestler. 2025.Co-Creating Futures: A Practical Guide to Speculation Workshops Connecting Research, Design, and Society. Technical Report. Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. doi:10.18452/31342

    work page doi:10.18452/31342 2025

  54. [54]

    David Wicks. 2017. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers (3rd edition). Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal 12, 2 (June 2017), 169–170. doi:10.1108/QROM-08-2016-1408

    work page doi:10.1108/qrom-08-2016-1408 2017

  55. [55]

    Danielle Wilde. 2010. Swing that thing: Moving to move. InProceedings of the fourth international conference on Tangible, embedded, and embodied interaction. 303–304

    2010

  56. [56]

    Russian (Ruo-Xuan) Wu, Luke Hespanhol, Marius Hoggenmüller, Hannes Wald- schütz, and Eva Hornecker. 2025. Hugging Suit: Designing and Evaluating a Pneu- matic System for Remote Haptic Experiences. InProceedings of the 37th Australian Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (OzCHI ’25). Association for Comput- ing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 136–149. do...

    work page doi:10.1145/3764687.3764723 2025

  57. [57]

    Crossler, and France Bélanger

    Heng Xu, Robert E. Crossler, and France Bélanger. 2012. A Value Sensitive Design Investigation of Privacy Enhancing Tools in Web Browsers.Decision Support Systems54, 1 (Dec. 2012), 424–433. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2012.06.003

    work page doi:10.1016/j.dss.2012.06.003 2012

  58. [58]

    Zhang, Grayden Zaleski, Jaya N

    Cindy C. Zhang, Grayden Zaleski, Jaya N. Kailley, Katelyn A. Teng, Mahala English, Anna Riminchan, and Julie M. Robillard. 2024. Debate: Social media content moderation may do more harm than good for youth mental health.Child and Adolescent Mental Health29, 1 (2024), 104–106. doi:10.1111/camh.12689 A Participants’ Background DIS ’26, June 13–17, 2026, Sin...

    work page doi:10.1111/camh.12689 2024