skip to main content
10.1145/3313831.3376737acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

On-Face Olfactory Interfaces

Authors Info & Claims
Published:23 April 2020Publication History

ABSTRACT

On-face wearables are currently limited to piercings, tattoos, or interactive makeup that aesthetically enhances the user, and have been minimally used for scent-delivery methods. However, on-face scent interfaces could provide an advantage for personal scent delivery in comparison with other modalities or body locations since they are closer to the nose. In this paper, we present the mechanical and industrial design details of a series of form factors for on-face olfactory wearables that are lightweight and can be adhered to the skin or attached to glasses or piercings. We assessed the usability of three prototypes by testing with 12 participants in a within-subject study design while they were interacting in pairs at a close personal distance. We compare two of these designs with an "off-face" olfactory necklace and evaluate their social acceptance, comfort as well as perceived odor intensity for both the wearer and observer.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

paper608vf.mp4

mp4

17.9 MB

paper608pv.mp4

mp4

12.9 MB

a608-wang-presentation.mp4

mp4

99.6 MB

References

  1. Ouafe Alaoui-Ismaïli, O. Robin, H. Rada, André Dittmar, and Evelyne Vernet-Maury. 1997. Basic emotions evoked by odorants: comparison between autonomic responses and self-evaluation. Physiology & Behavior 62, 4 (1997), 713--720.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Judith Amores, Mae Dotan, and Pattie Maes. 2019. An Exploration of Form Factors for Sleep-Olfactory Interfaces. In IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Judith Amores, Javier Hernandez, Artem Dementyev, Xiqing Wang, and Pattie Maes. 2018. BioEssence: A Wearable Olfactory Display that Monitors Cardio-respiratory Information to Support Mental Wellbeing. In IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Judith Amores and Pattie Maes. 2017. Essence: Olfactory interfaces for unconscious influence of mood and cognitive performance. In CHI. ACM, 28--34.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. APA. 2017. Stress in America. The State of Our Nation. (2017). https://bit.ly/2T3RMtQGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Jatin Arora, Kartik Mathur, Aryan Saini, and Aman Parnami. 2019. Gehna: Exploring the Design Space of Jewelry as an Input Modality. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 521.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Paula Fitzgerald Bone and Pam Scholder Ellen. 1999. Scents in the marketplace: Explaining a fraction of olfaction. Journal of retailing 75, 2 (1999), 243--262.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Dipesh Chaudhury, Laura Manella, Adolfo Arellanos, Olga Escanilla, Thomas A Cleland, and Christiane Linster. 2010. Olfactory bulb habituation to odor stimuli. Behavioral neuroscience 124, 4 (2010), 490.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Yongsoon Choi and Adrian David Cheok. 2013. Iterative Design Process of Sound Perfume System. (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Yongsoon Choi, Rahul Parsani, Xavier Roman, Anshul Vikram Pandey, and Adrian David Cheok. 2012. Sound perfume: building positive impression during face-to-face communication. In SIGGRAPH Asia 2012 Emerging Technologies. ACM, 22.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Dmitrijs Dmitrenko, Emanuela Maggioni, and Marianna Obrist. 2018. I smell trouble: using multiple scents to convey driving-relevant information. In ICMI. ACM, 234--238.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. David Dobbelstein, Steffen Herrdum, and Enrico Rukzio. 2017. inScent: a wearable olfactory display as an amplification for mobile notifications. In ISWC. ACM.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Lucy E Dunne, Halley Profita, Clint Zeagler, James Clawson, Scott Gilliland, Ellen Yi-Luen Do, and Jim Budd. 2014. The social comfort of wearable technology and gestural interaction. In 2014 36th annual international conference of the IEEE engineering in medicine and biology society. IEEE, 4159--4162.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Jessica M Gaby and Vivian Zayas. 2017. Smelling is telling: human olfactory cues influence social judgments in semi-realistic interactions. Chemical senses 42, 5 (2017), 405--418.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Francine Gemperle, Chris Kasabach, John Stivoric, Malcolm Bauer, and Richard Martin. 1998. Design for wearability. In digest of papers. Second international symposium on wearable computers. IEEE.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Nicolas Guéguen. 2001. Effect of a perfume on prosocial behavior of pedestrians. Psychological reports 88, 3_suppl (2001), 1046--1048.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Rachel S Herz and Trygg Engen. 1996. Odor memory: Review and analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 3, 3 (1996), 300--313.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Rob W Holland, Merel Hendriks, and Henk Aarts. 2005. Smells like clean spirit: Nonconscious effects of scent on cognition and behavior. Psychological science 16, 9 (2005), 689--693.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Hsin-Liu (Cindy) Kao, Manisha Mohan, Chris Schmandt, Joseph A. Paradiso, and Katia Vega. 2016. ChromoSkin: Towards Interactive Cosmetics Using Thermochromic Pigments (CHI EA '16). ACM, NY, NY, USA, 3703--3706.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Joseph "Jofish" Kaye. 2004. Making Scents: Aromatic Output for HCI. Interactions (2004).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Andreas Keller, Margaret Hempstead, Iran A Gomez, Avery N Gilbert, and Leslie B Vosshall. 2012. An olfactory demography of a diverse metropolitan population. BMC neuroscience 13, 1 (2012), 122.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Pieter Verhees Klara Ravat and Angela de Weijer. 2019. Cosmic Travel Kit. (2019). https://vimeo.com/359049536Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Ryosuke Kodama, Tsutomu Terada, and Masahiko Tsukamoto. 2018. A context recognition method using temperature sensors in the nostrils. In ISWC. ACM, 220--221.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Wen Li, Isabel Moallem, Ken A Paller, and Jay A Gottfried. 2007. Subliminal smells can guide social preferences. Psychological science 18, 12 (2007), 1044--1049.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Emanuela Maggioni, Robert Cobden, Dmitrijs Dmitrenko, and Marianna Obrist. 2018. Smell-O-Message: integration of olfactory notifications into a messaging application to improve users' performance. In Proceedings of the 2018 on International Conference on Multimodal Interaction. ACM, 45--54.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Emanuela Maggioni, Robert Cobden, and Marianna Obrist. 2019. OWidgets: A Toolkit To Enable Smell-based Experience Design. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies (2019).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Brian P Meier, Sara K Moeller, Miles Riemer-Peltz, and Michael D Robinson. 2012. Sweet taste preferences and experiences predict prosocial inferences, personalities, and behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 102, 1 (2012), 163.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Takamichi Nakamoto. 2013. Human olfactory displays and interfaces: Odor sensing and presentation. IGI Global.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Takamichi Nakamoto, Shigeki Otaguro, Masashi Kinoshita, Masahiko Nagahama, Keita Ohinishi, and Taro Ishida. 2008. Cooking up an interactive olfactory game display. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications (2008).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Takuji Narumi, Shinya Nishizaka, Takashi Kajinami, Tomohiro Tanikawa, and Michitaka Hirose. 2011. Augmented reality flavors: gustatory display based on edible marker and cross-modal interaction. In CHI. ACM, 93--102.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Philip R Ross and Stephan AG Wensveen. 2010. Designing aesthetics of behavior in interaction: Using aesthetic experience as a mechanism for design. International Journal of Design 4, 2 (2010), 3--13.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Miriam Simun. 2015. Miriam Simun's Agalinis Dreams. (2015). http://streamgallery.gallery/work/miriam-simun/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Regina M Sullivan, Donald A Wilson, Nadine Ravel, and Anne-Marie Mouly. 2015. Olfactory memory networks: from emotional learning to social behaviors. Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience 9 (2015), 36.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Jenny Tillotson. 2009. Scentsory Design: A Holistic Approach to Fashion as a Vehicle to Deliver Emotional Well-being. Fashion Practice 1, 1 (2009), 33--61.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Sissel Tolaas. 2015. The Revolutionary Smell Memory Kit. (2015). http://smellmemorykit.supersense.com/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Oppi Untracht. 2011. Jewelry concepts & technology. Doubleday.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Daan van Nieuwenburg, Jasper HB De Groot, and Monique A Smeets. 2019. The Subtle Signaling Strength of Smells: A Masked Odor Enhances Interpersonal Trust. Frontiers in psychology 10 (2019), 1890.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Carlos Velasco, Marianna Obrist, Olivia Petit, and Charles Spence. 2018. Multisensory technology for flavor augmentation: a mini review. Frontiers in psychology 9 (2018), 26.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Tomoya Yamada, Satoshi Yokoyama, Tomohiro Tanikawa, Koichi Hirota, and Michitaka Hirose. 2006. Wearable olfactory display: Using odor in outdoor environment. In IEEE Virtual Reality Conference (VR 2006). IEEE, 199--206.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Yasuyuki Yanagida. 2008. Olfactory interfaces. HCI Beyond the GUI (2008).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Chuang-Wen You, Ya-Fang Lin, Elle Luo, Hung-Yeh Lin, and Hsin-Liu Cindy Kao. 2019. Understanding social perceptions towards interacting with on-skin interfaces in public. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Symposium on Wearable Computers. ACM, 244--253.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Clint Zeagler. 2017. Where to wear it: functional, technical, and social considerations in on-body location for wearable technology 20 years of designing for wearability. In ISWC. ACM, 150--157.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Dina Marie Zemke and Stowe Shoemaker. 2008. A sociable atmosphere: Ambient scent's effect on social interaction. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 49, 3 (2008), 317--329.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. Dina Marie V Zemke and Stowe Shoemaker. 2007. Scent across a crowded room: Exploring the effect of ambient scent on social interactions. International Journal of Hospitality Management 26, 4 (2007), 927--940.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. On-Face Olfactory Interfaces

    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 '20: Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      April 2020
      10688 pages
      ISBN:9781450367080
      DOI:10.1145/3313831

      Copyright © 2020 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 the author(s) 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: 23 April 2020

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

    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