skip to main content
10.1145/3573382.3616100acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pageschi-playConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open Access

Digitally-Induced Altered States of Consciousness and Playful HCI: Future Research Agenda of a Novel Perspective

Published:06 October 2023Publication History

ABSTRACT

Due to the increasing availability and efficiency of digital technologies humanity has reached a point where digitally altering consciousness might become ubiquitous, echoing in all areas of the functioning of society. In addition to the already familiar functions in terms of conveying information, enabling experiences, and extending our realities, there is an emerging field of digitally-induced altered states of consciousness (DIAL). Precursors of the societal impact of DIAL technologies include various examples from binaural beats to video games that provide invaluable insights into forthcoming DIAL technologies.

Although individual changes in consciousness through digital means have been studied for decades, they have been limited to the reach of technology. We suggest the field DIAL denotes the class of all digital technologies exploited for inducing altered states of consciousness (ASC). It supports a focused and holistic approach to anticipating futures and astute actions. We highlight the need for a detailed and full-fledged examination by demonstrating existing and hypothetical examples of their impact on Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Environmental and Legal (PESTEL) contexts. Based on these reflections we outline a potential research agenda to elicit discussions within the interdisciplinary community.

References

  1. Susanne Albers. 2010. Energy-efficient algorithms. Commun. ACM 53, 5 (2010), 86–96. https://doi.org/10.1145/1735223.1735245Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Anna Alexandersson and Viktorija Kalonaityte. 2018. Playing to dissent: The aesthetics and politics of playful office design. Organization Studies 39, 2-3 (2018), 297–317. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840617717545Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Denholm J Aspy, Paul Delfabbro, Michael Proeve, and Philip Mohr. 2017. Reality testing and the mnemonic induction of lucid dreams: Findings from the national Australian lucid dream induction study.Dreaming 27, 3 (2017), 206. https://doi.org/10.1037/drm0000059Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Jessica Austin. 2022. “I suppose I’ll be patching you up, as usual”: Women’s roles and normative femininity in a team-based video game. New Media & Society 24, 5 (2022), 1116–1132. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820972396Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Domna Banakou, Parasuram D Hanumanthu, and Mel Slater. 2016. Virtual embodiment of white people in a black virtual body leads to a sustained reduction in their implicit racial bias. Frontiers in human neuroscience (2016), 601. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00601Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Monica J Barratt, Alexia Maddox, Naomi Smith, Jenny L Davis, Lachlan Goold, Adam R Winstock, and Jason A Ferris. 2022. Who uses digital drugs? An international survey of ‘binaural beat’consumers. Drug and Alcohol Review 41, 5 (2022), 1126–1130. https://doi.org/10.1111/dar.13464Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Frances Bell, Gordon Fletcher, Anita Greenhill, Marie Griffiths, and Rachel McLean. 2013. Science fiction prototypes: Visionary technology narratives between futures. Futures 50 (2013), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2013.04.004Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Sara Belloli, Sara Porro, Vikram Singh Virk, Roberta Etzi, Alberto Gallace, Monica Bordegoni, Marina Carulli, 2020. The Kandinsky experience: A multisensory augmented reality application for cultural heritage. Computer-aided design and applications 18, 4 (2020), 799–814. https://doi.org/10.14733/cadaps.2021.799-814Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Pierre Bourdin, Itxaso Barberia, Ramon Oliva, and Mel Slater. 2017. A virtual out-of-body experience reduces fear of death. PloS one 12, 1 (2017), e0169343. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169343Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Mayer Brezis. 2008. Big pharma and health care: unsolvable conflict of interests between private enterprise and public health. Israel Journal of Psychiatry and Related Sciences 45, 2 (2008), 83.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Melinda CR Burgess, Karen E Dill, S Paul Stermer, Stephen R Burgess, and Brian P Brown. 2011. Playing with prejudice: The prevalence and consequences of racial stereotypes in video games. Media Psychology 14, 3 (2011), 289–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2011.596467Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Oğuz’Oz’ Buruk, Oğuzhan Özcan, Gökçe Elif Baykal, Tilbe Göksun, Selçuk Acar, Güler Akduman, Mehmet Aydın Baytaş, Ceylan Beşevli, Joe Best, Aykut Coşkun, 2020. Children in 2077: Designing children’s technologies in the age of transhumanism. In Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3334480.3381821Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Oğuz’Oz’ Buruk, Mikko Salminen, Nannan Xi, Timo Nummenmaa, and Juho Hamari. 2021. Towards the next generation of gaming wearables. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445785Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Heidi A Campbell and Giulia Evolvi. 2020. Contextualizing current digital religion research on emerging technologies. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies 2, 1 (2020), 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.149Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Alice Chirico, Francesco Ferrise, Lorenzo Cordella, and Andrea Gaggioli. 2018. Designing awe in virtual reality: An experimental study. Frontiers in psychology 8 (2018), 2351. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02351Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Yoram Chisik, Anton Nijholt, Ben Schouten, and Mattia Thibault. 2022. Urban Play and the Playable City: A Critical Perspective. Frontiers in Computer Science 3 (2022), 137. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomp.2021.806494Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Younguk Cho, Sanghoon Park, Juyoung Lee, and Ki Jun Yu. 2021. Emerging materials and technologies with applications in flexible neural implants: a comprehensive review of current issues with neural devices. Advanced Materials 33, 47 (2021), 2005786. https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.202005786Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Susan Clayton. 2020. Climate anxiety: Psychological responses to climate change. Journal of anxiety disorders 74 (2020), 102263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2020.102263Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Samantha L Cohen, Marom Bikson, Bashar W Badran, and Mark S George. 2022. A visual and narrative timeline of US FDA milestones for Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) devices. Brain Stimulation: Basic, Translational, and Clinical Research in Neuromodulation 15, 1 (2022), 73–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2021.11.010Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Katie Connolly. 2010. Can ’digital drugs’ get you high?Retrieved August 17, 2023 from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-10668480Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Deepshikha Dash. 2019. An overview of futures research for designers. Research into Design for a Connected World: Proceedings of ICoRD 2019 Volume 1 (2019), 111–121. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-5974-3_10Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Angelica B Ortiz de Gortari and Mark D Griffiths. 2015. Game Transfer Phenomena and its associated factors: An exploratory empirical online survey study. Computers in Human behavior 51 (2015), 195–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.060Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Tainá Carla Freitas de Macêdo, Glescikelly Herminia Ferreira, Katie Moraes de Almondes, Roumen Kirov, and Sérgio Arthuro Mota-Rolim. 2019. My dream, my rules: can lucid dreaming treat nightmares?Frontiers in Psychology 10 (2019), 2618. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02618Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Marketa Dolejsova, Denisa Kera, Cristiano Storni, Rohit Ashok Khot, Ivan John Clement, Inka Pavelka, and Puneet Kishor. 2017. Digital health & self-experimentation: design challenges & provocations. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI conference extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems. 510–517. https://doi.org/10.1145/3027063.3027071Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Benjamin D Douglas and Markus Brauer. 2021. Gamification to prevent climate change: A review of games and apps for sustainability. Current opinion in psychology 42 (2021), 89–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.04.008Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Heiko Drewes, Evelyn Müller, Sylvia Rothe, and Heinrich Hussmann. 2021. Gaze-Based Interaction for Interactive Storytelling in VR. In Augmented Reality, Virtual Reality, and Computer Graphics: 8th International Conference, AVR 2021, Virtual Event, September 7–10, 2021, Proceedings 8. Springer, 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87595-4_8Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Marwa M Fawzi and Farah A Mansouri. 2017. Awareness on digital drugs abuse and its applied prevention among healthcare practitioners in KSA. Arab Journal of Forensic Sciences & Forensic Medicine 1, 6 (2017), 625–633. https://doi.org/10.26735/16586794.2017.002Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Christopher J Ferguson. 2014. Violent video games, mass shootings, and the Supreme Court: Lessons for the legal community in the wake of recent free speech cases and mass shootings. New Criminal Law Review 17, 4 (2014), 553–586. https://doi.org/10.1525/nclr.2014.17.4.553Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Julian Frommel, Claudia Schrader, and Michael Weber. 2018. Towards emotion-based adaptive games: Emotion recognition via input and performance features. In Proceedings of the 2018 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play. 173–185. https://doi.org/10.1145/3242671.3242672Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Alberto Giaretta. 2022. Security and Privacy in Virtual Reality–A Literature Survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.00208 (2022). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2205.00208Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. David R Glowacki, Rhoslyn Roebuck Williams, Mark D Wonnacott, Olivia M Maynard, Rachel Freire, James E Pike, and Mike Chatziapostolou. 2022. Group VR experiences can produce ego attenuation and connectedness comparable to psychedelics. Scientific Reports 12, 1 (2022), 8995. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-12637-zGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. David R Glowacki, Mark D Wonnacott, Rachel Freire, Becca R Glowacki, Ella M Gale, James E Pike, Tiu de Haan, Mike Chatziapostolou, and Oussama Metatla. 2020. Isness: using multi-person VR to design peak mystical type experiences comparable to psychedelics. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376649Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Isabela Granic, Adam Lobel, and Rutger CME Engels. 2014. The benefits of playing video games.American psychologist 69, 1 (2014), 66. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034857Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Katharina Gsöllpointner. 2015. Digital synesthesia: The merge of perceiving and conceiving. Cyborgian Images: The Moving Image between Apparatus and Body, Darmstadt: Büchner Verlag (2015), 108–33.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. J Tuomas Harviainen, Ari Haasio, and Lasse Hämäläinen. 2020. Drug traders on a local dark web marketplace. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Academic Mindtrek. 20–26. https://doi.org/10.1145/3377290.3377293Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Christina Hassler, Tim Boretius, and Thomas Stieglitz. 2011. Polymers for neural implants. Journal of Polymer Science Part B: Polymer Physics 49, 1 (2011), 18–33. https://doi.org/10.1002/polb.22169Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Sirkka Heinonen and Joni Karjalainen. 2019. Pioneer analysis as a futures research method for analysing transformations. Anticipation, Agency and Complexity (2019), 61–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03623-2_5Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Elina Hiltunen. 2020. Wild Cards and Weak Signals. The Knowledge Base of Futures Studies 2020 (2020), 171–184.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Fruzsina Iszáj, Mark D Griffiths, and Zsolt Demetrovics. 2017. Creativity and psychoactive substance use: A systematic review. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction 15 (2017), 1135–1149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-016-9709-8Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Sangwon Jung, Oğuz’Oz Buruk, and Juho Hamari. 2022. Altered States of Consciousness in Human-Computer Interaction: A Review. In Nordic Human-Computer Interaction Conference. 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3546155.3546667Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Karl Kristjan Kaup, Madis Vasser, Kadi Tulver, Mari Munk, Juhan Pikamäe, and Jaan Aru. 2023. Psychedelic replications in virtual reality and their potential as a therapeutic instrument: an open-label feasibility study. Frontiers in Psychiatry 14 (2023), 1088896. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1198103Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. Hannes Kettner, Sam Gandy, Eline CHM Haijen, and Robin L Carhart-Harris. 2019. From egoism to ecoism: Psychedelics increase nature relatedness in a state-mediated and context-dependent manner. International journal of environmental research and public health 16, 24 (2019), 5147. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16245147Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. Alexandra Kitson, Steve DiPaola, and Bernhard E Riecke. 2019. Lucid Loop: a virtual deep learning biofeedback system for lucid dreaming practice. In Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290607.3312952Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Alexandra Kitson, Thecla Schiphorst, and Bernhard E Riecke. 2018. Are you dreaming? a phenomenological study on understanding lucid dreams as a tool for introspection in virtual reality. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173917Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Jonna Koivisto and Juho Hamari. 2019. The rise of motivational information systems: A review of gamification research. International Journal of Information Management 45 (2019), 191–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.10.013Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Ilkka Kosunen, Mikko Salminen, Simo Järvelä, Antti Ruonala, Niklas Ravaja, and Giulio Jacucci. 2016. RelaWorld: neuroadaptive and immersive virtual reality meditation system. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. 208–217. https://doi.org/10.1145/2856767.2856796Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Kim PC Kuypers, Livia Ng, David Erritzoe, Gitte M Knudsen, Charles D Nichols, David E Nichols, Luca Pani, Anaïs Soula, and David Nutt. 2019. Microdosing psychedelics: More questions than answers? An overview and suggestions for future research. Journal of Psychopharmacology 33, 9 (2019), 1039–1057. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269881119857204Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. Jennifer Kuzma, Jordan Paradise, Gurumurthy Ramachandran, Jee-Ae Kim, Adam Kokotovich, and Susan M Wolf. 2020. An Integrated Approach to Oversight Assessment for Emerging Technologies. In Emerging Technologies: Ethics, Law and Governance. Routledge, 249–271. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01086.xGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. Mark A Lemley. 2013. Software patents and the return of functional claiming. Wis. L. Rev. (2013), 905. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2117302Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  50. Pinyao Liu, Ekaterina R Stepanova, Alexandra Kitson, Thecla Schiphorst, and Bernhard E Riecke. 2022. Virtual Transcendent Dream: Empowering People through Embodied Flying in Virtual Reality. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3517677Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. Joseph Macey, Mikko Cantell, Tommi Tossavainen, Antti Karjala, and Sari Castrén. 2022. How can the potential harms of loot boxes be minimised?: Proposals for understanding and addressing issues at a national level. Journal of behavioral addictions (2022). https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.2022.00016Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  52. Joseph Macey and Brian McCauley. 2021. Mind Games. In Reading» Black Mirror «. transcript Verlag, 69–86. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783839452325-004Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  53. Donald MacKenzie and Judy Wajcman. 1999. The social shaping of technology. Open university press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Michael Madary and Thomas K Metzinger. 2016. Real virtuality: A code of ethical conduct. Recommendations for good scientific practice and the consumers of VR-technology. Frontiers in Robotics and AI (2016), 3. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2016.00003Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  55. Laura U Marks, Joseph Clark, Jason Livingston, Denise Oleksijczuk, and Lucas Hilderbrand. 2020. Streaming media’s environmental impact. Media+ Environment 2, 1 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1525/001c.17242Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  56. G Alan Marlatt. 1996. Harm reduction: Come as you are. Addictive behaviors 21, 6 (1996), 779–788. https://doi.org/10.1016/0306-4603(96)00042-1Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  57. Calvin Mercer, Tracy J Trothen, and Ron Cole-Turner. 2021. Religion and the Technological Future. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62359-3Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  58. Torill Elvira Mortensen. 2018. Anger, fear, and games: The long event of# GamerGate. Games and Culture 13, 8 (2018), 787–806. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412016640408Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  59. Blagovesta Nikolova. 2021. The Science Fiction-Futures Studies Dialogue: Some Avenues for Further Exchange. Journal of Futures Studies 25, 3 (2021), 93–98. https://doi.org/10.6531/JFS.202103_25(3).0009Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  60. Jeff Noon. 1993. Vurt (1st ed.). Ringpull Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. Eduard Oró, Victor Depoorter, Albert Garcia, and Jaume Salom. 2015. Energy efficiency and renewable energy integration in data centres. Strategies and modelling review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 42 (2015), 429–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.10.035Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  62. John Patsavellas and Konstantinos Salonitis. 2019. The carbon footprint of manufacturing digitalization: Critical literature review and future research agenda. Procedia Cirp 81 (2019), 1354–1359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2019.04.026Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  63. Ana Pont, Antonio Robles, and Jose A Gil. 2019. e-WASTE: everything an ICT scientist and developer should know. IEEE Access 7 (2019), 169614–169635. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2955008Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  64. Ruchika Shaurya Prakash, Stephanie Fountain-Zaragoza, Megan Fisher, Oyetunde Gbadeyan, Rebecca Andridge, Janice Kiecolt-Glaser, Heena R Manglani, Elizabeth J Duraney, Anita Shankar, Michael R McKenna, 2022. Protocol for a randomized controlled trial of mindfulness-based stress reduction to improve attentional control in older adults (HealthyAgers trial). BMC geriatrics 22, 1 (2022), 666. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-022-03334-7Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  65. Laurie Pycroft, John Stein, and Tipu Aziz. 2018. Deep brain stimulation: An overview of history, methods, and future developments. Brain and neuroscience advances 2 (2018), 2398212818816017. https://doi.org/10.1177/2398212818816017Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  66. Amala Rajan, Asma Hashim, Vishwesh Akre, Halima Walid, Nasser Nassiri, and Muna Ahmed. 2018. The Impacts of Binaural Beats. In 2018 Fifth HCT Information Technology Trends (ITT). IEEE, 353–357. https://doi.org/10.1109/CTIT.2018.8649538Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  67. NITANK Rastogi and MK Trivedi. 2016. PESTLE technique–a tool to identify external risks in construction projects. International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) 3, 1 (2016), 384–388.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  68. Rabindra Ratan, David Beyea, Benjamin J Li, and Luis Graciano. 2020. Avatar characteristics induce users’ behavioral conformity with small-to-medium effect sizes: a meta-analysis of the proteus effect. Media Psychology 23, 5 (2020), 651–675. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2019.1623698Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  69. Susan A Reedijk, Anne Bolders, and Bernhard Hommel. 2013. The impact of binaural beats on creativity. Frontiers in human neuroscience 7 (2013), 786. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00786Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  70. Antti Revonsuo, Sakari Kallio, and Pilleriin Sikka. 2009. What is an altered state of consciousness?Philosophical Psychology 22, 2 (2009), 187–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515080902802850Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  71. Florent Robert, Hui-Yin Wu, Lucile Sassatelli, Stephen Ramanoël, Auriane Gros, and Marco Winckler. 2023. An Integrated Framework for Understanding Multimodal Embodied Experiences in Interactive Virtual Reality. In Interactive Media Experiences, IMX 2023, Nantes, France, June 12–15, 2022. ACM.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  72. Bonnie Ruberg. 2019. Video games have always been queer. NYU Press. https://doi.org/10.18574/nyu/9781479893904.001.0001Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  73. Mikko Salminen, Simo Järvelä, Antti Ruonala, Janne Timonen, Kristiina Mannermaa, Niklas Ravaja, and Giulio Jacucci. 2018. Bio-adaptive social VR to evoke affective interdependence: DYNECOM. In 23rd international conference on intelligent user interfaces. 73–77. https://doi.org/10.1145/3172944.3172991Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  74. Pawankumar Sharma and Bibhu Dash. 2022. The digital carbon footprint: Threat to an environmentally sustainable future. International Journal of Computer Science & Information Technology (IJCSIT) Vol 14 (2022). https://doi.org/10.5121/ijcsit.2022.14302Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  75. Jing Shi, Michelle Colder Carras, Marc N Potenza, and Nigel E Turner. 2021. A perspective on age restrictions and other harm reduction approaches targeting youth online gambling, considering convergences of gambling and videogaming. Frontiers in Psychiatry 11 (2021), 601712. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2020.601712Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  76. Mel Slater, Solène Neyret, Tania Johnston, Guillermo Iruretagoyena, Mercè Álvarez de la Campa Crespo, Miquel Alabèrnia-Segura, Bernhard Spanlang, and Guillem Feixas. 2019. An experimental study of a virtual reality counselling paradigm using embodied self-dialogue. Scientific reports 9, 1 (2019), 10903. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-46877-3Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  77. Lucy A Sparrow, Madeleine Antonellos, Martin Gibbs, and Michael Arnold. 2020. From “Silly” to “Scumbag”: Reddit discussion of a case of groping in a virtual reality game. In Proceedings of the 2020 DiGRA International Conference: Play Everywhere, The Digital Games Research Association.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  78. Yvette Tan. 2017. Chinese schools are scaring kids off drugs with psychedelic VR simulations. Retrieved August 17, 2023 from https://mashable.com/article/china-drugs-vr#: :text=The%20kids%2C%20who%20donned%20a,on%20many%20of%20the%20kidsGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  79. Charles T Tart. 1969. Altered states of consciousness. Wiley, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  80. Mattia Thibault, Oğuz’Oz’ Buruk, Seda Suman Buruk, and Juho Hamari. 2020. Transurbanism: Smart cities for transhumans. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference. 1915–1928. https://doi.org/10.1145/3357236.3395523Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  81. Jan Van Dijk. 2020. The digital divide. John Wiley & Sons.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  82. Gabriel Alves Mendes Vasiljevic and Leonardo Cunha De Miranda. 2020. Brain–computer interface games based on consumer-grade EEG Devices: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction 36, 2 (2020), 105–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2019.1612213Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  83. Quan-Jing Wang, Gen-Fu Feng, Yin E Chen, Jun Wen, and Chun-Ping Chang. 2019. The impacts of government ideology on innovation: What are the main implications?Research policy 48, 5 (2019), 1232–1247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.12.009Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  84. Qi Yang, Shuo Feng, Tianlin Zhao, and Saleh Kalantari. 2023. Co-Design with Myself: A Brain-Computer Interface Design Tool that Predicts Live Emotion to Enhance Metacognitive Monitoring of Designers. In Extended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544549.3585701Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  85. Ali K Yetisen. 2018. Biohacking. Trends in biotechnology 36, 8 (2018), 744–747.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  86. Ihsan Yüksel. 2012. Developing a multi-criteria decision making model for PESTEL analysis. International Journal of Business and Management 7, 24 (2012), 52. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v7n24p52Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Digitally-Induced Altered States of Consciousness and Playful HCI: Future Research Agenda of a Novel Perspective

                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
                • Article Metrics

                  • Downloads (Last 12 months)402
                  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)70

                  Other Metrics

                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