Glowbots: robot-based evolved relationship

Glowbots is a very intriguing project by Mattias Jacobsson, Sara Ljungblad, Johan Bodin and Jeffrey Knurek (Future Applications Lab, Viktoria Institute).

"GlowBots are small wheeled robots that develop complex relationships between each other and with their owners. They develop attractive patterns that are affected both by user interaction and communication between the robots. (...) In the current GlowBots system, when users gently pick up or put their hands around the GlowBots, they react immediately and visibly by producing new patterns on the display. The user can affect the new pattern by actuating the various sensors with sound or light. When the GlowBot is reintroduced to its robot colleauges, it starts to mingle with them and share its new pattern. The other robots are affected by it and start to evolve their own patterns and share them with their neighbors in turn. To observers, the effect is like sowing a seed that spreads among the robot population as they move around."

What is interesting is the way the project has been carried out:

"The project began with a series of interviews with people who have unusual pets. Interview results were dissected into categories and recombined to form distinct, intrinsic clusters of characteristics. These clusters were used as raw material for four personas, one of which revealed real-world attributes of a man who owns an unusual pet: (1) He does not pet his pets, nor is he interested in the pets' distinct personalities, (2) He is interested in breeding his pets to create nice patterns, (3) He enjoys reading about his pets and often meets up with people who have similar pets, to admire or even exchange pets."

Why do I blog this? I am interested in both the methodology and the outcomes. It seems to be very interesting in terms of the robots-ubicomp convergence; very well connected to the notion of history of interactions as an enabler of new relationships to objects.

Out from 2007 to 2020?

Email received yesterday:"I will be out of the office starting 03.05.2007 and will not return until 01.01.2020.

Please note that I am not working at XXXXX since the 3rd of May 2007. You can reach me at : xxxx@newcompany.com"

Digital encounters and its characteristics

No time to read and write stuff lately with this mediamatic workshop but presentations here are very insightful. I manage to dig some papers by Avah Fatah gen. schiek who talked yesterday and was particularly interested in one entitled "Exploring Digital Encounters in the City". The paper is about how to study and support technologically different encounters in an urban environment. The authors are interested in digital and non-digital encounters (I would prefer the term "mediated" and not as an opposition between digital/not-digital) defining them as "an ephemeral form of communication and interaction augmented by technology".

The most interesting part for my work is the one about "consciousness of communication and intention of interaction:

"In our analysis, rather than draw boundaries that specify what is or is not a digital encounter, we chose to provide a map that explores human consciousness and intention orthogonally. These are considered in instances where one party communicates/interacts with another party. Note that this can involve any combination of human or device (...) Our map takes the very simplistic form of Table 1, where at any given instant a human can be conscious or unconscious of the communications taking place, and can carry out interactions intentionally or unintentionally (...) conscious-intentional encounters are the ones that a person initiates, for example seeing a friend on the street and shouting to get their attention. (...) Conscious-unintentional encounters are situations where a person is aware of the communication taking place but does not intentionally interact. Examples of this are when a person is talked to on the street, or is the recipient of a Bluetooth message in a café. "

They also add "synchronicity and duration" as other characteristics to explore. Why do I blog this? even though the distinction they make is more rhetorical than supported by psychological facts (there is a whole literature about these topics), I find it very relevant in the context of urban ubicomp of today. These concepts of consciousness or intentions of interaction are spot on on stuff we are discussing with Julian about offline gaming. The granularity of mediation is certainly of importance here.

Command Line as the future of interface

When asked about the future of interfaces, Donald Norman points towards the command line, as an interesting metaphor:

"What is to replace the GUI? Ah yes, journalists are constantly asking me that question, hoping I will speak of virtual reality implants by which we fly effortlessly through hyperspaces, finding just the items of interest, then immediately packaging and caressing them to do our bidding in reports, diagrams, and instant insights of wisdom. Well, the answer is much simpler, and it's already here: search. The real surprise, though, is that search engines have evolved into answer engines, controlled through a modern form of command line interface. (...) Even though these three services are called search engines, they are in fact becoming answer services controlled through their command line interfaces. The control language seems more ad-hoc than systematic, and the language forms are still spotty and idiosyncratic, but it is nevertheless a form of command line interaction (...) GUIs were—and still are—valuable, but they fail to scale to the demands of today's systems. So now command line interfaces are back again, hiding under the name of search. Now you see them, now you don't. Now you see them again. And they will get better and better with time"

The main reason he mentions for that is flexibility ("They are tolerant of variations, robust, and exhibit slight touches of natural language flexibility"). Why do I blog this? interesting arguments here, this connects to my interest in the past about chatbots/IM interface as a way to interact with objects.

Some quotes from the Mediamatic workshop

Impossible to give a complete picture of the Hybrid World Lab workshop (let's wait to digest stuff and come up with a more articulate summary afterwards). Some bits and pieces, in the form of quotes:

"GPS removed me from my surroundings" Timo Arnall

"from our perspective, I think it's impossible to study how people use the city using technologies like BT, it's a flawed question, how can you know how they use the city? you just follow where they are" Giles Lane

"graffiti, stickers as user generated content in the city" Timo Arnall

"we have to be careful when we design. The user, who is this mythical person?" Giles Lane

"picking up information through visual tags on a cell phone feels like picking up rubbish from the streets" Timo Arnall

"we are ill equipped to deal with urban screens and analyze them" Avah Fatah gen. Schiek

(picture taken by myself of a the nice material we have here)

Asynchronous gaming based on purchases?

(via), World of Warcraft Rewards VISA:

"Earn gametime with card purchase: Accrue World of Warcraft gametime at the rate of 1% of every dollar in qualifying purchases. The World of Warcraft Rewards Visa is the only card that pays you to play.

Why do I blog this? it's a very intriguing connection between activity in the physical space. I won't comment on the socio-cultural implications but it's a clear example of asynchronous activities that are integrated in the game (purchase crap during the day, observe some output/effects back home when you play on the computer.

What's the next step? turn your VISA records into a game? a sort of passive gaming.

"we have stopped building our biggest antennae as monuments"

This Metropolis article is close to some of the elements I presented this morning at the Mediamatic workshop called "Hybrid World Lab". The article basically discusses the visibility of ubiquitous computing, or we'd better say its invisibility that most often the time is caused by the delegation of certain functions to artifacts. Some excerpts I found pertinent:

"the digital world is increasingly operating on our behalf, in physical ways. Cars no longer need keys, and tollbooths no longer require you to stop. (...) Ubiquitous computing “is hard to see literally,” Adam Greenfield writes in Everyware: The Dawning Age of Ubiquitous Computing. “When even a space that is entirely empty may in fact contain—to all intents, may be—a powerful information processing system, we can no longer rely on appearances to guide us.” (...) we’re at this odd historical moment when we’re living mostly—although not quite totally—on the network, but the network is mostly—not quite totally—invisible to us. "

EPFL

The picture above depicts my university, as you can see, it's quite empty. As a matter of fact, this is a whole ubiquitous computing environment with tons of data flowing between these buildings. You have architect researchers sending maps and administration people sending stuff on the wireless network. There are also weather/temperature sensors, vending machines that allows order from cell phones, etc.

Back to the Metropolis article, the following quote about "living on the network" is also interesting:

"It’s only in the last ten years that we have begun to live on the network—if not sitting in front of a computer, eyes locked on the screen and fingers on the keyboard, then with a cell phone by our sides. In the process, we’ve happily given up the barriers to entry, all that “dialing up” and “logging in.” Similarly, the objects we use to access the network are dematerializing, not only in minimalist iPhone-like ways, but also into an invisible network cloud, a phenomenon known as “ubiquitous computing.” Phones, cars, televisions, and credit cards are all communicating among each other more and more, while showing their antennae less and less. Even at the scale of the city, we have stopped building our biggest antennae as monuments, like Toronto’s CN Tower or Seattle’s Space Needle, and instead try to hide them out of sight. "

Indeed, instead people prefer to disguise phone mast as trees. Why do I blog this? I really like this metaphor of shifting from infrastructures as monuments to new practices. It all boils down to the question of visibility: should things be visible to have a clear affordance? should they be visible so that user have "control" on the process? What about the infrastructure? should it be visible too? If not would we need warnings?

As Fabien describes, the presence of infrastructure is important. But it goes beyond the very existence: does the visibility per se have importance in terms of interacting?

visible infrastructure

The picture above has been taken last week-end at CERN... nice "visible infrastructure" architecture in which the tubes (the flows) are clearly visible and people can rely on their orientations to draw inferences about process.

A huge research tool

Visit of the CERN yesterday, had a look at the Atlas experiment: The experiment

... this huge particle detectors that help the observation of the collisions of particule in the Large Hadron Collider (surely one of biggest research tool ever made)... which made me think of this quote:

"Research is best seen as a collective experimentation about what humans and nonhumans together are able to swallow or to withstand. (...) Research is this zone into which humans and nonhumans are thrown, in which has been practiced, over the ages, the most extraordinary collective experiment to distinguish, in real time, between "cosmos" and "unruly shambles" with no one, neither the scientists nor the "science students," knowing in advance what the provisional answer will be. "

Bruno Latour (in Pandora's hope).

Components of Data Collection Matrix

Extracted from "Designing and Conducting Ethnographic Research (Ethnographer's Toolkit , Vol 1)" (LeCompte Margaret Diane):

"Components of Data Collection Matrix 1. Which research question are to be asked 2. Which data will answer those questions 3. Where, and from whom, those data can be obtained 4. In what form the data will be collected 5. Who will be responsible for collecting, analyzing, and writing up the data 6. When each stage of data collection, analysis and report writing will begin and end 7. How, by whom, and to whom results will be disseminated"

The authors recommend to go through these questions and then work out 2 tables: 1) table 1: What do I need to know? Why do I need to know this? What kind of data will answer the question? Where can I find the data? Whom do I contact for access? Timelines for acquisition 2) Table 2: Research Questions / Process Data and Outcome Measures / Sources of Data

Why do I blog this? being in the midst of starting new projects... it's always good to get back to basic references about where to start when you have pending research questions.

Stride over that fence

This might be one of the nastiest device I've seen on the street (apart from barbed wires). I ran across this thing in Paris few weeks ago, not sure about what it's made for but the affordance for me is clear: don't put stuff in that street corner, don't stand there, and inevitably don't pee here. Why nasty? the pointy fences are definitely aggressive.

To me this is a nice metaphor for things such as DRM (digital right management) protections that are supposed to prevent you from doing something but inevitably it's cracked (or you can stride over that fence) and do what you wanted to.

Street furniture hacking

colored street scene A very rich picture that depicts street signs. The blue one in the foreground has been severely damaged but still holds its primary function: 1) show people to go straight at this intersection 2) serve as a support for stickers with hookers' phone numbers (it's an intersection where people have to wait in their cars). The damaged arrows seems to indicate to go straight and make a sort-of backward jumping. In the background, much more classic signage.

These "hooker stickers" are very common in France. More and more stickers are put on this kind of surface because traffic light or other street artifacts have a new "coating" that prevent them from putting sticker on them: Bad surface for stickers

Why do I blog this? just to document some examples of how people re-appropriate street "furnitures" and how others try to prevent them from doing so.

"Locative Gaming for Team Cognition (LoGTCog)

Rogue Signals by Zachary O. Toups, Andruid Kerne, Daniel Caruso, Erin Devoy, Ross Graeber, Kyle Overby seems to be close to the CatchBob project in the sense that the deployment of a location-based game is used to address psychological questions. Some might refer to this as "serious gaming":

"a location-aware game designed to study the effects of information scarcity and tight communication channels on teams engaged in distributed cooperative activity. Our goal is to promote team cognition through serious gaming. (...) It is a platform for experimentation on team dynamics in situations where critical information is scarce and distributed among participants who must communicate through restricted channels. A human team, consisting of a coordinator and a group of harvesters competes against a group of autonomous agents. The game design intentionally constrains the level of information made available to the harvesters, which makes the success of the team dependent on human-to-human communication between the coordinator and the harvesters. The goal is to promote and explore processes of team communication and cognition. Applications include emergency response, as well as social networking and entertainment. "

Some information about it in Rogue Signals: A location aware game for studying the social effects of information bottlenecks, Proc Ubicomp Extended, Sept 2005: Tokyo. Why do I blog this? this "Locative Gaming for Team Cognition (LoGTCog)" initiative is spot on the research we carried out with CatchBob! to study the implications of supporting mutual location-awareness on mobile coordination. This makes me think that there would still be room to pursue my work in that domain, maybe not with CatchBob! but with another platform. A question that is of interest and that I haven't addressed in my dissertation is to what extent the spatial environment shape the activity (individually? collectively?).

DIY robotics

Some excerpts from an article in Scientific American on "Open Source Hardware Makes its Debut in "Robot Internet Mashup". It's about the "Telepresence Robot Kit", a sort of DIY robotic platform developed by a group led by Illah Nourbakhsh (professor of robotics at Carnegie Mellon, University in Pittsburgh).

"TeRK program aims to allow anyone to use it as a control center for just about any robot they can imagine. Initially, though, Qwerk will be used for teaching and for projects that are "just for fun."

Online, TeRK users can access complete parts lists for robot kits that range from easy (think a three-wheeled spybot with a camera that can be controlled from any Web browser, and which can be built in a couple of hours) to ambitious: LeGrand envisions an arm on a Qwerk-powered robot that would allow it to carry out such functions as pressing elevator buttons in order to navigate entire office buildings. All of the software that runs Qwerk is open source, which makes TeRK incredibly flexible in the hands of the technically savvy. (...) "We also want to have people [akin to mechanics who] go under the hood of the car,'' he says. "At all levels we reveal enough of the interior detail so that users can go in and program at the lowest level they want.""

(pictures taken from TeRK website)

Why do I blog this? observing the robotics-ubicomp convergence, the advent of such kits seem to be interesting. Besides, I quite like this DIY, "reveal the interior" concept.

Pondering user-generated content frenziness

An interesting comment by Pete Mortensen on a post by Bruce Nussbaum about the very low number of participation on user-generated content platforms:

"tools that allow people to be designers or broadcasters have been around for years, and they have been niche. What YouTube has done is create a single repository that can find relevant video for virtually any subject you want to know about, and then provided a cross-platform, speedy solution to deliver it. The role of the people posting videos, let alone storing them, is a mechanism to this bigger goal, a place to find the videos you want when you want them. If all the clips were put up by an automated computer, most people wouldn't care.

This is the great myth of Web 2.0, that its revolution has come from people creating things. It has actually changed the Internet by putting people in control of how to measure popularity and identify your own interests. The actual content is generally from professionals. And that's a more sustainable view to take, I think. We don't become creators of entertainment, we become curators for the entertainment of ourselves and others. That's a very different kind of participation."

Why do I blog this? some quotes to be used in a presentation about web2.0, user generated content and how this can of interest to the video game industry. I may not entirely be okay with "The actual content is generally from professionals", the rest of the assertions are interesting. Reminds me of this Guardian article last year: What is the 1% rule which describes that "50% of all Wikipedia article edits are done by 0.7% of users, and more than 70% of all articles have been written by just 1.8% of all users" or that on Yahoo! Groups "1% of the user population might start a group; 10% of the user population might participate actively, and actually author content, whether starting a thread or responding to a thread-in-progress; 100% of the user population benefits from the activities of the above groups"

Although this hard figures are tough, it does not dismiss the "user-generated content" meme (aka craftware), the situation is just different and there are some design opportunities anyway based on these.

Mise-en-scène

Lego+nature(2)

"The most obvious way to create a mise-en-scène to support communication is to gather objects in a space, such a room, where they are simultaneously visible, and where not only the objects themselves but also the spatial relationships among them can assume significance. (...) It operates at an architectural scale when centrality asserts the importance of a building or an entrance relative to others, or a corner office suggests the status of its occupant"

Bill Mitchell, chapter 1 of "Placing Words: Symbols, Space, and the City Why do I blog this? reading this excerpt of Mitchell's book, I just thought it fits with this picture I took this week-end.

Research about "hybrid ecologies"

The Mediamatic workshop about digital/physical hybridization that I attend next week is a great opportunity to start reshuffling my research interests. It's been one month that I started working at the Media and Design Lab at EPFL, starting new projects is a slow process (especially when you don't take vacations right after a phd dissertation) but things are starting to be more clear. My work there is focused on the user experience of gaming; this is very broad given that it encompasses a lot of systems (on-line gaming, gestural interfaces, etc.) but it seems that the projects that emerged can be framed under the "hybridization of the digital and the physical". I won't enter into the details of these nascent projects but the idea is to look at the new user experience created by the merging of multiple environments that you have in pervasive gaming or location-based games. In a sense, it's about using games as a platform to study new interactions. In addition, this connects to my previous work (Phd dissertation here) in the sense that I am interested in multi-user interactions and awareness process: how what people do together in a hybridized world is influenced by specific technologies? how certain design affect collaborative interactions? (Picture by myself, overview of my desk)

My morning read was a smart way to think about some umbrella framework about this hybridization topic: Crabtree, A. and Rodden, T. (2007): "Hybrid ecologies: understanding interaction in emerging digital-physical environments", to appear in the journal Personal and Ubiquitous Computing.

In this paper, the authors pave the way for the investigation of "hybrid ecologies", i.e. a new class of digital ecology that merge multiple environ- ments, physical and digital, together. They provide a starting point about how to analyze cooperative interactions in these environments by highlighting fundamental features of interaction with them: the fragmented nature of interaction, how people articulate collaborative work and seamful representations. They exemplify this using ethnographical vignette form the "Uncle Roy with you" pervasive game.

Historically, as the authors describe, these "hybrid ecologies" correspond to a shift from media spaces (that LINK physical spaces through digital medium), mixed reality environments (that fuse physical and digital environments), ubiquitous computing (that embeds the digital into physical environments) to hybridization (that merges multiple environments physical and digital).

The main lessons from the ethnographic study they carried out are described as follows:

"The development of new computing environments gives rise to new forms of collaboration, not only in terms of how people engage in everyday activities together but also in terms of how they articulate collaboration means that a degree of interactional (including communicative) asymmetry is built into collaboration in hybrid ecologies. (...) Hybrid ecologies rely on the articulation of ‘fragments of embodied virtuality’ or fragmented interaction. (... interaction is distributed across distinct ecologies (...) In hybrid ecologies collaboration is distinctively concerned with the articulation of fragmented interaction. By fragmented interaction we mean that collaboration in hybrid ecologies is mediated by different mechanisms of interaction, which are differentially distributed among participants. (...) There is nothing inherently new about fragmented interaction, then, it inhabits collaboration everywhere as we switch between digital and physical media in course of our everyday activities. What is new, however, is the way in which collaboration is provided for in hybrid ecologies, through the interweaving of hybrid networks and hybrid models of space, and how mechanisms of interaction are articulated in hybrid ecologies. (...) fragmented interaction is articulated in two fun-damental ways in hybrid ecologies: - Through the exercise of ordinary interactional competences. - Through the use of digital representations of action and collaboration in real and virtual environments. "

Why this paper is important for my research? because it gives an overview of some of the topics that might be interesting too look at so that researchers can "unpack the nature of cooperative interaction in hybrid ecologies":

"We propose articulation work, fragmented interaction and seamful representation as core topics (...) Furthermore, understanding how novel interaction mechanisms are articulated across multiple physical and digital ecologies is essential to understanding the collaborative character of emerging physical-digital environments and, thereby, of inform- ing design. (...) The uncovering of articulation work enables developers to determine what may and may not be automated and what may or may not left to human skill and judgement. (...) Understanding interaction in hybrid ecologies will consist, then, of understanding such things as how awareness and coordination ‘get done’"

To put it shortly:

"Fundamentally, understanding cooperative interaction in hybrid ecologies requires us to unpack the fragmented character of interaction, which will consist of uncovering the ordinary interactional competences that users exploit to make differentially distributed mechanisms of interaction work and the distributed practices that articu- late seamful representations and provide for awareness and coordination."

Why do I blog this? this definitely gives some framework to a current project I am working on right now.

The Economist on why you don't have a supa interconnected ubiquitous pervasive world right now

Some quotes from this week issue of The Economist, on ubiquitous computing (which I started bloggin here), I took them from various articles in the special issue. I find that they nicely exemplify common problems with ubiquitous computing and its slow user-adoption:

"Connecting machines requires giving up control to users, observes Tim Whittaker of Cambridge Consultants, which designs wireless systems. In fact, Orange M2M is criticised for trying to prevent customers from working with other operators. Thus even when mobile firms fall in love with M2M, the technology is suffocated by their embrace. Wireless innovation is more likely to come from smaller companies with a computing background. They are beginning to give machines eyes, ears and a voice. (...) Expectations were so high because much of the technology exists already. Yet it is being held back by non-technical factors: the lack of integration among different parts of the industry and the need for companies to change the way they operate. (...) Components from different firms may not work together (...) Mobile network coverage is inconsistent, so relying on just one operator is risky, and for movable things such as vending machines and cars, which may cross national borders, it is unthinkable. (...) The list goes on. Back-office software to manage the system has to work with existing corporate software. Someone has to take care of billing and managing the devices. And as everyone takes their cut, the expense grows. "It is a very long value-chain for people to bring this together," (...) But things have not gone as planned. In Japan, where much has been made of vending machines that accept payment via mobile phones, the vast majority are in fact unconnected. (...) Part of the reason is the sheer difficulty of getting all the relevant businesses together (...) Another question that inhibits take-up, even among those who are interested, is who should pay for the installation"

Why do I blog this? because it's the first time I read in a broader-audience journal (as opposed to tech journal or scientific publications) a so comprehensive and clear overview of the ubiquitous computing problems. The analyses in this special issue are spot-on the main shortcomings: technological messiness, different business models, different regulations, complex situations, etc.

Ultra-fast virtual air hockey

Among all the technologies designed by Spaceman Technologies, the one I found the most curious is this "Ultra-fast virtual air hockey":

"In 2001 Spaceman Technologies developed a large table-top virtual air-hockey platform for up to four players. Incorporating a proprietory ultra-fast velocity-sensitive multitouch touchscreen and a 500+ frames per second high-resolution LED display screen. The touchscreen is capable of tracking players' fast sweeping hand movements. A hand's velocity and point of contact with the virtual 'puck' can therefore be determined. This velocity and position data is factored into the physics of the simulation so that the puck responds in a realistic manner to contact with the players' hands. The high frame rate of the screen ensures that the puck image does not flicker even when moving at high speed across the table - giving an 'analogue' feel to the game."

Why? because it's a sort of hybridization of real and digital artifacts which seems playful. And it's spot on a talk I am working on for next week (need examples to show).

Peripheral awareness of gossips

Exploring Passive Social Wearables with Gossip is a paper written by Eric Gilbert, Matthew Yapchaian and Karrie Karahalios for the CHI2007 workshop "Shared Encounters". The application they describe is a wearable speech interface that take advantage of gossips and display them as a "social awareness":

"People gossip constantly: at the office, over the fence, within families and at happy hour. Consequently, gossip is the spoken script for most face-to-face encounters. (...) Our system, known as Gossip, reacts to users’ everyday talk by displaying a word from the conversation on the wearer’s clothing. We present our system concept and a specific case study involving low-fidelity prototyping sessions. "

They did a wizard-of-oz study to see, some of the verbalizations from the users:

"“I thought they would be distracting, but they weren't. It was funny seeing words that had come up in our conversation.” (...) “It gave me an idea of what I was talking about! Even when I wasn't going to focus on a special subject those words reminded me to get back to that subject.”"

Why do I blog this? reminds me of a project carried out by researchers at the lab I worked previously: Reflect is a noise-sensitive table that displays turn-taking patterns when students work collaboratively (a peripheral perception of the group verbal interaction or on individual contributions represented as lights). Both projects aims at augmenting interactions: the former with semantics, the latter with occurrences of talk.

Thinking by case

Enjoyed reading the critique of Thinking by cases, or: how to put social sciences back the right way up. by Jean-Claude Passeron and Jacques Revel (eds.), Penser par cas, 2005, written by Philippe Lacour. This french book is about "case-thinking"/"case-based reasoning" and sciences, or "the central problem of the humanities: how does one generalize when starting from the description of singular configurations?". The point of the book is to bring together contributions from researchers coming from various discplines "in an effort to endow the “cases” of human sciences with a renewed dignity, in a continuation of the weberian epistemological tradition".

The authors show how "case thinking" proceeds “through the exploration and the deepening of a singularity accessible to observation” to get a description, an explanation, an interpretation or an evaluation to extract out of it an argumentation of a more general scope, and whose conclusions can be used again”. They point out that case making is a matter of occurrence and singularity: a case is not an example.

Why do I blog this? Although the whole article, as well as the book is a rather theoretical rehabilitation of the notion of "case", there are some pertinent elements to draw from it. When it comes to design, the notion of a singular case is important: the mere existence of a case do imply that it might need to be taken into account. Cahour et al. describes an example (sorry no time to translate the french):

"Par exemple, si l’on montre que le sujet décrit avoir vécu des émotions fortes dont on ne perçoit pas de manifestations dans les données observables, alors il devient nécessaire de prendre en considération le fait que les données essentielles pour comprendre une part des interactions peuvent être non observables, et qu’il est possible de les découvrir par des techniques « en première personne », soit du point de vue du sujet (Gouju et al., 2003). Cette conclusion ne relèverait pas des statistiques ou probabilités, mais du savoir que les faits évoqués sont correctement établis. On ne pourra dire si c’est toujours le cas, ou quel type de population ne rend pas manifeste leurs émotions ; néanmoins, ce que l’on aura établi est qu’il est possible, avec le consentement de sujets avertis, d’avoir accès à certaines de leurs émotions qui sont socialement imperceptibles."