Touch and Tangibles – Interacting with fun.tast.tisch. Results of a Study with Non-Target-Group Users Mirjam Augstein Thomas Neumayr UAS Upper Austria UAS Upper Austria Softwarepark 11 Softwarepark 11 4232 Hagenberg, Austria 4232 Hagenberg, Austria mirjam.augstein@fh-hagenberg.at thomas.neumayr@fh-hagenberg.at ABSTRACT tabletop technology for two reasons: physical objects can fun.tast.tisch. is an interactive tabletop system used in neuro- be included in the interaction and it can be used by several rehabilitation. It consists of several exercises to be inter- users concurrently due to the high number of touches recog- acted with by therapists and patients collaboratively. The nized. Both are beneficial for us, as tangible objects facili- user interface combines different interaction paradigms and tate the integration of haptic experience in the therapy pro- tangible objects to facilitate therapeutic concepts. The ac- cess (e.g., to train fine motor skills), and conventional ther- ceptance of the system and its user interface relies on ther- apy sessions involve at least two people. fun.tast.tisch. is a apeutic aspects but also on straightforward interaction, us- joint endeavour of an interdisciplinary team consisting of oc- ability and a positive user experience. A study with non- cupational therapists, software developers, and interaction, target-group users was conducted, first, because earlier stud- graphic and object designers. The target group comprises ies revealed that the target groups are not fully impartial patients but also therapists who are responsible for a main regarding perceived usability/user experience. Second, in- part of the interaction with the system (e.g., they have to teraction combining a touch-based interface with tangible navigate through the User Interface (UI), select the modules elements and system feedback on different sensory channels fitting the patients’ needs, and configure them accordingly). involves usability/UX challenges that should be investigated Patients then have to perform the tasks provided by the re- in a non-critical situation. This paper describes selected spective module and their therapist. Both are intended to fun.tast.tisch. modules, especially those involving tangible work with tangible interaction elements in several modules. objects and summarizes the results of a related study. Most patients working with fun.tast.tisch. suffered acquired brain injury (often caused by stroke or accident) and in- curred cognitive and/or motor impairment. Conventional Categories and Subject Descriptors therapy aims at training, e.g., attention, memory, visuo- H.5.2 [Input devices and strategies]: User Interfaces; spatial abilities or motor skills; thus related therapeutic con- H.5.2 [Interaction styles]: User Interfaces; H.5.2 [User- cepts are the basis for the different fun.tast.tisch. modules centered design]: User Interfaces as well. The development process is accompanied by evalu- ation along different dimensions. First, there have been two longer-term studies in a rehabilitation hospital (see [4, 2]) General Terms that however did not include some of the modules presented Human Factors in this paper by then (e.g., some of the ones involving tan- gible elements). Therapists have been in the focus of usabil- Keywords ity/User Experience (UX) parts of these studies, although the therapists also were asked to assess the applicability for Tabletops, Tangible Objects, Rehabilitation, Evaluation the individual patient’s needs (it was not possible to do an exhaustive evaluation with the patients themselves for ethi- 1. INTRODUCTION cal reasons). Second, there have been numerable evaluation The tabletop system fun.tast.tisch. was developed as a sessions with individual patients accompanied by the ther- supplement to conventional therapy in neuro-rehabilitation apists of the fun.tast.tisch. team. Third, a randomized con- [3, 4] and consists of several modules (14 at the moment) trolled trial was conducted during the second longer-term that train different skills (e.g., attention or motor skills). study in the hospital in order to assess the training’s effect. Samsung SUR40 with Microsoft PixelSense was chosen as The study summarized in this paper had different objec- tives. First, we wanted to test new tangible elements in a non-clinical context. Second, we felt during earlier studies that therapists and patients naturally focus on therapeu- tic aspects (we observed that their perception of usability Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for and UX tends to be biased by issues related to the under- personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are lying therapeutic concepts). Thus, we used a setting with a not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies comparatively high number of non-target-group participants bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third- party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact and tested 7 modules (3 had not been tested in a larger-scale the Owner/Author. Copyright is held by the owner/author(s). study before, 4 involved different tangible objects). TacTT ’14, Nov 16 2014, Dresden, Germany 2. RELATED WORK part of the system that requires it). The system allows for This section provides an overview on related approaches in “sessions” that therapists and patients are assigned to. The the area of virtual rehabilitation, focusing on the integration session information is needed, as the system also provides a of tangible elements. statistics feature. Therapists’ and patients’ registration can De la Guı́a et al. [6] present the rehabilitation system be done using a virtual keyboard, login is however intended TraInAb, based on a tangible UI for cognitive therapy (e.g., to be implemented using tagged cards to be placed on the to train memory skills). TraInAb comprises a set of inter- display. It is also possible to work in an anonymous mode active games close to everyday activities. It is based on a that does not require registration (this however means that mobile device including an NFC reader and involves physical sessions later cannot be associated with the users). For the objects that carry NFC tags to be recognized. therapist’s tasks, the main part of the interaction is via sim- Sharlin et al. [8], [9] focus on spatial tangible UIs and ple touch-based selection. For patients (who usually don’t discuss the Cognitive Cubes tool for assessment of 3D spatial navigate through the settings dialogues but solve exercises), cognitive ability. Cognitive Cubes uses a Lego-like tangible there are two more ways of interacting via touch, a two- UI for the description of a 3D shape (users are shown a shape handed touch, where two different target spots have to be they have to rebuild). The visuo-constructive aspect is also touched at the same time (this is actually relevant for ther- considered by fun.tast.tisch. (see the Tangram module [4]). apists also), and a delayed touch that has to be held for a Rand et al. [7] present an approach to virtual rehabili- longer time to select an object on the screen. The latter tation using Sony PlayStation II EyeToy. Their main tar- was introduced for two main reasons: first, the exercises us- get group are elderly people with disabilities. They describe ing it require the user to purposefully select objects (e.g., three pilot studies conducted with different participants and if multiple objects are available and the user has to choose found out that although healthy elderly participants enjoyed the correct one) and we aimed at preventing a trial and er- using the EyeToy, there are limitations of the technology ror approach where users just wipe over the display or touch when being used by acute stroke patients (e.g., patients who randomly. Second, we wanted to avoid unintended selections sufferend from severe weakness of one body side were frus- with arms or elbows. A delayed touch starts an animation trated because they could not interact well with a system that is finished when the required duration is reached (see that could not adapt to these limitations). Figure 1 – the green circle around the touch position indi- Wilson et al. [11] present the “Elements” system for reha- cates that the delayed touch has been started). bilitation of upper limb function in traumatic brain injury patients. They evaluated patients’ performance but also as- sessed user involvement and satisfaction. The system com- prises an LCD display placed horizontally, a camera track- ing system and tangible objects (threedimensional objects in shape of a cylinder, pentagon, triangle, rectangle). The objects can e.g. be used to be placed on a specified target area which will activate an animation and sound. Alamri et al. [1] describe haptic rehabilitation exercises for poststroke patients. Their framework is targeted towards diagnosis and rehabilitation of patients with hand impair- ments. The framework comprises haptic exercises and in- volves a sensory and a simulation system and a data repos- itory. CyberGrasp [5] (the haptic device used) involves a glove with sensors to read the coordinates of all fingers to Figure 1: Interaction via delayed touch. be able to reconstruct a realistic avatar of the hand in a vir- tual environment, and provides force feedback to the fingers. 3.2 Interaction Using Tangible Objects 3. THE FUN.TAST.TISCH. UI Several fun.tast.tisch. exercises, especially those training fun.tast.tisch. is an interactive tabletop system, thus a ma- motor and spatial skills, benefit from the integration of tan- jor way to interact with the UI is via touch. Our tabletop gible objects (see Section 4 for details). Generally, our UI technology uses an optical display, thus it is also possible to involves two different kinds of tangible elements: first, ob- recognize physical objects placed on the screen. fun.tast.tisch. jects that are recognized via tags, and second, non-tagged involves several tangible elements as interaction with physi- objects that are either recognized by the system based on cal objects is well suitable for e.g., training of motor or spa- their shape or do not require to be recognized. Tagging ob- tial skills. fun.tast.tisch. does not involve further interaction jects is the simplest way to have them recognized, which is with conventional means (such as keyboard or mouse). This why we chose this option in all cases where it was possible. section describes briefly the different interaction modalities. However, some aspects of our interaction design did not al- low for the objects to be tagged, e.g., because some objects 3.1 Touch-Based Interaction need to be flipped over by the patients and be used from The navigation through the main portal, including users’ both sides. We decided not to tag both sides of (flat) objects login and registration, and the selection and initial configu- for aesthetic reasons, and because the semi-transparency of ration of the modules, is done via touch. As entering tex- these objects should be exploited for a certain kind of visual tual information is a bit inconvenient via touch, we aimed at feedback (see Figure 2 [3]). This kind of feedback “high- reducing the amount of necessary textual input to the min- lights” the physical objct by showing a colored area directly imum possible degree (the registration process is the only under it (green color was used to mark a task as correct). Most physical objects were designed for one or more specific ber as much as possible, but to realistically assess one’s own memory ability. A user has to decide how many goods to buy before a digital shopping list displays the goods to be memorized and later picked from a “shop” containing up to 25 goods. The level of difficulty can be individually con- figured by setting the number of goods to be shown in the shop, activating different kinds of distractors or introduc- ing a longer memory span. The main interaction paradigm used here is based on physical objects. Users have to pick the Figure 2: Visual feedback exploiting the character- goods from the shop by placing acrylic glass tagged “shop- istics (semi-transparency) of the object material in ping coins”. The number of coins to be used matches the the Tangram module (see [4]). number of goods to be memorized (3 to 7). A coin placed on a good will make it appear in the user’s digital shopping modules, one can however be used throughout the whole cart, removing the coin will remove the good from the cart. module set to change the level of difficulty on real-time, i.e., Touch-based selection would not have been an option be- during the patient’s interaction. The object has the shape cause the module offers a setting where up to 3 users pick of a cylinder (see a picture in [4]) and is used by therapists goods from a shared shop (see Figure 4). Every user receives only. The purpose behind this kind of interaction was to be individual goods and an own shopping cart; it would not be able to discreetly adapt the difficulty, without discouraging possible to associate a touch with a specific user. The coins patients and without having to interrupt an exercise. can be distinguished by the users based on their color. The The material of all objects was chosen carefully based on module further involves a tangible shopping list for every different considerations. Some physical interaction elements patient the shape of which is inspired by the one of a paper- needed to be semi-transparent, others needed to be fully based notepad. The list is used to re-show the goods in case transparent (e.g., in case the system should not recognize they have been forgotten. A tag under the lower part of the them). The modules that allow for a multi-patient setting object is used to let the system recognize it (the major part needed objects of different patients to be distinguishable, of the object is transparent). When placed on the display, which was solved by different colors. Further, all objects the digital shopping list is re-shown exactly under the trans- needed to be easily clean- and disinfectable, well graspable parent part of the object. The module provides acoustic and (these are domain-specific requirements) and needed to be visual feedback after the task has been solved (i.e., after all solid enough not to break when dropped. After tests with goods have been correctly selected). different kinds of materials, we arrived at i) objects made of acrylic glass, individually designed for fun.tast.tisch., and ii) 3D printed ones. Figure 3 shows the different kinds of physical objects currently used within fun.tast.tisch. Figure 4: Interaction with the Shopping module in the multi-user setting. 4.2 Where’s the Food? Figure 3: The different kinds of objects that are part Where’s the Food? (see a picture in [2]) trains attention of the fun.tast.tisch. user interface. abilities. The user is shown a line transporting food (as common in a running sushi restaurant). The line transports empty plates and plates with food on them. Every time the 4. SELECTED MODULES user notices food, a digital bell has to be rung. The task is This section presents the 7 modules that have been tested solved after the user has “colleted” all food for a complete regarding usability/UX in the study with non-target-group menu. The therapist can decide whether alertness or selec- users. One module (Tangram) has been exhaustively evalu- tive attention should be trained. In the alertness mode, the ated earlier [4] and was not included in the study. line offers empty plates and plates with food only. In the se- lective attention mode, the user has to distinguish between 4.1 Shopping food and non-food objects on plates. Different kinds of dis- This module (see [4] for an early version) aims at training tractors can be activated: acoustic (e.g., restaurant noise), memory functions. It is not the primary goal to remem- visual (e.g., random objects on the line), and animated (e.g., a digital fly moving around the table) ones. The user re- can decide how many perspectives should be generated and ceives acoustic and animated feedback if a plate with food which one should be asked from the user. The module can is missed. After all food has been collected, the user receives be used with two different sets of objects: simple (e.g., a a picture of the complete menu and acoustic feedback. pyramid, made of acrylic glass) and complex (e.g., a house, 3D-printed) ones. All objects are tagged to be recognized by the system. We consider this (and the following) module a successful fusion of physical elements and a digital world. Figure 5: The module “Window Washing” with physical cleaning element fixed to the user’s hand. 4.3 Window Washing Window Washing (see Figure 5) trains motor skills. The table shows a picture covered with digital dirt that has to be “wiped free” by the user. The therapist can choose between three picture sizes (depending on the user’s reachable screen areas). The patient uses a physical object (or alternatively a common towel) that can be fixed with his/her hand to wipe away the dirt (as shown in Figure 5). The object is trans- parent because it should not be recognized by the system (the dirt is removed based on the shape of the user’s hand). 4.4 Match the Pairs Figure 6: The modules Spatial Cognition (simple ob- This module (see Figure 1) displays to the user a num- jects) and Spatial Construction (complex objects). ber of filled colored circles, two of each color. This module uses two-handed and delayed touch (see Section 3.1). The user has to find the two circles belonging together and touch 4.7 Spatial Construction them (one with each hand) at the same time, which will This module (see Figure 6) trains spatial construction make them disappear. The process has to be repeated until skills. The therapist places a set of physical objects on a no circles remain. The therapist can set the number of pairs certain area of the display, the patient then has to rebuild that should be displayed and choose whether to use the col- the setting with a second set of identical objects. The ther- ored circles or pictograms. If the user cannot use both hands, apist receives an overlay picture generated by the system the module can be configured to be operated with one hand showing the footprints of both sets of objects and can de- only (via delayed touch, the two items have to be touched cide how well the patient has solved the task. The module one after the other within a certain time span). uses the same objects as the Spatial Cognition module, thus 4.5 Spot the Difference the therapist can choose between simple and complex ones. Spot the Difference [2] is used to train cognitive skills and presents to the user two photorealistic pictures that differ 5. STUDY from each other in a fixed number of details. The user must This section describes the general aims and setup of the find these differences and mark them in the picture by de- study, the applied method and participants. layed touch. The therapist can set the level of complexity and decide which of the two pictures should be the origi- 5.1 Aims and Participants nal and which should be the one containing the “mistakes” It was our aim to evaluate selected modules along general (depending, e.g., on the impaired side of the user). usability and UX related dimensions, intentedly not specific to the domain of neuro-rehabilitation. 85 probands partici- 4.6 Spatial Cognition pated (39 male, 44 female, 2 unknown). They were between This module (see Figure 6) trains spatial cognition skills. 10 and 54 years old (x = 21.87). Most of them showed The therapist places a set of physical objects on the display, high affinity towards technology, 89% stated to own a smart the table then generates different up to 4 three-dimensional phone and 88% to be experienced with touch devices and use models that show the objects from different perspectives them on a daily basis (11 had little or no experience). They (the patient has to choose the correct one). The therapist participated voluntarily during a university open house. 5.2 Method and handy”. The only negative description was “a bit too We followed a task-based user test approach. The tasks small”. 8 of 14 found the shape and properties of the ob- to be done by the participants aimed at covering all pos- jects in Spatial Cognition “very good”, 4 “good”. Regarding sible user interactions, including use of tangible objects. Spatial Construction, all patients and all but one therapists Every participant did one or more tasks and answered a declared that they knew how they had to place objects on web-based questionnaire afterwards. The questionnaire con- the table and all but one liked the shape and material. tained about 230 questions in total, however, the partici- In order to identify potential safety issues, participants pants received a personalized set of questions (in most cases e.g., were asked whether anything unexpected occurred dur- between 30 and 50) based on the modules they tested. As ing the training. The results show a higher number of un- fun.tast.tisch. is designed for therapy settings, we split up expected events mainly in the Shopping module. However, the tasks into subtasks for therapists and for patients. Each the main situation participants described as “unexpected” task required a setting with one participant to take over was the “distraction” game that started between memorizing the therapist’s role and at least one “patient”. We aimed goods and picking them from the shop in order to increase at getting an overview on the perceived usability and UX the memory span. Although this behavior was of course of the whole UI, but also specific to each of the evaluated unexpected for first time users, it is desired. In summary, modules. In total, we received results for 166 role/module we identified minor safety issues most of which originate in combinations: 16 “therapists” and 25 ”patients” for the Shop- technical issues that partly have been solved meanwhile. ping module, 7 “therapists” and 7 ”patients” for Where’s the The utility criterion is concerned with the individual user Food?, 9 “therapists” and 13 ”patients” for Window Washing, (and his/her ability to use a system in the ways he/she wants 9 “therapists” and 11 ”patients” for Match the Pairs, 6 “ther- to). Accordingly, we asked utility questions in cases where a apists” and 9 ”patients” for Spot the Difference, 14 “thera- task could be performed in more than one way. E.g., at the pists” and 18 ”patients” for Spatial Cognition, and 9 “thera- Shopping module, users might have forgotten goods they pists” and 12 ”patients” for Spatial Construction. Based on should have memorized. From a utility perspective, it is the classification of usability-related criteria by [10], the fol- of interest if the system provides sufficient means to help lowing criteria were used for the evaluation of usability: ef- the user achieve the task. 5 of 25 patients made use of fectiveness, safety, utility, and learnability. Concerning UX the physical shopping list and all of them stated that they we relied on the following attributes that can be used to understood how it could be used. However, 2 participants describe a system [10]: “satisfying”, “enjoyable”, “fun”, “en- initially placed the physical list on the table upside-down. tertaining”, “helpful”, “motivating”, “aesthetically pleasing”, Another utility example is the therapist’s menu: all exercises “supportive of creativity”, and “emotionally fulfilling”. can be ended by using this menu that is not intended to be operated by patients. We also had to make sure this 6. FINDINGS menu is not activated unintendedly (as it is located near the therapist’s sitting position). Thus, users have to perform a This section provides a concise overview on the study’s two-handed touch (on two corners of the table) to activate it. results, mainly related to interaction. 7 of 9 therapists knew how to use the menu at the Window 6.1 Usability Washing module, 8 of 9 at Match the Pairs, 11 of 14 at Spatial Cognition, and 7 of 9 at Spatial Construction. The effectiveness of the system was partly investigated Regarding learnability, we aimed at finding out how fast by asking whether the cooperation between (fictitious) ther- the participants understood how the exercises worked. With apist and patient(s) worked well, which most participants only few exceptions, all therapists and patients stated to unanimously affirmed. For therapists, other questions dealt have understood how the exercise worked “very fast (was with control of the workflow, e.g., related to starting/pausing self-explanatory)” or “fast” for all modules. No participant modules or changing settings (e.g., the level of difficulty). selected “very slow (was confusing)” or “slow”. Further, we Most cases where problems were reported were related to asked how well participants got along with the overall system insufficient task descriptions (not relevant for application in (navigation, etc.) to find out how fast they could work with real settings) and minor UI issues (like e.g., a misleading it after a relatively short period of time. On a scale from button label). Patients’ questions were related to the exer- “very well” (1) to “very badly” (5) , 35 patients rated 1, 20 cises themsevles, e.g., whether selecting or moving elements chose 2, 4 chose 3, 1 chose 4 and 0 chose 5. 26 therapists worked well. The delayed touch interaction that turned out rated 1, 17 chose 2, 3 chose 3, 0 chose 4 or 5. to be critical in earlier tests worked and was understood well. Summarizing usability-related findings, no critical usabil- Nevertheless, this kind of interaction must be explained be- ity threats but a number of smaller issues were identified. forehand as it is still not fully intuitive, although we tried The interaction with tangible objects was perceived excep- to design the animation to indicate that the touch needs to tionally positive although most required a short introduction be held for a longer time.We asked patients if the different on how they should be used to interact with the system. Af- perspectives in Spatial Cognition were clearly recognizable, ter the introduction, there were no complaints about han- i.e., differ sufficiently (17 of 25 found this to be “very good” dling the objects or understanding how they should be used. or “good’). Regarding the handling of the physical objects we found out that participants liked them and understood how they should be used well. At the Shopping module, all 6.2 User Experience but one of 25 patients stated to have known how to use the Regarding UX, participants had to describe how well four coins. 23 of 25 found the shape of the coins and proper- of the aforementioned UX adjectives described the interac- ties of the material “very good” or “good”. The coins were tion with the system at the module level. They were asked e.g., described as follows: “perfect size”, “easy to handle”, whether they found the module to be “fun”, “entertaining”, “easy to grasp”, “funny”, “fits well in the hand”, “compact “motivating” and/or “aesthetically pleasing” (each on a 5- item Likert-scale). We used this reduced set of adjectives 8. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS because not all of the other adjectives would have matched fun.tast.tisch. acknowledges financial support within the all kinds of exercises. Another aspect evaluated at the mod- COIN (Cooperation and Innovation) program, managed by ule level was the perception of feedback. Patients were asked the Austrian Research Promotion Agency, funded by the whether they noticed feedback and if so, if they understood Federal Ministry for Transport, Innovation and Technology it and to what extent they perceived it as “motivating”. The and the Federal Ministry of Economy, Family and Youth. results revealed that in all modules the system’s feedback Project partners are LIFEtool, ARTGROUP, UAS for Health was perceived as (very) motivating by the majority of the Professions Upper Austria, UAS Upper Austria, Irene Schacherl- participants (16 of 19, 6 of 7, 9 of 9, 5 of 6, 6 of 7, 12 of 14 and Hofer, softaware gmbh and TRANSPARENT DESIGN. 10 of 10). Additionally, both groups were asked how they perceived the overall interaction with fun.tast.tisch., using a 9. REFERENCES larger set of adjectives. As shown in Figure 7, the attribute [1] A. Alamri, M. Eid, R. Iglesias, S. Shirmohammadi, “fun” was most often (by 63) fully agreed with (additionally, and A. El Saddik. Haptic virtual rehabilitation no participant selected “disagree” or “fully disagree”). Given exercises for poststroke diagnosis. IEEE Transactions the study was conducted with non-target-group users, this on Instrumentation and Measurement, 57(9), 2008. is a highly desirable outcome. Other studies have already [2] M. Augstein and T. Neumayr. Challenges and shown that for the actual target group, mainly patients, the opportunities of fun.tast.tisch. in interactive system is perceived as motivating and helpful. Non-target- rehabilitation settings. Accepted at CmIS 2014. group users are naturally less in need of motivation for ther- [3] M. Augstein, T. Neumayr, R. Ruckser-Scherb, apeutic exercises and might thus have rated attributes like I. Karlhuber, and J. Altmann. The fun.tast.tisch. “satisfying”, “motivating” or “helpful” less important. project – a novel approach to neuro-rehabilitation using an interactive multiuser multitouch tabletop. In Proceedings of the 2013 ACM International Conference on Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces, pages 81–90, St. Andrews, United Kingdom, 2013. [4] M. Augstein, T. Neumayr, and I. Schacherl-Hofer. The usability of a tabletop application for neuro-rehabilitation from therapists’ point of view. Accepted at ITS 2014. [5] CyberGlove Systems. CyberGrasp, 2014. http://www.cyberglovesystems.com/all-products, last access: August 26th, 2014. [6] E. de la Guiá, M. D. Lozana, and V. M. Penichet. Tangible user interfaces applied to cognitive therapies. In Proceedings of IUI 2014 Workshop: Interacting with Figure 7: All adjectives to describe the overall in- Smart Objects, Haifa, Israel, 2014. teraction with fun.tast.tisch. as rated by the partic- [7] D. Rand, R. Kizony, and P. L. Weiss. Virtual reality ipants (fully agree (1) to fully disagree (5)). rehabilitation for all: Vivid gx versus sony playstation 2 eyetoy. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference: Disability, Virtual Reality, and Associated Technologies, Oxford, United Kingdom, 2004. 7. DISCUSSION AND FUTURE WORK [8] E. Sharlin, Y. Itoh, B. Watson, Y. Kitamura, S. Sutphen, and L. Liu. Cognitive cubes: a tangible We have described the different interaction paradigms of user interface for cognitive assessment. In Proceedings fun.tast.tisch. and selected modules and presented the re- of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in sults of a study conducted to evaluate the usability and Computing Systems (CHI02), pages 347–354, UX with non-target-group users. Even though we inten- Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA, 2002. tionally excluded the actual target groups from this study, they play the most important role in the overall evaluation of [9] E. Sharlin, Y. Itoh, B. Watson, Y. Kitamura, fun.tast.tisch. The system has been repeatedly tested with S. Sutphen, L. Liu, and F. Kishino. Spatial Tanbile real users, e.g., in longer-term evaluations at a rehabilitation User Interfaces for Cognitive Assessment and hospital [4]. As summarized in Section 6, only minor usabil- Training. In Biologically Inspired Approaches to ity issues were identified and the UX was predominantly Advanced Information Technology: First International described as positive. The physical objects were accepted Workshop, BioADIT 2004, 2004. exceptionally well, although most kinds of non-obvious in- [10] H. Sharp, Y. Rogers, and J. Preece. Interaction teraction (i.e., interaction most people are not used to, ac- Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction. John cording to their experience with other touch-based devices) Wiley & Sons, 2nd edition, January 2007. required a short introduction before it was understood. As [11] P. H. Wilson, N. Mumford, J. Duckworth, P. Thomas, fun.tast.tisch. is used in a domain where detailed instruc- D. Shum, and G. Williams. Virtual rehabilitation of tions are provided for therapists before they actually use the upper-limb function in traumatic brain injury: A system (and patients are instructed by their therapist), this mixed-approach evaluation of the elements system. In does not pose a major problem. Until late 2014, additional Proceedings of the International Conference on Virtual modules (partly involving new tangibles) will be added. Rehabilitation 2011, Zurich, Switzerland, 2011.