BreatheWithMe: Exploring Visual and Vibrotactile Displays for Social Breath Awareness during Colocated, Collaborative Tasks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sharing breathing signals has the capacity to provide insights into hidden experiences and enhance interpersonal communication. However, it remains unclear how the modality of breath signals (visual, haptic) is socially interpreted during collaborative tasks. In this mixed-methods study, we design and evaluate BreatheWithMe, a prototype for real-time sharing and receiving of breathing signals through visual, vibrotactile, or visual-vibrotactile modalities. In a within-subjects study (15 pairs), we investigated the effects of modality on breathing synchrony, social presence, and overall user experience. Key findings showed: (a) there were no significant effects of visualization modality on breathing synchrony, only on deliberate music-driven synchronization; (b) visual modality was preferred over vibrotactile feedback, despite no differences across social presence dimensions; (c) BreatheWithMe was perceived to be an insightful window into others, however included data exposure and social acceptability concerns. We contribute insights into the design of multi-modal real-time breathing visualization systems for colocated, collaborative tasks.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".