Intercorporeal Design: Dissolving Self-Other Dualism in Interaction Design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Historically, technology and interaction design evolved from an information-processing paradigm of the human mind rooted in mind-body dualism. Technologies for social interaction followed a sender-receiver model, mediating the decoding of messages between sender and receiver. Dissolving mind-body dualism, Embodied Interaction and Somatic Turn in HCI offered a paradigmatic shift, prioritizing the role of our acting and sensing bodies in the interaction. We extend this move by proposing Intercorporeal Design. Intercorporeal Design dissolves not only mind-body dualism but also self-other dualism, guiding us to design holistically for the dynamic co-experienced interaction encompassing multiple bodies and their shared environment. We suggest three provisional design pillars that could help realize intercorporeal design: closing the action-perception loop, designing for the felt experience, and considering human bodies as a design material. Finally, we review selected examples of intercorporeal designs to illustrate how this design stance can be embodied in interaction design artifacts. Intercorporeal design is an evolving design stance, which could allow us to dissolve self-other boundary and invite harmonious experiences of interbodily resonance.
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 | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".