Paper #3: Implanted User Interfaces

        For my second paper review, I reviewed Implanted User Interfaces, a paper co-authored by Christian Holz, Tovi Grossman, George Fitzmaurice, and Anne Agur. This paper was presented at CHI 2012 in Austin, TX and a full list of this paper's references can be found here under the 'References' tab.

Author Bios:

• Christian Holz (His personal website)
• Tovi Grossman (His personal website)
• George Fitzmaurice (University of Toronto webpage)
• Anne Agur (University of Toronto webpage)

TL;DR (Summary):

        The team researched small interface devices that are implanted underneath the user's skin. 

They discuss the implications of making a user interface available to the user at all times and the four core challenges that came with it. These challenges include: how to sense input through the skin, how to produce output, how to communicate amongst one another and with external infrastructure, and how to keep the device powered. They studied a device surgically implanted into a human arm and found that interfaces worked through the skin. Then, they discussed the method they proposed to implant their device, the medical implications of implanting such a device, and how they tested it with artificial skin made of silicon in order to avoid medical complications on the test subjects. 

Artificial skin made of silicon

The paper concludes that implantable devices are technologically viable and are the way of the future.

Related Works Not Referenced:

1. US Patent No. 5,724,985 - Talks about a device used to communicate with implanted medical devices. Relevant to this paper's technology, but used for medical purposes only.
2. US Patent No. 6,358,202 B1 - Talks about a network interface device implanted in a person in order to control artificial organs and dispense medications. Relevant to this paper's technology as it could very easily be implemented to extend the usefulness of this device.
3. US Patent No. 2010/0185182 A1 - Talks about an implantable device that monitors and dispenses spinal fluids. Not very relevant to this paper's technology as it only deals with a medical problem.
4. User Interface for Segmented Neurostimulation Leads- Talks about a device used to interface with a neurostimulator that is implanted in a person's head. Somewhat relevant as this paper's technology could be re-tooled to hooked up to a person's brain and used to control a device, but has no effect on it's current state.
5. US Patent No. 2010/0268296 A1 - Talks about a programmable device to interface with and control a heart implant. Not very relevant to this paper's technology because it interfaces in reverse.
6. US Patent No. 7,486,184 B2 - Talks about a coaxial antennae being used to facilitate an interface between an implanted medical device and a computer. Relevant only in design. This paper's device communicates using Bluetooth rather than coaxial antennae.
7. US Patent No. 2011/0172564 A1 - Talks about a user interface device that is implanted and transmits the user's posture and physiological state in real time. Not particularly relevant to this paper's technology, but could be implemented in future devices.
8. User Interface System for use with Multipolar Pacing Leads - Talks about a user interface for an electrode array implanted in a person that can be used to control an ambulatory medical device. Not particularly relevant to this paper's technology, but could be implemented in future devices to help users control their mobile device.
9. US Patent No. 2010/010584 A1 - Talks about an implanted device that records and transmits user's posture. Not particularly relevant to this paper's technology, but could be implemented in future devices.
10. US Patent No. 7,668,599 B2 - Talks about an implanted eye prosthetic that can be controlled with an interface. Not particularly relevant, but this paper's technology could be implemented in an eye or other prosthetic in the future.

Evaluation:

        The team evaluated their device objectively and quantitatively by testing it on a single subject to research the viability of this particular implantable device and possibly future such devices. They tested the system by part, testing the inputs and sensors both under the skin and outside the skin and comparing the two to determine the limitations and possible compensations for each input/output device on their own to determine the viability of each piece inside the body. With only a single test subject, this study is more of a proof of concept for this device and is meant to be a basis for furthering research. There are many implantable medical devices that are similar to this, but this idea is novel because it is used for non-medical use, particularly with mobile devices.

Discussion:

        Implantable devices, in my opinion, are the way of the future. This paper was a very interesting read and I hope that these findings will further or spark future research into the field. As long as the implanted devices are small enough, comfortable enough, and cheap enough, I think people will be more than willing to have a device implanted in their arm.