Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Antti Pirhonen

dblp:76/5601 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
6ranked-venue papers
2as first author
0since 2021 · last 2017
0000-0003-1701-0734ORCID · corroborated

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 6 · 2 first-authorApplied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
2 papers
Haptics and multimodal interaction · 60% Health and well-being technologies · 18% Interaction techniques and input · 17%
Computer graphics and multimedia
1 paper
Audio and music processing · 100%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Health and well-being technologies › physical activity
physical training
0.012011
Design and evaluation of prosody-based non-speech audio feedback for physical training application · Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 2011
Interaction techniques and input
mobile interaction
0.012002
Gestural and audio metaphors as a means of control for mobile devices · CHI 2002
Usability and user experience research
usability evaluation
0.012002
Gestural and audio metaphors as a means of control for mobile devices · CHI 2002

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

video analysis · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2017 Who Controls Who? Embodied Control Within Human-Technology Choreographies†
abstract
In this paper, we explore issues of embodied control that relate to current and future technologies in which body movements function as an instrument of control. Instead of just seeing ourselves in control, it is time to consider how these technologies actually control our moving bodies and transform our lived spaces. By shifting the focus from devices to choreographies among devices, we perform a theoretical analysis of the multidimensional aspects that reside within embodied interaction with technology. We suggest that it is beneficial to acknowledge and reformulate the phenomena of embodied control that go beyond the instrumental user-to-device control scheme. Drawing upon the phenomenology of the body, ecological psychology and embodied cognitive science, we identify three different dimensions of embodied control: instrumental, experiential and infrastructural. Design implications of this theoretical model are also discussed.
Kai Tuuri, Jaana Parviainen, Antti Pirhonen
Interact. Comput.3
2014 Educational Application Design Process Experiences - Case Perioperative Nursing
Minna Silvennoinen, Antti Pirhonen
CSEDU (1)2
2013 Accessibility of Public Web Services: A Distant Dream?
Kristiina Nurmela, Antti Pirhonen, Airi Salminen
INTERACT (1)2
2011 Design and evaluation of prosody-based non-speech audio feedback for physical training application
Kai Tuuri, Tuomas Eerola, Antti Pirhonen
Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud.3
2005 Supporting a user facing a novel application: learnability in OOBE
Antti Pirhonen
Pers. Ubiquitous Comput.1
2002 Gestural and audio metaphors as a means of control for mobile devices
abstract
This paper discusses the use of gesture and non-speech audio as ways to improve the user interface of a mobile music player. Their key advantages mean that users could use a player without having to look at its controls when on the move. Two very different evaluations of the player took place: one based on a standard usability experiment (comparing the new player to a standard design) and the other a video analysis of the player in use. Both of these showed significant usability improvements for the gesture/audio-based interface over a standard visual/pen-based display. The similarities and differences in the results produced by the two studies are discussed
Antti Pirhonen, Stephen A. Brewster, Christopher Holguin
CHI1