© 2025 SURF
This qualitative research note reports two neglected themes in research on virtual reality tourism experiences, i.e. its potentially addictive nature and temporary sense of isolation. Existing work on virtual reality tourism experiences has applied existing knowledge and theories and has solely tested how VR applications can positively mediate or moderate the tourist experience. This study adopted an inductive approach, analyzing contents of reviews and blogs, and consequently uncovered a temporary sense of isolation and the addictive nature of virtual reality as hidden themes within virtual reality tourism experiences. We stress the importance of further work on addiction and a sense of isolation in terms of their nature, role, and effects
DOCUMENT
To evaluate a broad variety of technology already present in the houses of older persons, and to discover factors encouraging and discouraging the purchase and use of these devices.
DOCUMENT
Frontiers are usually zones of trafficking, and the moving boundaries of knowledge are no exception. There you may encounter the weird and adorable creatures known as paradoxes. One of my favorites is the sorites paradox, or ‘paradox of the heap’.
MULTIFILE
Background:Current technology innovations, such as wearables, have caused surprising reactions and feelings of deep connection to devices. Some researchers are calling mobile and wearable technologies cognitive prostheses, which are intrinsically connected to individuals as if they are part of the body, similar to a physical prosthesis. Additionally, while several studies have been performed on the phenomenology of receiving and wearing a physical prosthesis, it is unknown whether similar subjective experiences arise with technology.Objective:In one of the first qualitative studies to track wearables in a longitudinal investigation, we explore whether a wearable can be embodied similar to a physical prosthesis. We hoped to gain insights and compare the phases of embodiment (ie, initial adjustment to the prosthesis) and the psychological responses (ie, accept the prosthesis as part of their body) between wearables and limb prostheses. This approach allowed us to find out whether this pattern was part of a cyclical (ie, period of different usage intensity) or asymptotic (ie, abandonment of the technology) pattern.Methods:We adapted a limb prosthesis methodological framework to be applied to wearables and conducted semistructured interviews over a span of several months to assess if, how, and to what extent individuals come to embody wearables similar to prosthetic devices. Twelve individuals wore fitness trackers for 9 months, during which time interviews were conducted in the following three phases: after 3 months, after 6 months, and at the end of the study after 9 months. A deductive thematic analysis based on Murray’s work was combined with an inductive approach in which new themes were discovered.Results:Overall, the individuals experienced technology embodiment similar to limb embodiment in terms of adjustment, wearability, awareness, and body extension. Furthermore, we discovered two additional themes of engagement/reengagement and comparison to another device or person. Interestingly, many participants experienced a rarely reported phenomenon in longitudinal studies where the feedback from the device was counterintuitive to their own beliefs. This created a blurring of self-perception and a dilemma of “whom” to believe, the machine or one’s self.Conclusions:There are many similarities between the embodiment of a limb prosthesis and a wearable. The large overlap between limb and wearable embodiment would suggest that insights from physical prostheses can be applied to wearables and vice versa. This is especially interesting as we are seeing the traditionally “dumb” body prosthesis becoming smarter and thus a natural merging of technology and body. Future longitudinal studies could focus on the dilemma people might experience of whether to believe the information of the device over their own thoughts and feelings. These studies might take into account constructs, such as technology reliance, autonomy, and levels of self-awareness.
DOCUMENT
The Dutch research project “Wijs met techniek” (Tech-Wise) explores ethics education from a tool-based, practical perspective. Especially if and how practical tools for ethical deliberation on the impact of technology can be helpful in ethics education for engineering students. The approach is first intended as a variation on theories in ethics and technology. Secondly, the approach uses a focus on the impact of technology as a way toward ethical deliberation. Both characteristics are intended to better appeal to engineering students. In the project we cover three levels of higher education: a University, a University of Applied Sciences and a School for Vocational Training. Together we are developing and testing a suite of activating working methods that can be tailored to various engineering programmes. A first result of this is the simple workshop format “ethics for engineers”, consisting of five steps with four effective ingredients. In this paper we present the general format of this workshop and dive in particular into a specific instance of the workshop called “Wonderberries”. The experiences from the workshop show that with a carefully chosen combination of engaging orientation, a specific ‘technology’ and a concrete design exercise the ethical questions and subsequent deliberation and reflection can be very rich.
MULTIFILE
Despite assumptions that wearable self-care technologies such as smart wristbands and smart watches help users to monitor and self-manage health in daily life, adherence rates are often quite low. In an effort to better understand what determines adherence to wearable self-care technologies, researchers have started to consider the extent to which a technology is perceived as being part of the user (i.e., technology embodiment) and the extent to which users feel they can influence reaching their health goals (i.e., empowerment). Although both concepts are assumed to determine adherence, few studies have empirically validated their influence. Furthermore, the relationships between technology embodiment, empowerment, and adherence to wearable self-care technology have also not been addressed. Drawing upon embodied theory and embodiment cognition theory, this research paper introduces and empirically validates ‘embodied empowerment’ as a predictor of adherence to wearable self-care technology. Using partial least squares structural equation modeling and multigroup analysis on a dataset of 317 wearable self-care technology users, we find empirical evidence of the validity of embodied empowerment as a determinant of adherence. We also discuss the implications for research and practice.
DOCUMENT
This study aims to help professionals in the field of running and running-related technology (i.e., sports watches and smartphone applications) to address the needs of runners. It investigates the various runner types—in terms of their attitudes, interests, and opinions (AIOs) with regard to running—and studies how they differ in the technology they use. Data used in this study were drawn from the standardized online Eindhoven Running Survey 2016 (ERS2016). In total, 3723 participants completed the questionnaire. Principal component analysis and cluster analysis were used to identify the different running types, and crosstabs obtained insights into the use of technology between different typologies. Based on the AIOs, four distinct runner types were identified: casual individual, social competitive, individual competitive, and devoted runners. Subsequently, we related the types to their use of sports watches and apps. Our results show a difference in the kinds of technology used by different runner types. Differentiation between types of runners can be useful for health professionals, policymakers involved in public health, engineers, and trainers or coaches to adapt their services to specific segments, in order to make use of the full potential of running-related systems to support runners to stay active and injury-free and contribute to a healthy lifestyle.
DOCUMENT
The “Creating Age-friendly Communities: Housing and Technology” publication presents contemporary, innovative, and insightful narratives, debates, and frameworks based on an international collection of papers from scholars spanning the fields of gerontology, social sciences, architecture, computer science, and gerontechnology. This extensive collection of papers aims to move the narrative and debates forward in this interdisciplinary field of age-friendly cities and communities. (This book is a reprint of the Special Issue Creating Age-friendly Communities: Housing and Technology that was published in Healthcare)
MULTIFILE
![Creating age-friendly communities: Housing and technology [book]](https://publinova-harvester-content-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/thumbnails/files/previews/pdf/20250506132407955076.b97102b7-5bdc-4b75-a293-4281df36ef73-thumbnail-400x300.png)
Since the emergence of modern man some 200,000 years ago, people and technologyhave been inextricably linked to each other. However, unlike traditional technology -such as leverage (and derivative applications such as hammers, wheels and crankshafts),and control of fire - smart technology is equipped with adaptive capacity. Whereas intraditional technology people have to think and handle in terms of technology in orderto apply technology successfully and purposefully, technology with, for example, itsown learning ability adapts to humans. This means that smart technology influencesdevelopment in a different way than traditional technology. Changes in the relationship between human development (brain) and smarttechnology - technology with its own learning capacity and adaptability - have led tothe articulation of 4 requirements technology should meet: 1. it must be sustainable, 2. it must not block development and if it does it must be clear how, 3. there must bea logical argument why the technique can be used and how it can be explained, also in terms of psychological development and, finally, 4. the social and ethical discoursemust be stated in a transparent way. At a fast pace, futurologists and management gurus are presenting “theories” abouthow smart technology will change us permanently as individuals. Requirements 1(sustainability) and 2 (technology influencing human development) are at stake here.However, these ideas cannot be substantiated by scientific research. Psychology(and the other social and human sciences) have not yet been able to generate a convincing interpretation of what is going on in the area of brain and technology (living technology). In fact, there is a need for argumentation. In order to arrive at an argument-based psychology, insight into the non-linearityof processes is indispensable. The Brain & Technology research group is exploring the great possibilities to bridge the distance between people and their limitations by using smart technology, or possibilities, especially when it comes to argument based applied psychology! In this document, mainly the argument requirement is considered, because in the rapidly changing technological processes, the argument often does not sufficiently develop and the argument lies pre-eminently at the level of applied psychology, brain and technology.
MULTIFILE
