VR was useful because it gave me my first clear example of an environment changing in response to physiological information. However, by this point in the research it no longer makes sense to treat VR as the automatic final outcome.
The more I separate the system into sensing, interpretation and response, the more possible technologies begin to appear. This page is therefore deliberately exploratory. I am not choosing the final output yet. I want to map the wider design landscape before narrowing it.
One of the biggest changes in my thinking is recognising that the input technology and output technology do not have to be the same object.
A wrist device or patch could collect physiological information while support is delivered somewhere else. This immediately opens possibilities beyond an all-in-one wearable.
The system could potentially sense through one object and respond through another, depending on what is most comfortable and useful for the traveller.
This means I should design the system first and decide which technologies belong inside it afterwards.
Audio is interesting because many travellers already use headphones or earphones in airports. This creates the possibility of feedback being integrated into something familiar rather than introducing another visible device.
A system could potentially provide subtle prompts, regulate sound or change the auditory environment around the user. However, this creates a clear contradiction: additional audio may be useful for one person but become another source of sensory demand for somebody who is already sensitive to sound.
Auditory feedback therefore only makes sense if it remains optional and personalised.
Haptic feedback could communicate information through touch without requiring the traveller to look at a screen or listen to another sound.
This could be useful during navigation or moments where visual and auditory attention are already overloaded. However, tactile sensitivity varies significantly, so vibration or pressure could also be unpleasant.
The important point is that haptic does not automatically mean accessible. It is simply another possible channel.
Visual feedback could appear through a phone, wearable display or potentially augmented-reality glasses. This could support information such as orientation, warnings, regulation prompts or changes in the journey.
The benefit is that information can be made clear and structured. The risk is that adding more visual information during an already cognitively demanding moment may increase load rather than reduce it.
My earlier VR research also reminded me that completely immersive headsets may be impractical during live airport navigation. AR or lightweight visual interfaces may preserve more awareness of the real environment, but they still need much more investigation before I could justify them.