After establishing that physiological information could become part of a closed-loop system, I needed to think more practically about how that information might actually be collected during an airport journey. Until this point, I had often imagined a smartwatch or wristband because it is the most familiar form of wearable technology, but the research shows that biosensing can take many different physical forms.
This is important for my project because the form of the technology will affect much more than measurement. It will also affect comfort, visibility, movement, sensory tolerance and whether somebody would realistically want to wear it for several hours while travelling.
I looked at Boutros, Kassem and Barteit’s (2025) chapter, Advancements in Wearable Biosensors: Transforming Cardiovascular Health Monitoring and Disease Management. Although the chapter is primarily concerned with cardiovascular monitoring rather than autism or airports, it provides a useful overview of how physiological sensing is moving beyond conventional watches.
The examples include wrist-worn devices, ring-shaped sensors, adhesive patches, skin-adhered electronic tattoos and wearable necklaces. Some systems are designed to remain in close contact with the body for continuous monitoring, while others prioritise flexibility, low visibility or long-term wear.
What I found useful is that the sensor does not have to look like a medical device, and it does not have to take one fixed physical form.
This creates a much wider design space for my project.
Ring-shaped biosensors are interesting because they are small and relatively discreet. A ring could potentially collect physiological information while remaining much less visually dominant than a large wrist device.
However, the fact that something is small does not automatically make it accessible. Rings create questions around pressure, material, fit and tactile sensitivity. For somebody who dislikes jewellery or hard objects touching the body, a ring could be uncomfortable regardless of how technically effective the sensor is.
This is beginning to show me that technical miniaturisation and sensory accessibility are not the same thing.
The chapter also looks at skin-adhered technologies, including flexible electronic tattoos and adhesive patches. These are particularly interesting because the sensing technology can sit much closer to the body and potentially become less visually noticeable.
Flexible and skin-conforming devices could reduce some of the bulk associated with conventional wearables, but they introduce different questions. Adhesives, heat, texture, removal and long periods of skin contact could themselves become sensory issues. A discreet device is therefore not necessarily a comfortable one.
For my project, I need to think about how the body experiences the technology, not only how accurately the technology experiences the body.
Another example discussed in the chapter is a wearable necklace used for continuous physiological monitoring. This was useful because it made me think beyond the wrist entirely.
The airport context makes placement particularly important. A traveller is already carrying bags, using a phone, presenting documents, moving through security and interacting with different environments. A wearable should not introduce another object that constantly needs adjusting or managing.
This suggests that the most successful form may be something that can remain present without demanding attention.