READ / RESEARCH · BIOADAPTIVE VR AND PERSONALISED FEEDBACK
<aside>
This book brings together research about virtual, augmented and mixed reality. The four chapters I read explore how virtual experiences could respond to body signals, how people understand that feedback, and how researchers assess relaxation.
</aside>
I read these chapters to explore what happens after a wearable collects physiological data. For my project, sensing needs to lead to something useful: a response that the person understands, can choose and can adjust. Although these studies focus on VR, several of their principles could inform a wider wearable system.
The most useful chapter was MATE-VR, a proposed system for supporting stress regulation in isolated environments such as Antarctic research stations. Its structure connects collecting body signals, interpreting changes and adapting the experience. It describes a system under development, so I am using it as a design framework rather than evidence of a proven intervention.
My sticky notes focused on three proposed responses (Muñoz et al., 2026, p. 348).
Environmental modulation means adjusting visual complexity, movement, lighting and sound. This helped me think about how support could change the sensory demands of an experience. Within an airport, my project would have limited control over the surrounding environment, but it could adjust the feedback delivered through a personal wearable.
Pacing and task demand means changing the speed or difficulty of an interaction. For my project, this raises questions about whether guidance could become shorter, slower or less frequent when someone needs more processing time. This would need careful testing: additional instructions could themselves become another demand.
Biofeedback representation means communicating physiological changes through subtle cues. This could help someone notice a change without repeatedly checking a screen. The design challenge is deciding what that cue means and how much information it should communicate.
<aside> 💡
A cue that tells someone their signals have changed serves a different purpose from a response intended to help them regulate. my project needs to make that distinction clear.
</aside>
The breathing-exercise chapter showed why the meaning of feedback cannot be assumed. In a study involving 62 participants, changes in colour and weather were interpreted differently. Weather with sound was often preferred, but people did not consistently agree on whether particular weather changes represented a positive or negative state (Moser et al., 2026, pp. 325, 333).
For my project, this suggests that a designer’s idea of “calming” needs to be tested with users. A sound, rhythm or visual change could feel reassuring to one person and unpleasant to another.
The study used predefined visual changes rather than live physiological feedback. Its contribution is therefore about how feedback is perceived, rather than demonstrating that a working bioresponsive system reduces stress.
Another note I made was about the Empatica E4 wrist wearable. The multisensory study used it to record electrodermal activity, heart rate and skin temperature alongside gaze and interaction data. This provided a practical example of a wearable supplying information to a separate experience (Yi and Kang, 2026, p. 421).
Participants showed different physiological responses to the sensory elements they attended to. Combining gaze and physical interaction data also produced stronger predictive relationships with physiological measures than gaze alone. However, this was an exploratory study with only eleven participants, and its findings do not establish a reliable method of identifying autistic sensory overload.
The useful principle is to investigate patterns within the individual. MATE-VR similarly proposes using personal baselines, accounting for movement and pausing adaptation when signals are unreliable.