# Mixed-Ability Human-Swarm Interaction | Plasmatic Multitudes Source: https://mesmerprism.com/plasmatic-multitudes/mixed-ability-hsi.html Canonical HTML: https://mesmerprism.com/plasmatic-multitudes/mixed-ability-hsi.html Generated: 2026-06-13 Description: A Plasmatic Multitudes research track on shared visual swarm bodies, mixed-ability collaboration, access-practice mapping, connectedness-first exploration, encounter, cooperative play, and later physical translation. Markdown: https://mesmerprism.com/plasmatic-multitudes/mixed-ability-hsi.md Plain text: https://mesmerprism.com/plasmatic-multitudes/mixed-ability-hsi.txt BibTeX references: https://mesmerprism.com/plasmatic-multitudes/mixed-ability-hsi.bib CSL JSON references: https://mesmerprism.com/plasmatic-multitudes/mixed-ability-hsi.references.csl.json --- Mixed-ability HSI | Updated June 12, 2026 # Mixed-Ability Human-Swarm Interaction Shared agency through many-part bodies Imagine four people sharing a swarm body. It is not a humanoid avatar and not a single cursor. It is a moving cloud of many visible parts: particles, points, fields, light, aura, or small agents that gather, stretch, pulse, split, hide, reveal, and recover. Each person can affect the body differently. One participant might use breath to soften the edge. One might use text to name a goal. One might use a controller to seed a movement field. One might use a switch to pause or veto a high-intensity state. ## Plain terms Swarm Many small parts whose local behavior creates a larger pattern. HSI Human-swarm interaction: a research inheritance for studying how people influence many coordinated parts at once. Plasmatic swarm body A reversible visual body made from particles, fields, aura, light, or animated matter. Mapping The link between a participant's action and what changes in the swarm. Sensor envelope The range of signals a person, device, or swarm agent can perceive and act through. Access practice A lived technique, device, rhythm, support relation, or refusal that already carries skill and meaning. Agency Who can affect what, and whether others can understand that influence. Mixed-ability Different bodies, devices, energy levels, sensory tolerances, communication styles, privacy needs, and willingness to disclose. ## Core question Can a mixed-ability group understand, rebalance, and repair how agency is distributed through a many-part body? This is a design and research-program page, not a therapeutic claim. It asks how contribution, privacy, fatigue, authorship, veto power, and repair can become legible to a group inside a reversible swarm body, before the work is asked to support task performance or physical deployment. ## Thesis Most swarm interfaces ask how a person controls many parts. This page asks what happens when several differently situated people share influence over those parts. The swarm is not only something to control; it is a shared object through which pacing, visibility, authorship, and repair become negotiable. ## Design stance Begin with a reversible visual swarm body, where mappings can be seen, changed, hidden, paused, or repaired. Use encounter and cooperative play to test those mappings under relation, goals, roles, pressure, and conflict. Treat physical deployment as a later translation problem, not the starting premise. The page moves in four steps. First, it explains why a swarm can read as a body at all: a many-part presence held together by coherent dynamics, not sealed skin. Second, it asks what mixed-ability access changes when several people shape those dynamics. Third, it maps access practice into channels, bindings, dynamic targets, feedback, social contracts, and provenance. Fourth, it proposes a staged study path and separates later translation horizons from the first visual swarm-body study. ## How a swarm becomes a body Before asking how a mixed-ability group shares a swarm body, the page has to explain why a swarm can read as a body at all. The body in this page is not a humanoid avatar with a particle effect attached. It is closer to a murmuration, aura, constellation, cloud, flock, crowd, or field that can still be read as one presence. Its bodyhood comes from dynamics: common motion, density, rhythm, response, resistance, return, and repeated transformation. A swarm body does not need a sealed surface to be embodied. It needs coherence. If motion, rhythm, density, and response bind the parts together, the body can remain legible while its edges soften, leak, split, or merge. This is the Plasmatic Multitudes argument applied to mixed-ability interaction: weakly bounded bodies can become embodied when their dynamics are legible enough to support agency, trust, and relation ([Plasmatic essay](https://mesmerprism.com/plasmatic-multitudes/essay.html#opening); [Plasmatic design rules](https://mesmerprism.com/plasmatic-multitudes/essay.html#design)) . Coherence ### Something remains recognizable A rhythm, density core, motion signature, contour, or response pattern lets the body return after change. Permeability ### The edge changes state The body can gather, loosen, merge, split, hide, shield, saturate, rest, repair, or re-form. Relation ### Dynamics carry agency The body matters when it mediates attention, pacing, distance, touch metaphor, co-presence, or group control. ### How swarm bodies stay legible Do not ask softness to carry identity by itself. A swarm body needs at least one stable carrier: a rhythm that persists, a density core that reforms, a motion signature that remains recognizable, a color-temperature relation, a recurrent response pattern, or a return path after disturbance. Permeability should be stateful, not decorative. A swarm body should not merely look fuzzy. It should move between meaningful states: gathered, porous, merged, dispersed, shielded, hidden, saturated, resting, repairing, or re-forming. The same soft boundary might read as rest, vulnerability, privacy, overload, aura, intimacy, refusal, or repair depending on pacing, invitation, symbolic frame, and who controls it. This is why physics-like behavior matters even before any physical deployment is considered. The swarm can be impossible, but it should not be arbitrary. It can glow, stretch, split, or pour through itself, but the transformation needs timing, force, inertia, delay, rebound, resistance, or recovery. These cues make the body feel like a world with rules rather than a screensaver ([Gilland](https://archive.org/details/elemental-magic/page/n2/mode/1up); [Plasmatic design rules](https://mesmerprism.com/plasmatic-multitudes/essay.html#design)) . Glowacki's work makes this more than an animation analogy. His molecular-physics and art-science lineage runs from danceroom Spectroscopy and Hidden Fields , where people act as energy fields inside real-time atomic dynamics, into Isness and Clear Light , where light-body abstraction becomes a social and phenomenological medium. His 2024 aesthetics paper explicitly frames physics as a resource for weakly representational bodies: energy is diffuse, luminous, unbounded, and open to coalescence in ways that ordinary material bodies are not ([Glowacki](https://doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2023.1286950); [Mitchell et al.](https://doi.org/10.1162/LEON_a_00924); [Hidden Fields](https://www.intangiblerealitieslab.org/projects/hidden-fields)) . Legibility grammar In the first study, "soften the boundary" can mean a visible delay: particles lag, stretch, and recover so the group can read effort, pacing, and relation. Deep dive: how weakly bounded bodies stay legible Weakly bounded bodies do not become embodied by becoming vague. They need grouping cues, common motion, response, and recurrent structure. A body can lose surface closure if it keeps a stable carrier such as a density core, rhythm, motion signature, or contingent response pattern. This is why plasmatic design treats permeability as a state machine rather than a shader. The body gathers, disperses, merges, splits, protects, reveals, hides, and repairs as meaningful state changes. ### Protean dynamics: appearance is not enough Avatar embodiment is not only about appearance. It is also about what a virtual body lets someone do. A small physical action can become a large virtual transformation; a pause can become a visible state; a breath can become boundary softness; a switch can become collective repair. In a swarm body, movement grammar carries agency. Deep dive: Proteus effect and protean kinematics Avatar research often explains embodiment through transformed self-representation. The Proteus effect is useful here because virtual bodies can influence conduct and self-perception: Stanford's VHIL summary describes studies where avatar height and attractiveness affected behavior in online and later face-to-face contexts ([Yee, Bailenson, and Ducheneaut, Proteus effect](https://vhil.stanford.edu/publications/avatars-and-agents/proteus-effect-implications-transformed-digital-self-representation)) . Swarm bodies need a movement-based extension of that idea. Jeong, Kim, Xu, and Miller call this Protean kinematics: an expansion from avatar appearance toward movement-based effects and the blend of physical inputs with virtual outputs. That is exactly the design space of a plasmatic swarm body ([Jeong et al., Protean Kinematics](https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.705170)) . In this page, the avatar is not a fixed body with a different appearance. It is a dynamic body whose movement grammar carries agency. The participant's relation to the body comes from how it moves, responds, waits, resists, and returns. Implementation note: authored emergence A swarm body is not just "emergence." It is authored emergence. Flocking, particles, crowd solvers, and morphogenetic systems become usable when they are shaped by fields, guide curves, zones, triggers, rhythms, constraints, repair rules, and levels of detail. Mixed-ability HSI needs the same middle layer: enough local autonomy to feel alive, enough authoring structure to stay legible and negotiable ([Computational morphogenesis](https://mesmerprism.com/plasmatic-multitudes/essay.html#morphogenesis); [Reynolds](https://www.red3d.com/cwr/steer/); [SideFX crowd docs](https://www.sidefx.com/docs/houdini/crowds/basics.html)) . ## The access problem Once the swarm body is understood as a dynamic shared body, mixed-ability access becomes a question of who gets to shape which dynamics. The issue is not whether every participant can use the same controller. It is whether each participant can shape the body in a way that is voluntary, sustainable, meaningful, visible when desired, private when needed, and repairable when it fails. Access becomes concrete when the group decides who can affect density, rhythm, boundary, visibility, pacing, repair, and veto. Those are not cosmetic parameters. They are the social structure of the shared body. A shared swarm body makes that negotiation visible. One person might shape density, another rhythm, another boundary softness, another repair logic, another visibility, and another the timing of when the body acts at all. The swarm is not only something to control; it is a shared object through which access politics become inspectable. Evidence: access theory and XR accessibility Access is also the right to reshape what the interface thinks a body is. Crip Sensorama makes that especially clear for XR: default headset, controller, hand-gesture, vision, and dexterity assumptions quietly define an imagined user before accessibility is added. Mixed-ability HSI has to make that imagined user visible before it can design a fair swarm body ([Jain, Crip Sensorama gesture process](https://jainpuneet798.github.io/portfolio/cripgestures/); [Jain and Bayerlein, Hand to Mouth, 2026](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-025-00494-9)) . Mixed-ability collaboration cannot be reduced to one accessible controller or one adaptive interface. Ability-based design argues that systems should adapt to what people can and want to do, while interdependence work emphasizes that access is often produced between people, technologies, environments, and care relations ([Wobbrock et al.](https://doi.org/10.1145/1952383.1952384); [Bennett et al.](https://doi.org/10.1145/3234695.3236348)) . Mixed-ability therefore includes disability, chronic illness, pain and fatigue variation, neurodivergence, sensory tolerance, mobility variation, communication preference, temporary impairment, and different willingness to disclose. The design question is not whether each person has the same channel. It is whether the group can understand, contest, rebalance, and trust how agency is distributed. Disability and remote-VR research also warn against treating presence as a single default mode. Disclosure, sensory load, avatar presentation, recruitment, travel, fatigue, pacing, and asynchronous contribution can all change whether participation is actually available. W3C's XR Accessibility User Requirements similarly emphasize multimodal support, input/output synchronization, customization, motion-agnostic interaction, captions, alternatives, and time limits. A virtual-first HSI study should therefore support non-HMD modes from the beginning: desktop, browser, projection, tablet, captions, audio description, reduced motion, seated use, asynchronous annotation, and facilitator-mediated input ([Mottelson et al.](https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.11207); [Zhang et al.](https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.11170); [Gualano et al.](https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.08193); [W3C XR Accessibility User Requirements](https://www.w3.org/TR/xaur/)) . Deep dive: sensor envelopes and overlapping umwelten A mixed-ability group does not share one sensor envelope. Some participants may rely on audio, text, haptics, peripheral vision, facilitator description, memory, breath, assistive devices, or asynchronous annotation. The swarm body should make these differences negotiable without making them compulsory disclosures. Jain's umwelt work is useful here because it frames collaboration as overlapping sensory worlds and temporalities rather than as one average user model ([Jain, Umwelten](https://jainpuneet798.github.io/portfolio/umwelten/)) . Input access Can someone act through a channel that is voluntary, replaceable, and not unnecessarily tiring? Sensory access Can someone perceive what is happening through visual, auditory, tactile, textual, or mediated alternatives? Pacing access Can someone rest, slow down, contribute asynchronously, or reduce intensity without losing authorship? Privacy access Can someone participate without forced disclosure of disability, fatigue, pain, affect, or biosignal state? Repair access Can the group pause, undo, remap, replay, rebalance, or change consent after a mapping fails? ## Why abstract bodies matter The dynamics claim is not speculative from scratch. Several XR and media-art precedents already show that abstract bodies can support ownership, touch metaphor, co-presence, emotion, and relation without returning to humanoid realism. These projects matter because they show that a body does not have to look like a normal human body to carry social meaning. A luminous aura, particle cloud, constellation, or abstract creature can still support ownership, touch metaphor, co-presence, emotion, and relation. This page borrows that lesson, then asks a different question: can those abstract-body qualities become negotiable access infrastructure for a mixed-ability group? David Glowacki's Isness line is especially important here because it treats abstraction as a designed social and phenomenological variable. Its light-body aesthetic lowers structural specificity and symbolic rigidity: the body is specific enough to be inhabited and encountered, but open enough to support projection, coalescence, connectedness, and physics-inspired meaning without hardening into a fixed humanoid symbol ([Glowacki et al.](https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-12637-z); [Glowacki](https://doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2023.1286950)) . Isness / Clear Light Diffuse light bodies, energetic coalescence, and numadelic VR research with people facing life-threatening illness. Particle-body work Ownable abstract bodies through mirrors, point clouds, and shared public space. Body RemiXer Intercorporeality through particle auras, touch exchange, and abstract body swapping. ETC Telepresent social touch through aura avatars, pseudohaptics, and cross-modal cues. Emotional Beasts Non-realistic emotional expression through color, glow, aura, fur, and particles. Galea / PhysioHMD Sensor-rich XR lineage for optional physiological and muscular inputs. Crip Sensorama Disability-led mapping, mouth gestures, crip-hacking, and preference-tuned interaction. Evidence: abstract-body precedents Glowacki's Isness work gives this section its clearest bridge between abstract body form, social connectedness, and physics-inspired aesthetics. Isness-D represents participants as luminous energetic essences with diffuse boundaries that can coalesce, and the 2022 study reports strong self-report outcomes around ego attenuation, communitas, and connectedness. The 2024 aesthetic paper then makes the design vocabulary more explicit: low structural specificity and low symbolic rigidity allow a representation to remain bodily and meaningful without being locked into ordinary object, body, or identity categories ([Glowacki et al.](https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-12637-z); [Glowacki](https://doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2023.1286950)) . This matters for the physics argument because the abstract body is not only a soft avatar. It inherits a molecular-simulation sensibility from Glowacki's earlier installation work: bodies can be modeled as fields, forces, densities, flows, coalescences, and perturbations. In public HSI language, that separates two claims that often get blurred. Physics can be a generative aesthetic substrate for shared embodiment, but it can also become a concrete implementation burden when sensors, simulations, particles, and hardware must keep the experience stable across time. The 2025 esencia paper is especially useful because it treats that lineage as an active reinterpretation problem across depth sensing, particle simulation, GPU execution, and changing software stacks ([Mitchell et al.](https://doi.org/10.1162/LEON_a_00924); [Toledo Castro, Protopopov, and Glowacki](https://doi.org/10.1145/3749893.3749972); [Essentia Foundation interview](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6_VOOe8SMg)) . That same lineage is now being translated into clinical-adjacent work through aNUma's Clear Light program and the Tiny Blue Dot-funded NUMADELIC project. The current public evidence should be read carefully: a published observational cohort of 15 people facing life-threatening illness reports feasibility and improvements on self-report measures, while also stressing the limits of having no randomization or control group. The stronger efficacy question is routed through a public OSF registration for a randomized controlled trial, and IRL/CiTIUS describe the wider 2024-2028 project as combining lab studies, design iteration, physiological measurement, and an RCT. Numadelic Labs Collective adds a current nonprofit translation surface for the same lineage: its public materials describe AI-augmented group therapy in VR, with group, embodied, and immersive elements, energetic essences, arm-guided energy between bodies, and a science page that lists the peer-reviewed numadelic research base. That site is useful as organizational and design-context evidence, not as independent efficacy proof ([Kettner et al.](https://doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2024.1466362); [OSF RCT registration](https://osf.io/72uwz/); [CiTIUS NUMADELIC project](https://citius.gal/research/projects/experiencias-de-realidade-virtual-numadelicas-para-mellorar-a-saude-mental-e-o-benestar/); [aNUma Clear Light](https://anuma.com/clearlight); [Numadelic Labs](https://www.numadeliclabs.org/); [Numadelic Labs science page](https://www.numadeliclabs.org/the-science)) . John Desnoyers-Stewart's particle-body line is the clearest existing precedent for this middle layer. Transcending Projection and Transcending the Virtual Mirror Stage show how point-cloud and particle bodies can become ownable through mirrors and shared public space. Body RemiXer then moves from ownership into intercorporeality through particle auras, touch exchange, and abstract body swapping. Star-Stuff frames participants as constellation bodies in a shared cosmic encounter, while ETC turns aura avatars into a telepresent social-touch system using pseudohaptics and cross-modal cues ([Desnoyers-Stewart](https://www.medien.ifi.lmu.de/socialHMD/SHMD_19_submissions/SHMD_19_paper_12.pdf); [Desnoyers-Stewart, Smith, and Riecke](https://gala.gre.ac.uk/id/eprint/31046/7/31046%20PAPADAKI_DRHA2019_Conference_Proceedings_2020.pdf); [Desnoyers-Stewart et al. 2020](https://doi.org/10.1162/LEON_a_01925); [Desnoyers-Stewart 2022](https://www.isea-symposium-archives.org/presentation/star-stuff-a-shared-immersive-experience-in-space-presented-by-desnoyers-stewart/); [Desnoyers-Stewart et al. 2023](https://doi.org/10.1145/3544549.3585843)) . Bernal and Maes add a second useful precedent with Emotional Beasts . Their abstract avatars used color, glow, aura-like changes, fur, and particle expression to make internal state visible without returning to a realistic body. The later Bernal/OpenBCI line matters because it connects emotionally expressive avatars to sensor-rich HMD work: OpenBCI describes Emotional Beasts and PhysioHMD as part of Bernal's effort to integrate biosensors into head-mounted displays, while Galea carried that direction into a mixed-reality platform with EEG, EOG, EMG, EDA, and PPG sensing ([Bernal and Maes, Emotional Beasts](https://doi.org/10.1145/3027063.3053207); [OpenBCI Bernal interview, 2020](https://openbci.com/community/affective-computing-and-mixed-reality-guillermo-bernal/); [Bernal, Developing Galea, 2021](https://www.media.mit.edu/posts/galea/); [MIT PhysioHMD](https://www.media.mit.edu/projects/physiohmd/overview/); [OpenBCI Galea release, 2020](https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/openbci-unveils-galea-a-new-platform-that-brings-next-generation-biometrics-to-mixed-reality-301177149.html)) . These precedents do not prove mixed-ability HSI. They show that abstract, weakly bounded, luminous, particle-like, or aura-like bodies can still carry relation, touch metaphor, co-presence, and social meaning. Mixed-ability HSI asks whether those qualities can become negotiable group infrastructure. ### Why input diversity is not enough A long list of inputs does not make a system accessible. Breath, gaze, EMG, mouth gestures, switches, controllers, text, and voice can all be useful, but none of them is automatically fair, private, comfortable, expressive, or sustainable. Even a category such as "mouth gesture" is not generic: it may mean mouth-joystick expertise, a painting practice, a wheelchair-control method, a public gesture, a tiring calibration routine, or a private access habit. For mixed-ability HSI, every mapping has provenance: who proposed it, whose practice it comes from, how it was tuned, what it costs, what it is allowed to show, and how it can be changed or withdrawn. Evidence: biosignals, EMG, mouth gestures, and crip-hacking The Galea development account makes that access lineage more concrete: Bernal describes working with Christian Bayerlein to connect EMG to muscles across Christian's body and use those signals as additional switches or actuators for controlling other devices. Christian's later XR/HCI work with Puneet Jain, including the Crip Sensorama gesture process, the Christian's Coffee installation, and the Hand to Mouth paper, reframes access around mouth gestures, crip-hacking, preference-tuned mappings, and disability-led interaction rather than around retrofitting hand-centric interfaces. For mixed-ability HSI, the lesson is not that more sensors are automatically better ([Bernal, Developing Galea, 2021](https://www.media.mit.edu/posts/galea/); [Jain, Crip Sensorama gesture process](https://jainpuneet798.github.io/portfolio/cripgestures/); [Jain, Crip Sensorama: Christian's Coffee](https://jainpuneet798.github.io/portfolio/cripsensorama_christians-coffee/); [Jain and Bayerlein, Hand to Mouth, 2026](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-025-00494-9)) . "Embodied" or "controllerless" interaction is not automatically accessible. Mid-air gestures, breath control, gaze dwell, and mouth gestures can all create fatigue, exposure, social awkwardness, or calibration burden. Access depends on whether the channel is voluntary, sustainable, replaceable, private when needed, and allowed to fail safely ([Jain, VR navigation study](https://jainpuneet798.github.io/portfolio/vrst/)) . Method precedent ### Jain's access-as-instrument practice Puneet Jain's work is useful here because it joins disability-led XR, programming, complex systems, and research-creation. Crip Sensorama does not treat mouth gestures as a universal alternative to hand controllers. It begins from disabled artists' existing techniques, adapts XR hardware around those techniques, treats failures and workarounds as design knowledge, and turns the resulting interaction into a storytelling environment. For mixed-ability HSI, this means a mapping is not just an input binding. It is an authored access practice with calibration burden, aesthetic meaning, failure history, reuse permissions, and social consequences. A swarm-body instrument should therefore expose not only what signal controls what dynamic, but also who proposed the mapping, how it was tuned, what it costs, who sees it, and how it can be retired ([Jain, Crip Sensorama gesture process](https://jainpuneet798.github.io/portfolio/cripgestures/); [Jain, Crip Sensorama: Christian's Coffee](https://jainpuneet798.github.io/portfolio/cripsensorama_christians-coffee/); [Jain, AutonomX](https://jainpuneet798.github.io/portfolio/autonomx/); [Jain and Bayerlein, Hand to Mouth, 2026](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-025-00494-9)) . ## The input stack has to stay explicit A signal is not the beginning of the design. The stack starts with access practice and ends with provenance, reuse, and retirement. The same breath estimate could soften the body's edge, slow the whole swarm, privately warn the participant about overload, or trigger a group pause. Those are different mappings, even though the input is identical. That is why the page uses a stack: access practice, human channel, binding, dynamic target, feedback, social contract, and provenance. Access practice names the lived technique behind a signal: mouth joystick use, gaze typing, switch timing, breath pacing, assisted communication, pain management, rest strategy, wheelchair control, or another situated practice. The human channel is the measurable signal. The binding says what scale the signal controls. The dynamic target says what changes. Feedback says how the participant and group know what happened. The social contract says how the mapping is seen, consented to, credited, paused, replayed, or remapped. Provenance and retirement say who proposed the mapping, who may reuse it, whether it can be public, and how it can be withdrawn from later versions. Evidence: HSI literature behind the stack The most useful explicit source here is Kim, Drew, Domova, and Follmer's user-defined swarm-control study. It shows that people do not simply choose "gesture" as a generic input. Their interaction vocabulary changes with swarm size, unit proximity, tabletop versus mobile context, one-hand versus two-hand use, touch, verbal commands, and whether the interface can infer the intended state of the swarm ([Kim et al.](https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376814)) . That source should anchor the page, but the map has to be broader. HSI literature already distinguishes behavior selection, parameter setting, environmental influence, leader influence, and sub-swarm selection; Kolling's foraging-swarm study contrasts intermittent selection with environmental beacon control; gesture work distinguishes free-form and shape-constrained control, deictic, representational, manipulation, pose, motion, and hybrid gestures; mixed-granularity AR combines environment-oriented and unit-oriented control ([Kolling et al., HSI survey](https://www.ri.cmu.edu/publications/human-interaction-with-robot-swarms-a-survey/); [Kolling et al., two HSI types](https://publications.ri.cmu.edu/storage/publications/pub_files/2013/6/Paper_JHRI.pdf); [Alonso-Mora et al., gesture taxonomy](https://doi.org/10.1109/ICRA.2015.7140033); [Patel, Xu, and Pinciroli, mixed-granularity HSI](https://doi.org/10.1109/ICRA.2019.8793261)) . Mixed-ability HSI therefore needs a stack, not an input menu. A mouth gesture, EMG switch, breath signal, hand pose, touchscreen text entry, voice command, or environment marker can all be valid, but none is generic. The same family of signals can differ by anatomy, fatigue, equipment, history, comfort, cultural meaning, and preference. Each becomes a different social proposal when it binds to a whole swarm, a sub-swarm, one particle, a field, a rule, a color state, a safety veto, or a shared goal. MOSAIX is important because it moves this question into public multi-human-swarm interaction: people contribute ideas through tangible tiles, the swarm clusters them semantically, and the installation becomes a social sorting medium rather than a single-operator controller ([Alhafnawi et al., MOSAIX](https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.09975)) . Some mappings are only for the participant who created them. Some can be shared inside a group. Some can become audience-facing in an artwork, public installation, or teaching setting. Some should be retired after a session. These categories should not be collapsed. A private access practice should not become a public interaction technique without explicit consent, framing, and a way to withdraw it. Deep dive: adaptive timing and authored fields Existing HSI asks how a human can influence a swarm. Multi-human HSI asks how several people can influence a swarm. Mixed-ability HSI asks how several differently situated people can share, inspect, contest, and repair influence through a swarm body. MOSAIX is a useful contrast case because it makes public multi-human-swarm interaction concrete, while this page asks for shared embodiment, access negotiation, visibility choice, authorship, and repair. The working input families are direct manipulation, spatial gesture, speech and text, physiological and muscular sensing, device/controller pose, environmental annotation, and semantic contribution. None of those families determines the design by itself. The decisive question is whether the channel changes appearance, selection, a rule, an attractor, a form seed, a game role, or a safety and repair affordance. Some mappings also need to adapt over time. Dwell thresholds, gesture confidence, pause duration, sensitivity, and repair prompts may need to change across repeated use. Jain's adaptive gaze keyboard work is useful here because it treats timing as user-specific and dynamically adjustable rather than as one fixed setting. In a mixed-ability swarm body, adaptive rules should remain inspectable, reversible, and overridable, with a clear distinction between participant-controlled adaptation and system-controlled adaptation ([Jain, adaptive virtual keyboard](https://jainpuneet798.github.io/portfolio/adaptivevirtualkeyboard/); [Jeevithashree et al., adaptive virtual keyboard](https://doi.org/10.3233/TAD-200292)) . A useful adjacent vocabulary comes from crowd animation and VFX. Those systems often separate the behavior layer from the art-direction layer and the rig or production layer: seeking, avoiding, flocking, and following are tuned alongside fields, sketches, guide curves, zones, triggers, states, clips, skeletons, foot-planting, levels of detail, and caches. For mixed-ability HSI, the point is not that animated crowds are the same as deployed swarms. The point is that collaborators may approach the swarm through motion design, game AI, avatar rigs, simulation fields, or physical systems, so the stack has to name what a signal controls: behavior, field, rig state, appearance, goal, role, or safety state ([Reynolds, steering behaviors](https://www.red3d.com/cwr/steer/); [Patil et al.](https://gamma.cs.unc.edu/DCrowd/paper.pdf); [Colas et al.](https://doi.org/10.1111/cgf.14491); [Prazak et al.](https://doi.org/10.1145/3214745.3214809); [SideFX crowd docs](https://www.sidefx.com/docs/houdini/crowds/basics.html)) . Every mapping should specify whose access practice it comes from, what signal enters the system, what scale it controls, what dynamic changes, what feedback appears, who can see it, and how it can be repaired, reused, or retired. Method note: full mapping-stack checklist Mapping stack Layer What must be mapped Why it matters socially Access practice Mouth joystick use, gaze typing, switch timing, breath pacing, rest strategy, assisted communication, wheelchair control, or another situated technique. The mapping begins with skill, fatigue, privacy, support, refusal, and authorship, not with a neutral sensor list. Human channel Gesture, touch, voice, text, gaze, controller pose, switches, EMG, EOG, EEG, EDA, PPG, ECG, breath, accelerometer, mouth gesture, or asynchronous annotation. Access is not equal input hardware. The group needs to know which channels are optional, private, tiring, expressive, or replaceable. Binding granularity Individual element, sub-swarm, whole swarm, body region, field, SDF, environment object, semantic cluster, rule, or game role. Binding decides authorship. It should be clear who is shaping a local detail, who is moving a collective tendency, and who can repair a mapping. Dynamical target Color, glow, opacity, density, speed, rhythm, attraction, repulsion, alignment, cohesion, leader following, field impulse, SDF seed form, goal, trajectory, or beacon. Changing color is different from changing attraction. Appearance, motion, form, and environment influence carry different power and visibility. Feedback Private haptic cue, public visual trace, sound, caption, avatar change, facilitator cue, delayed replay, or log entry. Feedback decides who can perceive influence, whether contribution becomes exposure, and whether repair can start early. Social contract Consent, disclosure, turn-taking, veto, rest, replay, attribution, explanation, failure recovery, and conflict resolution. A mixed-ability swarm body only works if collaborators can challenge and rebalance how agency is distributed. Provenance / retirement Origin, naming, tuning history, rejected variants, reuse permission, audience status, attribution, licensing, withdrawal, and deletion. Participant-created mappings are authored practices. They need reuse rules before they travel into demos, games, logs, or later prototypes. Implementation note: Rusty Morphospace and open routing This part is implementation-facing. Its purpose is to show how the mapping stack could be made inspectable in software. Implementation bridge ### Rusty Morphospace Rusty Morphospace is the implementation layer for the ideas above. Its job is not to add another theory; its job is to keep channels, bindings, dynamics, appearance, logs, consent state, and adapters separate enough that participants and facilitators can inspect them. That separation lets someone ask whether fatigue, unfairness, or confusion came from the input channel, the binding, the dynamic rule, the renderer, latency, calibration drift, or another collaborator's hidden control ([Rusty Morphospace HSI layer](https://mesmerprism.com/projects/rusty-morphospace.html#hsi-implementation-layer); [Rusty XR](https://mesmerprism.com/projects/rusty-morphospace/rusty-xr.html); [Polar H10 work](https://mesmerprism.com/projects/polar-h10.html)) . The current public base is a scaffold, not a finished mixed-ability study platform: separated Morphospace repositories, package lanes for synthetic/biosignal/Polar and hand-animation data, a Matter/Optics teaching model for bioelectric-inspired fields, and a bounded Hostess/Quest Makepad validation route for recorded hand meshes, Matter CPU-oracle comparison, SDF/ADF debug payloads, particles, and GPU evidence. The planned HSI layer has to add participant-facing mapping authoring, accessible facilitator views, consent/provenance/retirement controls, replay, version comparison, and adapter swaps across desktop, browser, headset, biosignal, and later physical platforms. Jain's AutonomX work suggests the standard for this implementation layer: the system should behave like an authoring instrument, not only a hidden runtime. AutonomX separates generators, signals, and drawing so artists can compose with complex systems through a graphical interface and route outputs through OSC/MIDI. Rusty Morphospace can make the parallel move for mixed-ability HSI: channels, bindings, swarm dynamics, visibility rules, logs, and adapters should be visible enough to compose, inspect, retune, fork, and retire ([Jain, AutonomX](https://jainpuneet798.github.io/portfolio/autonomx/); [ISEA AutonomX archive](https://www.isea-symposium-archives.org/presentation/autonomx-real-time-creation-composition-with-complex-systems-presented-by-saunier-salter-vermette-quessy-demeule-et-al/)) . Rusty Lattice Sensing, effectors, reference spaces, calibration, validity, confidence, and capability snapshots. Rusty Manifold Routing, streams, commands, clocks, acknowledgements, consent state, and audit surfaces. Rusty Matter Particles, boids-like coupling, fields, SDF/TSDF geometry, constraints, and simulation state. Rusty Optics Color, glow, material descriptors, visibility, debug views, and renderer-neutral appearance. Rusty GUI / Studio Planned mapping editors, facilitator views, comparison tools, provenance, and retirement controls. Hostess / platform adapters Current validation shells and planned deployment routes without owning the social meaning of a mapping. ### Morphogenetic dynamics vocabulary This is not needed to understand the mixed-ability HSI argument. It belongs to the later [translation horizon](https://mesmerprism.com/plasmatic-multitudes/mixed-ability-hsi.html#translation-horizons) where living-pattern ideas are used as design vocabulary, not as medical evidence. Bioelectricity is useful here only as an analogy for many-part systems that can form, perturb, remember, and repair patterns. It is not an access method, not a medical claim, and not evidence that physiological signals reveal intention or emotion. In Rusty Morphospace, it can remain a qualitative teaching model for voltage-like fields, conductance-like coupling, perturbation, memory, readout, and repair. Levin's broader work is useful because it treats living form as multi-level problem solving, but any future prosthetic or biotech application would need its own evidence and ethics path ([Bioelectricity and Morphogenesis](https://mesmerprism.com/projects/bioelectricity.html); [Levin, agential materials](https://doi.org/10.1007/s00018-023-04790-z); [Levin, bioelectric signaling](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2021.02.034)) . DiffeoMorph adds a more distant computational-morphogenesis reference for the same far-future lane. It learns decentralized update rules that guide many agents toward target 3D forms and evaluates those forms with a shape-matching loss rather than by asking one operator to place every part. For mixed-ability HSI, this is not a current access method and not evidence for bioelectric physiology. It is a possible future dynamics family: agentic swarm components might eventually learn repairable target-forming behaviors, while Rusty Morphospace would still need to expose goals, metrics, training data, failure cases, and override rights before such dynamics could become usable in a shared interface ([Pahng et al., DiffeoMorph](https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.17129); [hormoz-lab/diffeomorph](https://github.com/hormoz-lab/diffeomorph)) . The same signal can then be routed into several paradigms without pretending they are the same. A breath estimate might soften boundary opacity in Optics, bias local attraction in Matter, trigger a Manifold pause command, or become only a private self-monitoring cue. A mouth gesture might select a sub-swarm, change a role, or veto a game phase. A controller pose might seed an SDF form. A room surface, beacon, AruCo marker, semantic cluster, or obstacle might act as an environmental stimulus. A VR swarm-hand technique such as Swarm Manipulation shows how hand tracking can control selection, rotation, resizing, and particle distribution, while interpreter-based formation work shows how a wearable gesture can become a high-level command that is translated into low-level formation dynamics ([Li et al., Swarm Manipulation](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cag.2024.104113); [Suresh and Martinez, formation interpreters](https://doi.org/10.1007/s12555-019-0497-3)) . Openness is not a publishing preference here; it is part of the method. If the stack is closed, a participant cannot tell whether fatigue came from the input channel, the binding, the dynamic rule, the renderer, latency, calibration drift, or another collaborator's hidden control. An explicit open stack makes it possible to swap sensors and platforms, compare versions across media, log what happened, preserve consent and authorship, and carry only the surviving dynamics into later translation. The public Morphospace page therefore serves as a status boundary: current contracts and validation proofs are separated from planned HSI authoring, future robotics translation, and farther biotech speculation. Physiological channels need an extra guardrail. EEG, EMG, EOG, EDA, PPG, ECG, breath, and related signals must be opt-in, inspectable, replaceable, and non-diagnostic. They should not be treated as truth about emotion, pain, intention, fatigue, or consent. A participant should be able to route a biosignal into public expression, private self-monitoring, or nowhere at all, and the system should document interpretation, privacy, and retention choices as part of the mapping ([Chiossi et al., PhysioCHI: Towards Best Practices for Integrating Physiological Signals in HCI](https://doi.org/10.1145/3613905.3636286)) . ## What the instrument needs to expose To study shared agency, the prototype has to show its own mediation. Here, "instrument" means the prototype plus the study interface: the software, sensors, visual swarm body, logs, controls, and facilitator tools that make the shared body possible. The research instrument should make mediation inspectable. Participants and facilitators need to see what inputs are entering the system, what they affect, which logs are kept, who can see which contribution, and how a shared body changes when mappings are revised. Transparency does not solve access by itself, but it gives collaborators something concrete to question and repair. The instrument should answer a simple operational question for every mapping: who can act through which channel, at what scale, with what visibility, under what consent, and with what repair option? It should also expose failed mappings, not only successful ones. Calibration drift, occlusion, camera angle, headset weight, distance sensitivity, false positives, rejected gestures, device availability, environmental constraints, and fatigue costs are part of the access record. A failed mapping can still teach the group what the interface assumed about posture, visibility, strength, endurance, privacy, or bodily symmetry. Method note: instrument checklist and calibration burden Access practices existing devices, gestures, rhythms, rest strategies, communication habits, assisted routines, and off-limits signals Inputs gesture, touch, switches, controllers, voice, text, breath, biosignals, EMG, gaze, pose, timing, rule edits, and environmental markers Swarm variables density, rhythm, coupling, boundary softness, luminosity, color, speed, local attraction, SDF seed shape, and environment response Access variables visibility, disclosure, pacing, rest, turn-taking, veto, asynchronous contribution Repair variables undo, pause, rebalance, remap, explain, replay, consent change, authorship note Calibration burden setup time, posture, camera angle, occlusion, false positives, rejected gestures, assistance, and recalibration Mapping questions Mapping layer Example question Access practice Whose lived technique produced this mapping, and is it personal, shareable, audience-facing, or off-limits? Human channel Is this input voluntary, tiring, private, expressive, replaceable, involuntary, or only safe in short bursts? Binding Does it affect one particle, a sub-swarm, the whole body, a region, a field, a rule, a role, or a veto? Dynamic target Does it change color, density, rhythm, attraction, boundary softness, speed, repair, safety, or a form seed? Visibility Who sees the contribution, and is it anonymous, attributed, private, delayed, summarized, or public? Repair Can the group pause, undo, remap, replay, rebalance, change consent, or explain what happened? Provenance Who named the mapping, who approved reuse, what variations were rejected, and how can it be withdrawn? ## Staged research arc The staged method exists because each phase adds one kind of difficulty. Exploration removes pressure so the group can discover meaningful mappings. Encounter adds authored access practices and storytelling. Games add goals, roles, conflict, and recovery. Later translation asks whether any of those mappings can leave the first visual setting without losing access, authorship, or repair. ### 1. Access-practice elicitation The sequence starts before anyone tests a sensor. Participants first name existing access techniques, devices, rhythms, supports, environmental hacks, communication habits, and signals they do not want captured or made public. This protects the study from treating input as the beginning of access. ### 2. Exploration and connectedness first The first phase should be creative and low-demand. Participants explore how a swarm body can glow, gather, split, soften, pulse, protect, reveal, or hide without immediate task pressure. The point is to find mappings that feel meaningful, comfortable, and socially negotiable before performance metrics dominate the design. This phase belongs inside Plasmatic Multitudes because weakly bounded bodies are already treated here as instruments for connectedness, coalescence, permeability, and altered self-other relation, not just as rendering styles ([Glowacki et al.](https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-12637-z); [Glowacki](https://doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2023.1286950); [Desnoyers-Stewart et al. 2020](https://doi.org/10.1162/LEON_a_01925); [Desnoyers-Stewart et al. 2023](https://doi.org/10.1145/3544549.3585843)) . Desnoyers-Stewart's work is especially useful for mixed-ability HSI because it shows abstract bodies acting as social interfaces before they become task tools. That suggests a first workshop vocabulary of constellation, aura, field, exchange, gravity, touch, and coalescence: concepts that participants can accept, reject, or rename before the system asks them to optimize a goal. ### 3. Encounter as access storytelling Exploration should also include encounter and storytelling, not only calibration or low-demand play. In encounter mode, participants meet an authored access practice through the swarm body without being asked to master it, simulate it, or optimize it. A workshop might translate an everyday access practice into a boundary that softens, a field that waits, a rhythm that insists on rest, a cluster that refuses speed, or a repair gesture that makes hidden support visible. The point is relation and attention, not an empathy simulation ([Jain, Crip Sensorama: Christian's Coffee](https://jainpuneet798.github.io/portfolio/cripsensorama_christians-coffee/); [Jain and Bayerlein, Hand to Mouth, 2026](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-025-00494-9)) . ### 4. Game-oriented collaboration This phase turns promising mappings into structured play. Games can introduce goals, roles, timing, resource limits, asymmetric information, repair moments, and shared consequences without pretending that the first useful metric is workplace productivity. This is where the group can tune goal-directed dynamics: who can steer, who can veto, who can slow the swarm, who can make a contribution visible, and how the body recovers after conflict or overload. Game-oriented collaboration is also where access becomes measurable without becoming reductive. Measures can include shared agency, authorship, role comfort, recovery after errors, sensory load, visibility choice, coordination, and whether participants can explain and revise the mapping that shaped the group body. ### 5. Translation reflection The final step in the first study is not a deployment trial. It is a reflection gate: which mappings might survive another medium, which are valuable only inside the first visual setting, and what would break first if the mapping had to leave the screen, headset, projection, or workshop room? This keeps translation from becoming an assumed destination. ## A minimal study module A first study can isolate the social and access questions before later media add confounds. A practical study can begin inside a reversible visual swarm body. The first module can compare how small mixed-ability groups experience different shared-body mappings, with non-HMD participation available from the start. Before participants test swarm mappings, the study should elicit existing access practices: preferred devices, gestures, rhythms, rest strategies, environmental hacks, communication habits, and practices they do not want captured or made public. The goal is not to extract every possible signal, but to learn which practices are meaningful, shareable, private, tiring, skilled, or off-limits. Beginning in a reversible medium is not a retreat from HSI. If a group cannot understand, rebalance, or repair a mapping in a visual swarm body, later translation will not make that mapping more accessible. ### Purpose Compare how small mixed-ability groups experience shared-body mappings. ### Participants Small groups with access planning, disclosure controls, fallback inputs, and non-HMD options. ### Conditions - Access-practice elicitation: name existing techniques, devices, rhythms, supports, and off-limits signals. - Exploration / connectedness: test low-demand mappings for comfort, expression, visibility, privacy, and co-presence. - Encounter: translate an authored access practice into a visible swarm dynamic without turning it into disability simulation. - Game: place the same mappings inside a cooperative goal with roles, time pressure, recovery, and negotiated control. - Translation reflection: ask which mappings might survive another medium, and what would break first. ### Safeguards Rest, fallback input, consent change, withdrawal, reduced motion, sensory checks, disclosure control, and explicit non-goals. Method note: study measures, logs, and authorship Study measures Study surface What to capture Qualitative Shared agency, comfort, disclosure pressure, role fit, connectedness, and whether mappings felt fair. Behavioral Pauses, vetoes, remaps, turn changes, repair attempts, fallback input use, and time-to-understand a mapping. Self-report Fatigue, sensory load, trust, authorship, privacy comfort, and willingness to reuse a mapping. System logs Channel changes, binding changes, dynamic targets, visibility settings, consent changes, and replay markers. Access-practice provenance Who proposed the mapping, whose practice it came from, and whether it was participant-originated, facilitator-suggested, borrowed, rejected, or co-authored. Calibration burden Setup time, posture, camera angle, false positives, rejected gestures, fatigue cost, recalibration needs, device availability, and whether assistance was required. Adaptation over time Whether thresholds, dwell times, sensitivity, pacing, or repair prompts changed across sessions, and who controlled those changes. Feedback split What feedback was private to the participant, public to the group, logged for later, delayed, or hidden entirely. Reuse and retirement Whether the mapping may be reused, demonstrated, anonymized, attributed, licensed, forked, or withdrawn. Log contestation Whether participants agreed with system records or annotated, corrected, deleted, or challenged them. Outcomes should not stop at task score. The important measures include shared agency, legibility, fatigue, trust, role satisfaction, repair success, disclosure comfort, authorship, and whether participants can describe how the swarm body represented their contribution. Logs should be treated as situated records, not as neutral truth. A system may overcount fast signals, undercount quiet forms of participation, repeat uncertain classifications, or miss invisible labor such as waiting, masking fatigue, or deciding not to act. The study should pair system logs with participant interpretation and allow participants to annotate, contest, or delete records ([Jain, Epistemological Intervention](https://jainpuneet798.github.io/portfolio/epistemologicalintervention/)) . Authorship should be planned before data collection. If participants invent mappings, name swarm states, define repair gestures, reject sensor categories, or contribute access vocabulary, the study should specify how those contributions are credited, anonymized, withheld, licensed, or carried into later prototypes. Authorship is part of the mapping contract, not only a post-study acknowledgement. ## Claim ladder With those distinctions in place, the page makes four different kinds of claims. They should not be read as one large claim. The page makes a design argument, not a therapeutic or deployment claim. The strongest current claim is conceptual: mixed-ability HSI needs negotiated shared agency rather than one universal controller. The evidence status becomes stricter as the work moves from visual bodies toward later media, settings, and deployments. Claim status is layered: conceptual now, design next, virtual-first study later, and physical or material translation later still. Method note: full claim ladder Conceptual ### Negotiated shared agency Mixed-ability HSI needs negotiated shared agency, not one universal controller. Still to show: whether participants experience this as useful, fair, and understandable. Design ### Visible mappings Plasmatic swarm bodies can expose agency, visibility, pacing, and repair. Still to show: which mappings work for which groups, settings, and access needs. Research ### Virtual-first study A virtual-first study can test connectedness, legibility, fatigue, authorship, and repair. Still to show: how those measures relate to long-term collaboration and group trust. Later translation ### Survivability beyond the first medium Some mappings may later be tested under physical, spatial, or deployment constraints. Still to show: what survives outside the first visual swarm-body setting. ## Boundaries The narrow claim is the important one: mixed-ability HSI studies visible, negotiable, repairable agency, not cure, diagnosis, or guaranteed deployment safety. ### This work does not claim to: - treat disability, loneliness, fatigue, pain, or social withdrawal; - infer emotion, pain, intention, fatigue, or consent from biosignals; - make VR tolerance a condition of participation; - equate equal input with fair authorship; - simulate disability or let non-disabled participants "feel what disability is like"; - prove physical-system safety from particle-body success. ### It does claim to study: - negotiable shared agency; - consent, pacing, visibility choice, inspectability, and repair; - what survives across exploration, games, and later translation constraints. Mixed-ability HSI does not begin by asking every participant to control the same swarm in the same way. It begins by asking whether a group can see, question, rebalance, and repair how influence is distributed. When a mapping comes from a disabled participant's access practice, it must be treated as authored technique, not as an empathy machine, costume, spectacle, or novelty controller. Audience-facing mappings can be valid, but only when their origin, permission, framing, and withdrawal rules are explicit ([Jain and Bayerlein, Hand to Mouth, 2026](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-025-00494-9)) . A reversible swarm body is the first testbed because it makes those negotiations visible without immediately adding physical risk. Cooperative games add goals and pressure. Later translation horizons add stronger constraints: material systems add mass, safety, localization, maintenance, and failure, while morphogenetic analogies add a vocabulary of field, threshold, memory, and repair without making a medical claim. The contribution of this track is a method for carrying access concerns across those stages without reducing access to input hardware, productivity, or therapeutic promise. ## Translation horizons: material action and living pattern Robotics and morphogenetic biology enter as two late ways of asking the same deeper question: how can many locally acting parts become a coherent, responsive, repairable body or body-like system? The main subject here is the felt and social life of swarm bodies. A plasmatic swarm body asks whether many visible parts can become coherent enough to support agency, connectedness, privacy, authorship, rest, and repair. Physical and biological horizons enter only after that question is clear. They do not replace the phenomenological project. They place the same dynamic grammar under stronger constraints. Felt body ### Phenomenological instrument The swarm is an experiential body or shared field for connectedness, embodiment, access, and agency. Playable body ### Interaction grammar The swarm becomes a negotiable system of roles, goals, conflict, pacing, repair, and authorship. Consequential body ### Translation horizon Selected dynamics are tested against material action or living-pattern analogies of coherence and repair. A physical or robotic horizon asks what changes when swarm dynamics have material consequences. A visual boundary can soften without danger. A physical boundary may block, touch, support, or collide. A visual repair can be immediate and reversible. A physical repair has to deal with latency, localization, actuation, maintenance, power, and failure. Robotics is therefore not the hidden goal of the page. It is a later translation test for selected mappings. A morphogenetic or biotech-inspired horizon asks a different question: how do many local parts maintain a coherent form, recover after disturbance, remember state, and coordinate without a single central controller? Biology is not used here as evidence that the interface is therapeutic, diagnostic, prosthetic, alive, or bioelectric. It is a disciplined design vocabulary for coherence, threshold, field, perturbation, repair, and return ([Bioelectricity and Morphogenesis](https://mesmerprism.com/projects/bioelectricity.html); [Levin, agential materials](https://doi.org/10.1007/s00018-023-04790-z); [Levin, bioelectric signaling](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2021.02.034)) . Repair is the concept that lets these domains meet without collapsing them. In the visual swarm body, repair is a visible return to coherence. In mixed-ability interaction, repair is the social right to pause, undo, remap, rest, explain, or withdraw. In robotics, repair is safe recovery from physical failure. In morphogenetic biology, repair is pattern restoration across many local parts. The word does not mean the same thing in each domain, but it marks the same design concern: how a many-part system remains trustworthy after disturbance. Deep dive: why robotics is a translation test, not the destination A visual swarm body can explore mappings cheaply and reversibly. That reversibility is not a weakness; it is what makes access negotiation safe enough to study. Physical swarms add material consequence: contact, obstruction, impact, actuator limits, localization error, maintenance, and partial failure. Contemporary swarm robotics still faces substantial deployment barriers, so the physical horizon should be treated as a stress test for selected mappings rather than as the default endpoint of the project ([Kegeleirs and Birattari](https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/robotics-and-ai/articles/10.3389/frobt.2025.1607978/full)) . Deep dive: morphogenetic inspiration without medical overclaim Morphogenetic and bioelectric work is useful here as a vocabulary for many-part coherence: fields, thresholds, state memory, perturbation, homeostasis, repair, and return. This does not mean the swarm body is biological, therapeutic, diagnostic, or prosthetic. DiffeoMorph belongs in this horizon as a far-future computational-morphogenesis reference: it suggests learned many-agent target-forming dynamics, not a current access method and not evidence for bioelectric physiology ([Pahng et al., DiffeoMorph](https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.17129); [hormoz-lab/diffeomorph](https://github.com/hormoz-lab/diffeomorph)) . ## Material horizon: physical and robotic translation This section is not needed for the first study. It asks what material consequence reveals about selected swarm-body mappings. A successful swarm-body mapping is not automatically ready for another medium. A visual body can be emotionally legible while remaining physically unconstrained. A physical swarm can be technically correct while remaining socially unreadable. The material question begins only after the group has discovered mappings worth testing under consequence. Physics changes role across that boundary. In the visual swarm-body phase, physical behavior is a legibility grammar. In a tangible or robotic phase, it becomes a practical liability surface. Resistance is a useful example: in the first study, resistance might be a visual delay that makes a boundary feel soft but coherent; in a furniture-moving system, resistance becomes motor torque, friction, clearance, tipping risk, and user safety. Glowacki's physics/aesthetics work is a useful bridge precisely because it sits before that robotic boundary. Hidden Fields and danceroom Spectroscopy use rigorous molecular-dynamics models to let bodies sculpt simulated atomic motion; they make force, field, and energy relations visible and participatory. That supports the aesthetic track of mixed-ability HSI: physics can organize legibility, embodiment, and shared transformation. It does not remove the later robotics constraint. The moment a swarm body becomes furniture, mobility support, or adaptive material, the same word "physics" shifts from expressive simulation to mass, safety, localization, actuation, and failure recovery ([Hidden Fields](https://www.intangiblerealitieslab.org/projects/hidden-fields); [Mitchell et al.](https://doi.org/10.1162/LEON_a_00924); [Toledo Castro, Protopopov, and Glowacki](https://doi.org/10.1145/3749893.3749972)) . Later horizon: physical swarm and robotics evidence RoomShift makes this shift concrete because it uses robot assistants to move real furniture for room-scale haptics, turning the design into questions of lift height, object weight, under-table clearance, optical tracking, path planning, collision avoidance, and whether the object can safely support a person's body once placed. Roombots similarly frames adaptive furniture as an active modular robotics problem, not only a shape-design problem ([Suzuki et al., RoomShift](https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376523); [Sprowitz et al., Roombots](https://doi.org/10.1109/ROBOT.2009.5152613)) . Swarm robotics is no longer only a metaphor or an animation vocabulary, but its real-world use is still limited. The current field has strong laboratory demonstrations, increasingly capable sensors and computation, better simulators, mixed-reality interfaces, ROS-based integration, hardware-in-the-loop testing, and growing interest in applied domains. It still struggles with platform limits, simplified simulations, robot-to-robot communication assumptions, localization, security, maintenance, and the deployment gap between one physical platform and another ([Kegeleirs and Birattari](https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/robotics-and-ai/articles/10.3389/frobt.2025.1607978/full); [Zheng, Jarecki, and Lee](https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-40623-6)) . The related assembly field is not usually named "human swarm assembly robotics" as a single stable discipline. It overlaps with collective robotic construction, programmable self-assembly, modular self-reconfigurable robotics, swarm user interfaces, and tangible robotic swarms. The shared idea is that a person should not usually pilot every unit. The human should specify goals, constraints, fields, morphologies, roles, or safety conditions, while the swarm or modular body resolves lower-level coordination ([Petersen et al., collective robotic construction review](https://doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.aau8479); [Werfel, Petersen, and Nagpal, TERMES](https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1245842); [Rubenstein, Cornejo, and Nagpal, Kilobot self-assembly](https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1254295)) . For mixed-ability HSI, assembly is important because it changes what "control" means. A participant might guide a desired furniture configuration, ask a modular body to extend reach, mark a construction zone, set an attractor field, request repair, or veto an unsafe intermediate state. Recent user-guided modular-robot work makes this especially concrete: the user can manipulate a morphology-matched interface, but an optimization layer blocks commands that would violate torque, collision, balance, or environmental constraints ([Bolotnikova et al., user-guided modular robots](https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-63706-6)) . This is also why virtual simulations have limited translation capacity. They are useful for exploring mappings, roles, affective tone, and the social feel of shared control, but they can hide the hardest parts of real deployment. Kegeleirs and Birattari describe how swarm robotics still faces platform limitations, abstraction of real tasks such as object manipulation, a sim-to-real reality gap, and a wider deployment gap where a controller that works in one physical platform may fail on another. For mixed-ability HSI, that warning should become a design principle: if the goal is connectedness or game-based collaboration, visual physics can be tuned for legibility and felt agency; if the goal is physical accessibility, furniture, mobility, or assistive room support, physical envelopes, load cases, safety, localization, maintenance, and failure recovery have to enter the project early ([Kegeleirs and Birattari](https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/robotics-and-ai/articles/10.3389/frobt.2025.1607978/full)) . The bridge is therefore not a straight export from visual design into robots. It is a staged constraint test. The swarm-body phase asks which dynamic cues make shared agency readable and inhabitable. The material phase asks which of those cues still work when the swarm must move mass through a room, stay safe around people, tolerate sensor uncertainty, and remain useful after errors. Translation gate ### A mapping is not ready for physical swarm testing until it survives: - latency and synchronization - localization error and occlusion - collision risk, object weight, and load limits - bystander proximity and emergency stop - maintenance, battery limits, and partial swarm failure - fallback input and consent change mid-action - participant confusion, explanation, and repair Physical translation tests Translation test What has to survive Timing Latency, synchronization, localization error, occlusion, and participant confusion. Material safety Collision risk, object weight, load limits, surfaces, bystander proximity, and emergency stop. System reliability Maintenance, battery limits, partial swarm failure, sensor drift, and recovery from blocked paths. Access continuity Fatigue, consent change mid-action, fallback input, and the ability to explain or repair a mapping. ## Sources by role The sources are doing different jobs. Reading them by role keeps the page from treating accessibility, XR embodiment, animation, HSI, and robotics as one interchangeable literature. Source roles: evidence map Source roles Source role What it supports Access foundation Ability-based design, interdependence, disability-led XR/HCI, and XR accessibility requirements. Crip-hacking, access instruments, and authored mappings Jain's Crip Sensorama, Hand to Mouth, adaptive gaze keyboard, AutonomX, and related portfolio work support access as a creative, technical, political, and programmable practice with provenance, calibration burden, authorship, failure histories, and reuse permissions. Protean embodiment bridge Proteus effect and Protean kinematics support the move from avatar appearance to movement grammar, dynamic affordance, and self-representation through transformed action. Embodiment precedent Isness, NUMADELIC / Clear Light, Body RemiXer, ETC, Emotional Beasts, aura avatars, pseudohaptics, and abstract social bodies. Physics-aesthetics bridge Glowacki's molecular-physics installations, from danceroom Spectroscopy and Hidden Fields to the 2025 esencia reinterpretation, support physics as a generative aesthetic substrate and as a technical stack that must be maintained across sensors, simulation, and hardware. Clinical-adjacent translation boundary Clear Light, aNUma, and Numadelic Labs show numadelic light-body work moving toward life-threatening-illness, death-anxiety, and AI-augmented group-therapy research; the current public record supports feasibility, published observational results, organizational/current-program context, and a registered RCT plan, not established clinical efficacy. HSI foundation Behavior selection, parameter setting, attractors, leader influence, environmental influence, and sub-swarm selection. Multi-human precedent MOSAIX and other systems where a swarm becomes a public social medium rather than a single-user controller. Material translation evidence Applied swarm robotics limits, assembly, adaptive furniture, tangible swarms, embodied swarm robots, and deployment gaps as constraint tests for selected mappings. Morphogenetic pattern vocabulary Bioelectricity, Levin's agential-materials work, and DiffeoMorph support cautious language about coherence, field, threshold, perturbation, state memory, repair, and return. Implementation and caution Rusty Morphospace as the implementation layer with current public contracts and planned HSI-facing authoring/inspection, biosignal transparency/privacy guidance, and guardrails against treating biology, robotics, or physiology as therapeutic proof. ## Sources These sources ground the distinction between access theory, protean embodiment, connectedness-first XR, aesthetic swarm bodies, human-swarm interaction, material translation, and morphogenetic pattern vocabulary. - Wobbrock et al. "[Ability-Based Design: Concept, Principles and Examples](https://doi.org/10.1145/1952383.1952384)." ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing 3(3) (2011). - Bennett, Brady, and Branham. "[Interdependence as a Frame for Assistive Technology Research and Design](https://doi.org/10.1145/3234695.3236348)." ASSETS (2018). - Glowacki et al. "[Group VR Experiences Can Produce Ego Attenuation and Connectedness Comparable to Psychedelics](https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-12637-z)." Scientific Reports 12 (2022). - Glowacki. "[VR Models of Death and Psychedelics: An Aesthetic Paradigm for Design Beyond Day-to-Day Phenomenology](https://doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2023.1286950)." Frontiers in Virtual Reality (2024). - Mitchell, Hyde, Tew, and Glowacki. "[danceroom Spectroscopy: At the Frontiers of Physics, Performance, Interactive Art and Technology](https://doi.org/10.1162/LEON_a_00924)." Leonardo 49(2), 138-147 (2016). - Intangible Realities Laboratory. "[Hidden Fields](https://www.intangiblerealitieslab.org/projects/hidden-fields)." Project page on energy avatars and real-time atomic physics simulation (accessed 2026-06-12). - Toledo Castro, Protopopov, and Glowacki. "[esencia: A Case Study on Reinterpreting an Interactive Art and Science Installation Based on a Real-Time Atomic Physics Engine](https://doi.org/10.1145/3749893.3749972)." Expanded '25: Proceedings of the Conference on Animation and Interactive Art , 178-187 (2025). - Essentia Foundation. "[Molecular Physicist Visualised The Process of Dying | David Glowacki](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6_VOOe8SMg)." Video interview (accessed 2026-06-12). - Kettner et al. "[Observational Cohort Study of a Group-Based VR Program to Improve Mental Health and Wellbeing in People with Life-Threatening Illnesses](https://doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2024.1466362)." Frontiers in Virtual Reality 5 (2025). - Andreu, Hardy, Bonnelle, and Glowacki. "[Numadelic VR Experiences for Improving Mental Health Outcomes in Patients Facing Life-Threatening Illness: Randomized Controlled Trial](https://osf.io/72uwz/)." OSF registration, registered May 10, 2024 (accessed 2026-06-12). - CiTIUS. "[Numadelic: Numadelic VR Experiences for Improving Mental Health Outcomes in Patients Facing Life-Threatening Illness](https://citius.gal/research/projects/experiencias-de-realidade-virtual-numadelicas-para-mellorar-a-saude-mental-e-o-benestar/)." Project page, execution timing 2024-10-01 / 2028-09-30, funded by Tiny Blue Dot Foundation (accessed 2026-06-12). - aNUma. "[Clear Light](https://anuma.com/clearlight)." Program page for people facing life-threatening illness and their families (accessed 2026-06-12). - Numadelic Labs Collective. "[Numadelic Labs](https://www.numadeliclabs.org/)." Public page for a 501(c)(3) research organization developing AI-augmented group therapy in VR; see also "[The Science](https://www.numadeliclabs.org/the-science)" bibliography page (accessed 2026-06-12). - Yee, Bailenson, and Ducheneaut. "[The Proteus Effect: Implications of Transformed Digital Self-Representation on Online and Offline Behavior](https://vhil.stanford.edu/publications/avatars-and-agents/proteus-effect-implications-transformed-digital-self-representation)." Stanford Virtual Human Interaction Lab summary of Communication Research 36(2) (2009). - Jeong et al. "[Protean Kinematics: A Blended Model of VR Physics](https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.705170)." Frontiers in Psychology 12 (2021). - Desnoyers-Stewart. "[Transcending Projection: Progressive Engagement with Virtual Reality in Public Spaces](https://www.medien.ifi.lmu.de/socialHMD/SHMD_19_submissions/SHMD_19_paper_12.pdf)." CHI workshop paper (2019). - Desnoyers-Stewart, Smith, and Riecke. "[Transcending the Virtual Mirror Stage: Embodying the Virtual Self Through the Digital Mirror](https://gala.gre.ac.uk/id/eprint/31046/7/31046%20PAPADAKI_DRHA2019_Conference_Proceedings_2020.pdf)." DRHA (2019). - Desnoyers-Stewart et al. "[Body RemiXer: Extending Bodies to Stimulate Social Connection in an Immersive Installation](https://doi.org/10.1162/LEON_a_01925)." Leonardo 53(4) (2020). - Desnoyers-Stewart. "[Star-Stuff: A Shared Immersive Experience in Space](https://www.isea-symposium-archives.org/presentation/star-stuff-a-shared-immersive-experience-in-space-presented-by-desnoyers-stewart/)." ISEA (2022). - Desnoyers-Stewart et al. "[Embodied Telepresent Connection (ETC): Exploring Virtual Social Touch Through Pseudohaptics](https://doi.org/10.1145/3544549.3585843)." CHI EA (2023). - Bernal and Maes. "[Emotional Beasts: Visually Expressing Emotions Through Avatars in VR](https://doi.org/10.1145/3027063.3053207)." CHI EA (2017). - OpenBCI. "[Affective Computing and Mixed Reality: An Interview with Guillermo Bernal](https://openbci.com/community/affective-computing-and-mixed-reality-guillermo-bernal/)." OpenBCI Community (2020). - Bernal. "[Developing Galea: An Open Source Tool at the Intersection of VR and Neuroscience](https://www.media.mit.edu/posts/galea/)." MIT Media Lab post (2021). - MIT Media Lab. "[PhysioHMD](https://www.media.mit.edu/projects/physiohmd/overview/)." Fluid Interfaces project page (accessed 2026-06-11). - OpenBCI. "[OpenBCI Unveils Galea, a New Platform that Brings Next Generation Biometrics to Mixed Reality](https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/openbci-unveils-galea-a-new-platform-that-brings-next-generation-biometrics-to-mixed-reality-301177149.html)." Press release (2020). - Jain. "[Re-imagining XR with People with Sensorimotor Disabilities Through Criptastic Hacking](https://jainpuneet798.github.io/portfolio/cripgestures/)." Project page (accessed 2026-06-11). - Jain. "[Crip Sensorama: Christian's Coffee](https://jainpuneet798.github.io/portfolio/cripsensorama_christians-coffee/)." Project page (accessed 2026-06-11). - Jain. "[Umwelten](https://jainpuneet798.github.io/portfolio/umwelten/)." Project page (accessed 2026-06-11). - Jain. "[Navigating in VR Using Free-Hand Gestures and Embodied Controllers](https://jainpuneet798.github.io/portfolio/vrst/)." Project page (accessed 2026-06-11). - Jain. "[Adaptive Virtual Keyboard](https://jainpuneet798.github.io/portfolio/adaptivevirtualkeyboard/)." Project page (accessed 2026-06-11). - Jeevithashree et al. "[Eye Gaze Controlled Adaptive Virtual Keyboard for Users with SSMI](https://doi.org/10.3233/TAD-200292)." Technology and Disability 33(1) (2021). - Jain. "[AutonomX](https://jainpuneet798.github.io/portfolio/autonomx/)." Project page (accessed 2026-06-11). - Saunier et al. "[AutonomX: Real Time Creation/Composition with Complex Systems](https://www.isea-symposium-archives.org/presentation/autonomx-real-time-creation-composition-with-complex-systems-presented-by-saunier-salter-vermette-quessy-demeule-et-al/)." ISEA archive (2022). - Jain. "[Epistemological Intervention](https://jainpuneet798.github.io/portfolio/epistemologicalintervention/)." Project page (accessed 2026-06-11). - Jain and Bayerlein. "[Hand to Mouth: Shifting the Bare-Minimum Accessibility Paradigm in XR Through Crip-Hacking and Crip-Aesthetics](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-025-00494-9)." Ethics and Society 20 (2026). - Gilland. "[Elemental Magic: The Art of Special Effects Animation](https://archive.org/details/elemental-magic/page/n2/mode/1up)." Focal Press (2009). - Suzuki et al. "[RoomShift: Room-Scale Dynamic Haptics for VR with Furniture-Moving Swarm Robots](https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376523)." CHI (2020). - Sprowitz et al. "[Roombots: Mechanical Design of Self-Reconfiguring Modular Robots for Adaptive Furniture](https://doi.org/10.1109/ROBOT.2009.5152613)." ICRA (2009). - Mottelson et al. "[Remote VR Studies: A Framework for Running Virtual Reality Studies Remotely Via Participant-Owned HMDs](https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.11207)." arXiv:2102.11207 (2021). - Zhang et al. "[It's Just Part of Me: Understanding Avatar Diversity and Self-Presentation of People with Disabilities in Social Virtual Reality](https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.11170)." arXiv:2208.11170 (2022). - Gualano et al. "[I Try to Represent Myself as I Am: Self-Presentation Preferences of People with Invisible Disabilities through Embodied Social VR Avatars](https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.08193)." arXiv:2408.08193 (2024). - W3C Accessible Platform Architectures Working Group. "[XR Accessibility User Requirements](https://www.w3.org/TR/xaur/)." W3C Working Group Note (2021). - Ichihashi et al. "[Swarm Body: Embodied Swarm Robots](https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642870)." CHI (2024). - Le Goc et al. "[Zooids: Building Blocks for Swarm User Interfaces](https://doi.org/10.1145/2984511.2984547)." UIST (2016). - Suzuki et al. "[ShapeBots: Shape-Changing Swarm Robots](https://doi.org/10.1145/3332165.3347911)." UIST (2019). - Santos and Egerstedt. "[From Motions to Emotions: Can the Fundamental Emotions be Expressed in a Robot Swarm?](https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00665-6)" International Journal of Social Robotics 13 (2021). - Kaduk et al. "[From One to Many: How Active Robot Swarm Sizes Influence Human Cognitive Processes](https://doi.org/10.1109/RO-MAN60168.2024.10731232)." RO-MAN (2024). - Kim, Drew, Domova, and Follmer. "[User-Defined Swarm Robot Control](https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376814)." CHI (2020). - Kolling et al. "[Human Swarm Interaction: An Experimental Study of Two Types of Interaction with Foraging Swarms](https://publications.ri.cmu.edu/storage/publications/pub_files/2013/6/Paper_JHRI.pdf)." Journal of Human-Robot Interaction 1(1) (2012). - Kolling et al. "[Human Interaction with Robot Swarms: A Survey](https://www.ri.cmu.edu/publications/human-interaction-with-robot-swarms-a-survey/)." IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems 46(1) (2016). - Petersen et al. "[A Review of Collective Robotic Construction](https://doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.aau8479)." Science Robotics 4(28) (2019). - Werfel, Petersen, and Nagpal. "[Designing Collective Behavior in a Termite-Inspired Robot Construction Team](https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1245842)." Science 343(6172) (2014). - Rubenstein, Cornejo, and Nagpal. "[Programmable Self-Assembly in a Thousand-Robot Swarm](https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1254295)." Science 345(6198) (2014). - Alonso-Mora et al. "[Gesture Based Human - Multi-Robot Swarm Interaction and its Application to an Interactive Display](https://doi.org/10.1109/ICRA.2015.7140033)." ICRA (2015). - Patel, Xu, and Pinciroli. "[Mixed-Granularity Human-Swarm Interaction](https://doi.org/10.1109/ICRA.2019.8793261)." ICRA (2019). - Suresh and Martinez. "[Human-Swarm Interactions for Formation Control Using Interpreters](https://doi.org/10.1007/s12555-019-0497-3)." International Journal of Control, Automation and Systems 18 (2020). - Li et al. "[Swarm Manipulation: An Efficient and Accurate Technique for Multi-Object Manipulation in Virtual Reality](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cag.2024.104113)." Computers & Graphics 125 (2024). - Alhafnawi et al. "[Express Yourself: Enabling Large-Scale Public Events Involving Multi-Human-Swarm Interaction for Social Applications with MOSAIX](https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.09975)." arXiv:2411.09975 (2024). - Reynolds. "[Steering Behaviors for Autonomous Characters](https://www.red3d.com/cwr/steer/)." Game Developers Conference (1999). - Patil et al. "[Directing Crowd Simulations Using Navigation Fields](https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2010.33)." IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 17(2) (2011). - Colas et al. "[Interaction Fields: Intuitive Sketch-Based Steering Behaviors for Crowd Simulation](https://doi.org/10.1111/cgf.14491)." Computer Graphics Forum 41(2) (2022). - Prazak et al. "[Taming the Swarm: Rippers on Pacific Rim Uprising](https://doi.org/10.1145/3214745.3214809)." SIGGRAPH '18 Talks (2018). - SideFX. "[Crowd Basics](https://www.sidefx.com/docs/houdini/crowds/basics.html)." Houdini Documentation (accessed 2026-06-11). - Zheng, Jarecki, and Lee. "[Integrated System Architecture with Mixed-Reality User Interface for Virtual-Physical Hybrid Swarm Simulations](https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-40623-6)." Scientific Reports 13 (2023). - Bolotnikova et al. "[Optimized User-Guided Motion Control of Modular Robots](https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-63706-6)." Nature Communications 16 (2025). - Brown, Kerman, and Goodrich. "[Human-Swarm Interactions Based on Managing Attractors](https://users.cs.utah.edu/~dsbrown/pubs/Brown_HRI2014.pdf)." HRI (2014). - Kegeleirs and Birattari. "[Towards Applied Swarm Robotics: Current Limitations and Enablers](https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/robotics-and-ai/articles/10.3389/frobt.2025.1607978/full)." Frontiers in Robotics and AI (2025). - Levin. "[Bioelectric Signaling: Reprogrammable Circuits Underlying Embryogenesis, Regeneration, and Cancer](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2021.02.034)." Cell 184(8) (2021). - Levin. "[Darwin's Agential Materials: Evolutionary Implications of Multiscale Competency in Developmental Biology](https://doi.org/10.1007/s00018-023-04790-z)." Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences 80 (2023). - Pahng, Guan, Fefferman, and Hormoz. "[DiffeoMorph: Learning to Morph 3D Shapes Using Differentiable Agent-Based Simulations](https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.17129)." arXiv:2512.17129 (2025; revised 2026). - hormoz-lab. "[diffeomorph](https://github.com/hormoz-lab/diffeomorph)." Official implementation repository for the DiffeoMorph paper. - Chiossi et al. "[PhysioCHI: Towards Best Practices for Integrating Physiological Signals in HCI](https://doi.org/10.1145/3613905.3636286)." CHI EA (2024). - Mesmer Prism. [Rusty Morphospace](https://mesmerprism.com/projects/rusty-morphospace.html), [Rusty XR](https://mesmerprism.com/projects/rusty-morphospace/rusty-xr.html), and [Polar H10 Work](https://mesmerprism.com/projects/polar-h10.html). - Mesmer Prism. "[Bioelectricity and Morphogenesis](https://mesmerprism.com/projects/bioelectricity.html)." Public project page.