| Literature DB >> 31878208 |
Weizhen Wang1, Yuan Fang2,3, Yukari Nagai3, Dong Xu4, Tsutomu Fujinami3.
Abstract
This study is aimed at bridging the gap from a transdisciplinary perspective between cyber-physical systems (CPS) architecture in the field of information science and emotional design in the field of humanistic science for interactive fashion innovation. Information related to a familiar feeling in the process of interactive clothing design is used to explain how the transformation could be realized from data. By creating the cyber-physical-clothing systems (CPCS), the architecture model in the hyper world and takes the development process of an interactive parent-child clothing as a case study for analyzing the transformation from the physical signal input to the social symbol recognition output. The experimental results, which from the perspective of clothing art design rather than information discipline, show that interactive parent-child clothing is not only suitable for the rehabilitation of autistic children but also recognized by most parents. The reasonable embedding of sensing technology can greatly enhance the added value of clothing products. This study provides a fruitful practical application reference for designers who are engaged in the field of art and design but not familiar with the relevant information technology. Furthermore, the application principle and the technical process of CPCS for further interactive clothing design is explained.Entities:
Keywords: autism; clothing design; cyber-physical systems; cyber-physical-clothing systems; humanistic evaluation; interactive clothing
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31878208 PMCID: PMC6982822 DOI: 10.3390/s20010127
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1CPCS model.
Figure 2Pattern design and hardware embedding.
Figure 3(a) KC_IRS, (b) DL-22.
Figure 4Circuit schematics.
Figure 5Prototypes. (a) The interaction between father’s and child’s clothing; (b) Interaction between a husband’s and wife’s clothing; (c) Interaction between mother’s and child’s clothing; The interaction between father’s and children’s clothing; (d) Interaction between father’s, mother’s, and children’s clothing; (e) Self-reaction of mother’s clothing; (f) Self-reaction of child ‘s clothing; (g) Self-reaction of father’s clothing.
Evaluation indicator and content.
| No. | Indicator | Content |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Language expression | Is the child willing to talk to other children or parents compared to participating in daily similar game activities? Is there a logical relationship between every sentence a child says? |
| 2 | Interpersonal communication | Does the child tend to have more physical communication with their parents or other children than do similar daily games? |
| 3 | Interest expression | Is the child willing to participate in the game? |
| 4 | Perceptual communication | Does the child slow to respond to auditory and visual stimuli? |
Figure 6Evaluation of autistic children’ parents.
Figure 7Categories of comparison. (a) Casual style, emphasizing a natural and straightforward style; (b) Dress style, shows a classical beauty; (c) Graffiti style, an extraordinary and exaggerated style; (d) Deconstruction style, a concept of structural decomposition; (e) Sci-fi style, refers to smart clothing; (f) National style, combines the elements of traditional national costumes.
Semantic opposite adjective pairs and results of the paired-samples T-test.
| Category | Semantic | Mean | SD | SE | t |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Negative | Positive | ||||||
| I | Conservative | Avant-garde | 0.630 | 1.568 | 0.184 | 3.434 | 0.001 |
| I | Staid | Lively | −0.397 | 2.559 | 0.300 | −1.326 | 0.189 |
| I | Rough | Exquisite | −0.753 | 1.949 | 0.228 | −3.302 | 0.001 |
| I | Mature | Childlike | 0.630 | 2.010 | 0.235 | 2.678 | 0.009 |
| I | Monotonous | Creative | 0.890 | 1.663 | 0.195 | 4.575 | 0.000 |
| I | Outdated | Fashionable | 0.027 | 1.624 | 0.190 | 0.144 | 0.886 |
| I | Closed | Cross-border | 1.411 | 1.373 | 0.161 | 8.782 | 0.000 |
| I | Tedious | Concise | −1.466 | 2.109 | 0.247 | −5.939 | 0.000 |
| I | Vulgar | Elegant | −1.027 | 1.972 | 0.231 | −4.452 | 0.000 |
| II | Rigid | Smart | 1.781 | 1.557 | 0.182 | 9.774 | 0.000 |
| II | Destructive | Environmental | 0.178 | 1.743 | 0.204 | 0.873 | 0.386 |
| II | Bound | Flexible | 1.068 | 1.719 | 0.201 | 5.312 | 0.000 |
| II | Traditional | Technology | 1.781 | 1.669 | 0.195 | 9.118 | 0.000 |
| II | Isolated | Interactive | 1.192 | 1.560 | 0.183 | 6.526 | 0.000 |
| II | Closed | Open | −0.137 | 2.057 | 0.241 | −0.569 | 0.571 |
| II | Messy | Systematic | −1.082 | 2.228 | 0.261 | −4.149 | 0.000 |
| II | Single | Multifunctional | 1.808 | 1.912 | 0.224 | 8.079 | 0.000 |
| II | Rational | Emotional | −0.616 | 2.271 | 0.266 | −2.319 | 0.023 |
| III | Alienated | Affinity | 0.219 | 1.652 | 0.193 | 1.134 | 0.261 |
| III | Cold | Warm | −0.603 | 1.614 | 0.189 | −3.191 | 0.002 |
| III | Stodgy | Interesting | −0.096 | 1.108 | 0.130 | −0.740 | 0.462 |
| III | Disappointed | Surprise | 0.164 | 1.871 | 0.219 | 0.751 | 0.455 |
| III | Gloomy | Relaxed | −0.192 | 1.883 | 0.220 | −0.870 | 0.387 |
| III | Indifferent | Enthusiastic | 0.521 | 1.519 | 0.178 | 2.927 | 0.005 |
Figure 8Differences in evaluation results among the four groups. The scoring indexes of each category of clothing from Figure 7 are set to 24 items. The order of 1–24 is given by the order of I-III in Table 2. The data from (a–f) in Figure 8 correspond to the Sample clothing (a–f) in Figure 7.
Figure 9Frequency values of prototype and the Dress style parent–child clothing.