As I have been catching the Studio Practice blog up, I have realised that the project now contains several very different kinds of research. There is the original work around autism and independent travel, airport accessibility, primary research, sensory regulation, biosignals, wearables, biofeedback, AI and now neuroadaptive technology.

If I simply present these in the order I discovered them, the final document risks feeling fragmented.

I therefore need to structure the Studio Practice around the logic of the project, not only the chronology of the weeks.

From Context to Regulation

The beginning of the narrative needs to establish why the project exists before introducing any technology.

This means starting with the wider context of autistic adults travelling independently, the barriers identified across airport journeys and the limitations of current accessibility provision. My primary research then becomes important because it shows how independence, unpredictability, sensory demand and fragmented systems are experienced by actual travellers.

From there, the project can move naturally into sensory regulation.

This is the point where the design problem changes from asking how an airport could remove every difficult stimulus towards asking how the traveller could have more control over their own experience.

From Regulation to Biosignals

Once regulation has been established as the design focus, the biosensing research makes much more sense.

Rather than suddenly introducing HRV and wearable technology because they seem interesting, I can show that they emerged from a specific problem: support needs can fluctuate and existing airport provision cannot continuously respond to those changes.

This creates a clearer sequence:

changing need → regulation → physiological information → responsive support.

That connection is important because it keeps the technology rooted in the research problem.

Separating Biosignals, Biosensing and Biofeedback

I have also realised that some of the technological language needs separating into distinct sections.

Biosignals are the physiological information produced by the body.

Biosensing is how that information is detected or measured.

Biofeedback is how physiological information is made available to the user or system.

Bioresponsive technology takes this further by using that information as part of an adaptive response.

These terms overlap, but they are not interchangeable. Structuring the document around them will help me explain how the project has developed without jumping too quickly from the body to a finished technological solution.

The emerging narrative is becoming: body signal → sensing → interpretation → feedback → responsive system.

Wearables and Materiality

After the system logic is established, the physical form can become a design question in its own right.

This is where the wearable research, materiality, comfort and sensory tolerance belong. It also gives me space to introduce my personal lens through Summer without treating her experience as representative evidence.

The key question becomes not only whether a device can sense physiological change, but whether the person would actually choose to wear it.

Expanding the Design Space

I then want a section that deliberately opens the project back up before I commit to the final technology.

This can include auditory feedback, haptics, AR, VR, mixed reality, smart textiles, skin patches, headphones and neuroadaptive possibilities.

I think this is important because it records a genuine change in my thinking. I initially moved quite quickly towards VR, but the research has shown that the final output should be chosen according to the user and context rather than according to the medium I find most visually exciting.

Moving Into Design Development

The later part of the Studio Practice document then needs to become much more visual and practical.

This is where I want to move into Developing the Project, physical form, interface design, materials, prototyping, interaction and testing. Research should still be visible, but it needs to begin informing tangible design decisions.

A section such as Prototype and Test can then show what I tried, what did not work, what changed and why.

This will be especially important because the final project should not appear to have emerged fully formed from the Critical Report.

Current Section Language

The section language I am currently developing includes Context, Autistic Travel and Accessibility, Airport Accessibility Systems, Sensory Regulation, Biosignals and Regulation, Biosensing and Wearables, Biofeedback and Response, Bioresponsive Technology, Neuroadaptive Possibilities, Designing for the Individual, Developing the Project and Prototype and Test.

I may still combine some of these as the document develops. The purpose is not to create as many chapters as possible, but to make the intellectual journey easy to follow.

What This Changes

Structuring the document in this way is helping me see where the project actually is now.

The research stage has not simply produced a large amount of information. It has created a sequence of decisions that can be traced from the original accessibility problem into the current bioresponsive design direction.

The final Studio Practice needs to show the journey from problem to proposition, not just the final proposition.

This structure should make it easier for me to decide what I need to design next because the gaps in the narrative become much more visible.