By Week 13, the earlier reference work had already helped me reduce the report to the strongest sources around neurodiversity, independence, sensory experience and airport accessibility.

The next change was different. I was not simply cutting the existing evidence base; I was beginning to add a new area of research because the project itself had shifted towards physiological sensing and responsive support.

Why I Needed New Sources

The existing airport and sensory literature could explain why fixed accessibility provision may not respond well to changing individual needs, but it could not tell me whether physiological information might have a useful role within a more adaptive system.

I therefore started looking for research around HRV, physiological arousal, wearables, biofeedback and closed-loop interaction.

This introduced a new challenge because many of the strongest technology papers were not about autistic airport travellers. I needed to use them for what they could genuinely support without allowing technical possibility to become evidence of accessibility.

HRV and Physiological Arousal

Bahameish et al. became useful because the paper gave me a more autism-specific way of thinking about HRV while also showing how inconsistent the evidence can be across studies.

This was important because I did not want the report to suggest that one physiological signal could directly identify sensory overload.

The more useful conclusion was that physiological information may contribute to understanding a changing state, but needs to be interpreted alongside individual baseline and context.

Biofeedback and Immersive Research

Zarins, Petropoulou and Gekas helped expand my understanding of immersive and biofeedback systems.

This connected with the VR research I had already been doing, but I increasingly became more interested in the principle behind the system than in VR itself.

The useful question became what happens when physiological information is not only measured, but influences what the technology does next.

Wearables and Closed-Loop Systems

Wei et al. became particularly important because the paper helped me understand bioresponsive technology as a closed-loop process involving sensing, interpretation, feedback and subsequent human response.

Boutros, Kassem and Barteit then widened the physical design space by showing how physiological monitoring can appear in different wearable forms rather than only in a smartwatch.

This new evidence base shifted the report from asking only what accessibility currently exists towards asking how support might become more responsive.

Keeping the Technology in Proportion

I still needed the earlier critical-writing work here.

A technology source can show that something is technically possible without proving that it is appropriate for an autistic traveller in an airport. That distinction became increasingly important as the project moved into more futuristic areas.

The new sources therefore needed to sit underneath the accessibility argument rather than replace it.

What This Changed

By the end of this stage, the evidence base had two connected sides.

The autism and airport literature explained the problem: individual and fluctuating needs, sensory pressure, autonomy and fragmented support.

The biosensing and HCI literature began to show one possible area for investigation: sensing physiological change and using that information within a personalised responsive system.

The technology became a response to the research problem rather than the starting point of the report.