WATCH / PRECEDENT · BIORESPONSIVE ENVIRONMENTS

I came across Cocoon by Empatica while looking for examples that would help me visualise what happens after physiological data has been collected. It is not an accessibility project and it is not designed for autism, but it is a useful precedent because it makes the relationship between body → sensor → data → designed response very visible.

Turning physiological data into an experience

Cocoon is a generative art installation powered by Empatica’s EmbracePlus wearable. The watch continuously captures physiological data including pulse rate, electrodermal activity (EDA) and breathing rate. That information is sent to a companion app through Bluetooth and then transmitted to the installation in real time.

The installation is made from 24 rings and around 12,000 LEDs. Rather than presenting the data as graphs or numbers, Cocoon translates it into light, colour, mood and sound. As the physiological data changes, the installation changes with it.

This is the part I find especially useful for my own project. It demonstrates that biosignals do not have to end in a medical dashboard. The data can become an input into a designed experience.

Useful precedent for my project: the sensor and the response do not have to be the same object. A wearable can collect the signal while another interface, environment or device delivers the response.

Why this matters for my project

Until now I have often pictured the project as a wearable that both senses and somehow communicates back to the user. Cocoon makes me think more broadly. The wearable could simply be the sensing layer, while the actual support could happen elsewhere: through sound, haptics, navigation, an interface, immersive media or another environmental response.

That creates a much more flexible system. It also connects directly to the idea of a closed loop: the body produces a signal, technology captures it, that signal influences an output, and the person then experiences the result.

For an airport context, this does not mean creating an installation like Cocoon. Instead, it gives me permission to think about physiological data as a trigger for a subtle, personalised change in the traveller’s experience.

A useful limitation

Cocoon is an artistic demonstration, not evidence that changing light or sound in response to biosignals will regulate anxiety or sensory overload. It also uses collective physiological data from multiple wearers, whereas my project is concerned with individual control and personalisation.

That difference is important. I should use Cocoon as a design precedent for translating data into responsive outputs, rather than as evidence that a particular intervention is effective.

What I am taking forward

The main thing this project changes for me is how I visualise the system. I can now separate it into three parts:

Sensing → a wearable captures physiological change

Interpretation → the system processes that change in context

Response → another technology adapts or offers support

This makes the outcome feel less like “designing a smartwatch” and more like designing a bioresponsive accessibility system.

It also gives me a useful question for the next stage: if the biosignal is the input, what should the output actually be?

Source