Over the last two weeks, VR has been one of the strongest technological directions in the project. It first interested me as a way of creating a controlled sensory environment within an airport, and the adaptive VR research pushed this further by showing that the environment itself could potentially change according to the individual using it.

However, the more I have researched biofeedback, physiological monitoring and machine learning, the more I have started to question whether VR is actually the most important part of the idea.

The recurring principle across the research is not necessarily the headset. It is the relationship between a changing human state and a technological response.

What Adaptive VR Actually Introduced

My earlier VR research was useful because it showed that a digital environment could respond rather than remaining fixed. Heart rate, movement, eye gaze or other information could be collected while somebody is using the system and then used to alter elements such as sound, visual complexity or environmental intensity.

This connected strongly with my research into autism because sensory needs are individual and can fluctuate according to context. A shared airport sensory room still provides one designed environment, whereas adaptive technology introduces the possibility of changing the experience around the individual.

The question I originally asked was whether a shared accessibility space could become individually controllable.

I still think this is valuable, but I am beginning to see it as one possible application of a wider idea.

Looking Beyond the Headset

The Ge et al. paper demonstrated that heart-rate and EEG data can be translated into visual and auditory changes in real time. The machine-learning research then showed that physiological information can be processed computationally to identify patterns associated with changing states.

Together, these papers made me realise that the response does not have to take place inside VR.

If physiological information can become an input into an interactive system, the output could potentially take many forms. It might be immersive, but it could also be something tactile, auditory, visual, environmental or wearable.

This feels important in an airport because full VR creates obvious practical problems. A traveller still needs to see signs, hear important information, navigate safely and remain aware of what is happening around them. Putting on a headset during an already overwhelming moment could also introduce additional weight, visual isolation or sensory discomfort.

Rather than forcing the design problem to fit VR, I need to allow the eventual technology to emerge from what the traveller actually needs.

From Biofeedback to Bioresponsive

The word biofeedback has been useful because it describes information from the body being fed back to the person or system. However, I am becoming increasingly interested in what happens when that information does more than simply show somebody a number or visualisation.

If the system can sense a physiological change and then alter something in response, it begins to become bioresponsive.

At this stage I am using bioresponsive technology as a broader idea rather than a fixed solution. For me, it describes a system where information from the body can contribute to how the technology responds to the individual.

This moves the project from "How could I design a calming VR experience?" towards "How could design respond to changing regulatory need?"

Why This Feels More Relevant to the Research

This shift fits much more closely with the themes that have appeared throughout my primary research. Participants did not describe one single problem that happened in one fixed location. Their needs changed according to delays, crowds, uncertainty, environmental intensity and what stage of the journey they were in.

The theme of independence also keeps returning. Participants wanted support, but they did not necessarily want to ask staff for help or lose control of the journey. A responsive system could potentially offer another form of support, but only if the traveller remains in control of whether and how it is used.

This means that the project is no longer just about detecting a difficult moment. It is also about deciding what an appropriate response looks like and ensuring that response does not become another demand.

Keeping the Outcome Open

I think it is important that I do not replace one premature solution with another. Earlier in the project I was at risk of deciding on an app too early. More recently, I could have done the same thing with VR.

I now want to keep the technological outcome deliberately open while I investigate biosignals, wearables and different forms of feedback. VR may still return as part of the final concept, but it should be there because the research supports it rather than because I decided on the medium first.

The next stage is therefore to understand the body side of the system in more detail. What can actually be sensed, what does that information mean, and how reliable is it during a real airport journey?

Key Terminology

Adaptive technology — technology that changes its behaviour or output according to information about the user or context.

Biofeedback — physiological information being returned to the user or incorporated into a system so that it can support awareness or regulation.

Bioresponsive technology — technology that uses physiological information as part of determining how the system responds.

Real-time adaptation — changing an experience while it is happening rather than relying on fixed settings.

Input — information entering the system, such as physiological or behavioural data.

Output — the form of response produced by the system, such as visual, auditory, tactile or environmental feedback.

User control — the ability of the traveller to choose, alter, pause or disengage from the support rather than having the system automatically take over.