As technology becomes smaller, the way we carry it has progressed from luggable, to wearable and now towards devices that reside inside the human body, or insertables. This trend is particularly observable in many medical devices, such as pacemakers that were once large stand-alone devices and are now completely inserted into the body. We are now seeing a similar trajectory with non-medical systems. While people once carried keys to open office doors, these have been mostly replaced with wearable access dongles, worn around the neck or clipped to clothing. Some individuals have voluntarily taken the technology from these dongles and inserted it directly into their body. In this paper we introduce insertables as a new interaction device of choice and provide a definition of insertables, classifying emerging and near future devices as insertables. This paper demonstrates this trajectory towards devices inside the human body, and carves out insertables as a specific subset of devices which are voluntary, non-surgical and removable.
From wearable to insertable
Insertables as a device of choice
Experimenting with insertable devices
Humans have been altering their bodies’ for millennia, through markings on their skin and objects piercing their body. Tattooing and scarification have been practiced since ancient Egypt in 3,000 BCE (Levy, et al., 1979). Similarly, lip disks, or lip plates, often seen in African tribes, date back to 8,000 BCE (Keddie, 1989). We also have evidence of body modification during in Biblical times, when a golden nose ring (i.e., body piercing) was given as a gift to Abraham’s future wife (Genesis 24:22). Body augmentation for aesthetic reasons continues today.
Within the last century new objects have been inserted into the body for restorative medical purposes. These objects include stents, pacemakers, insulin pumps, prostheses, cochlear implants, drug delivery pumps, spinal cord stimulation, and deep brain stimulation to name but a few. More recently, individuals have been modifying the body with ‘subdermal or transdermal implants’ (Graafstra, et al., 2010) for non-medical reasons, predominantly in the form of radio frequency identification (RFID) microchips and near field communication (NFC) microchips.
We use the term insertables to refer to this category of devices that are contained within the boundaries of the human body. Insertables are objects that go in, though and underneath the skin. This is in contrast with wearables which are objects “worn with clothing or on the body” (Fernandez, 2014). Our choice of the word insertable, over the less controversial ‘implantable’, is deliberate. The word implant is derived from the Latin implantare meaning engraft or to plant , while insert has a gentler origins from the Latin inserere: to put in . Implantable is often used in the medical context to refer to an object fixed in a person’s body by surgery. Therefore, implantables are more difficult, if not impossible, to remove while insertables are minimally invasive to insert and remove. An implant is often something done to a person, whereas an insertable implies a strong sense of personal agency and choice. Insertables are differentiated from implantable by their voluntary and non-medical nature (see Figure 1, for comparison of implantables and insertables).
Figure 1: Continuum of devices within the body.
This paper has dual goals; first to illustrate the evolution of some personal objects from luggable devices, to wearable devices and now towards insertable devices and, secondly to classify existing and emerging devices that go within the human body as insertables.
From wearable to insertable
Pentland (1998) observed that personal electronic devices were making a transition from luggable to wearable. We now propose these devices are entering a new phase: insertables. The progression towards insertables can already be seen in in many arenas. In this section we highlight examples of devices that were once luggable and wearable and have now become implantable or insertable.
Pacemakers, life saving devices that enables ones’ heart to be regulated where it is otherwise not functioning properly, have progressed from heavy luggable machines to small wearable instruments and now are fully implanted inside the body. The first pacemakers were large luggable devices that were plugged in to an electric socket and bought to a patient. An insulated needle was then inserted into the patients’ heart and electrical pulses were delivered directly into the affected chamber (Mond, et al., 1982; Nelson, 1993). The next evolution of pacemakers was a wearable device. The external pacemaker had pins that were implanted in the heart and attached to external leads that were powered by a battery-operated pulse generator. This generator was small enough to wear on a belt buckle and walk around with, leading to a more normal life (Nelson, 1993). Today’s pacemakers, known as implantable cardioverter devices (ICD), are concealed entirely in the body, including the pulse generator and battery (DiMarco, 2003). ICD installation is now routine surgery, with surgical battery replacement needed every 10 years or so (Holz, et al., 2012).
Similarly, insulin pumps, devices that are used to monitor blood glucose levels in diabetics and take restorative action when they deviate from equilibrium by releasing insulin, have made this transition from luggable. Prior to insulin pumps patients would need twice daily intramuscular injections (Fry, 2012). Vials of insulin were lugged in syringe kits to be administered. Early wearables for diabetics were portable infusion pumps (Bode, et al., 2002), allowing for continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (Fry, 2012). Technological advances have seen smaller and smaller iterations of these devices, to the point that patches of insulin can be attached to the body which are then controlled wirelessly by a remote device (Fry, 2012). Research is currently underway to create internal insulin pumps without the need for an external control, such as the University of Delaware’s B-smart device (Stephan, et al., 2012).
Limb replacement aids have developed from luggable wheelchairs and crutches to wearable and now partially insertable prostheses. Early prostheses date back to the ancient Egyptians; replacement body parts were created for aesthetic reasons from wood and leather (Thurston, 2007). These prostheses were non-functional and were crudely attached to the body. The next iteration of prostheses were still attached to the body, but offered some function and range of motion. Modern prostheses have components that are inserted into the body, and are no longer purely wearable. They attach to the body for neural sensory feedback (Dhillon and Horch, 2005). Some prosthesis even include microchips to gather post-op data for rehabilitation (Katina Michael and Michael, 2013) and research into brain-machine interfaces is ongoing for full neural control over prostheses (Warwick, 2003).
Vision correction and improvement devices in optometry have followed the luggable to wearable to insertable trajectory. It has been hypothesized that prior to glasses the ancient Egyptians would lug gems or glass vessels of water for magnification (Rubin, 1986). Eyeglasses, in the form of wearables, emerged around the fifteenth century (Ilardi, 1976) and have had many advances and fashion trends since in the form of bifocals, monocles and transition lenses. Vision correction has since bridged into contact lenses, which are inserted under the eyelid.
Early hearing aids were a luggable horn called an ear trumpet, first described in 1558 (Stephens and Goodwin, 1984). Modern hearing aids are wearable devices which are worn within the ear to amplify sound (Stone, et al., 1999). Insertable hearing aids and cochlear implants are now available which are surgically implanted around the cochlear in the inner ear to vibrate it when driven by an electromagnetic field (Spindel, et al., 1995).
This evolution from wearable to insertable been seen in animals, both pets and livestock. RFID transponders are attached to livestock to keep track of them in a way that was not possible before (Clark, 2001). Pet microchipping is a now common and accepted practice in pets, and is indeed a legal requirement in some states and countries (Clark, 2001), removing the need for wearable tags on collars. SureFlap (2015) is providing microchip pet doors and pet feeders that work with existing microchips on pets, removing the need for additional pet wearables.
Insertables as a device of choice
Many of the above examples are types of internal medical devices (IMDs), which provide benefits to patients by allowing them to live relatively normal lives again. The IMDs reduce the burden of illness and provide the ability to keep illness hidden by having the device inside the body. In these medical situations, there is often little choice of whether or not to use an IMD. The driver is typically the result of a medical need, not a discretionary want.
We now see non-medical products become acceptable as insertables out of personal preferences. The difference is that these devices are no longer only for restorative purposes, but for convenience. Individuals can choose wearable or insertable forms based on their personal preferences. Eyeglasses can be worn or contact lenses inserted. It is important to remember that the impact of eyeglasses were “hotly debated in their time” (Pentland, 1998), but now we accept them, and contacts, as part of everyday life. The social stigma associated with some insertables has been neutralized with time.
Wearable and insertable modes can co-exist. For example, wearable hearing aids and implantable hearing aids co-exist with individuals being able to choose which they prefer, if any; indeed there is a considerable movement in ‘deaf culture’ to remain electively deaf (Tucker, 1998). Contraceptives concurrently exist both as wearable prophylactics in the form of male condoms, or insertables contraceptives in the form of female condoms, diaphragms, intrauterine devices (IUD) and sub-dermal contraceptive implants. Menstrual aids too come in wearable or insertable form, with an individual able to choose which they are more comfortable with: pads, tampons or menstrual cups.
With the acceptance of insertable objects in the body shown above (contraceptives, menstrual aids, body piercings and other body modifications) we are beginning to see voluntary insertion of, and emergence of, digital insertable devices. Indeed, LoonCup (2015) is a smart menstrual cup, showing this trend towards digital insertables is already beginning.
Experimenting with insertable devices
The concept of this rise in digital insertables is not new. The earliest recorded prediction of digital devices being inserted within human bodies comes from Dr. Alan Westin, who in 1967 spoke of “the possibility of ‘permanent implacements of ‘tagging’ devices on or in the body’” (Ramesh, 1997). Several decades later, in 1999, electrical engineer and researcher Larry McMurchie opined that inserted devices is a reasonable extension to wearable ones: ‘It’s not a big jump to say, ‘OK, you have a wearable, why not just embed the device’” (McMurchie, 1999). In 2000, x-BT researcher Peter Cohrane foretold of “a day when chips are not just worn around the neck, but are actually implanted under a human’s skin” (McGinity, 2000). These predictions were again echoed in 2003: “from a purely ‘rational’ point of view, it would make sense to implant a small chip under the skin, rather than have it on a card that can easily be lost” (Hiltz, et al., 2003).
The first forays into human microchip implantation occurred in 1998 with Kevin Warwick implanting himself with an RFID capsule in his Cyborg 1.0 experiment (Warwick, 2003). Warwick’s chip opened doors and activated lights in his office for the duration of the experiment (Ip, et al., 2008). The same year artist Eduard Kac self-inserted RFID microchips in an art piece entitled ‘Time capsule’ (Kac, 2000).
Over a decade later, VeriChip, began selling and inserting an FDA approved RFID chips for patient identification and medical record recall in hospitals (Katina Michael, et al., 2008). While VeriChip installed RFID readers at 900 U.S. hospitals, and claimed over 2,000 sales (Katina Michael, et al., 2008), the practice did not reach widespread proliferation. Although use for medical identification was not common, the availability of VeriChips spawned other small-scale initiatives. For example, implanting VIP patrons at the Baja Beach Club in Barcelona (Katina Michael and Michael, 2010) for VIP room access and point-of-sale purchases, and implantation of 160 employees of the Mexican Attorney General’s office (Katina Michael and Michael, 2006).
The VeriChip included a bio-bond coating to graft to human tissue to stop migration. This rendered removal of the chip very difficult, if not impossible. This sense permanence of the device inside body is more akin to an implantable, rather than an insertable, which should be easily removable. The possibility of using removable devices heralded the rise of insertables hobbyists. Individual hobbyists have been experimenting with devices under the skin since Amal Graafstra engendered the current hobbyist movement in 2005 (Ip, et al., 2008; Katina Michael and Michael, 2006) by sourcing chips without the bio-bond coating found the the VeriChip device. This movement continues through his Web site, DangerousThings.com (http://dangerousthings.com), that sells devices to the public who can self-insert or seek medical practitioner or body modification artists’ assistance to insert them. There are entire forums and Facebook groups dedicated to individuals interested in getting implants (biohack.me, http://biohack.me) and the movement is continually growing. Several companies now sell insertables such as cyberise.me (https://cyberise.me) and chipmylife.io (https://chipmylife.io).
Insertable devices in humans seem to offer significant convenience. Individuals no longer have to remember to lug keys, or wear an access dongle, but can use insertable devices to authenticate themselves at office doors. Having a device inserted under the skin, to avoid carrying keys, may seem extreme but McGinity (2000) highlights that “convenience and time have been persistent tempters to us before”. Gasson (2008) extends this by stating: “as has been demonstrated by cosmetic surgery, we cannot assume that because a procedure is highly invasive people will not undergo it”. Certainly, when compared to cosmetic surgery, inserting a microchip into the skin of the hand is almost non-invasive; it is less invasive as a body piercing. These microchips are being used by thousands of individuals for access and authentication to buildings (home and work), NFC compatible phones, car and motorcycle access (Graafstra, et al., 2010; Heffernan, et al., 2016; Ip, et al., 2008; Masters and Michael, 2005; K Michael, 2010; Katina Michael, 2008; Katina Michael and Michael, 2013, 2010, 2006, 2005; Katina Michael, et al., 2008). They are also being used to store and transfer small amounts of data to compatible devices. Implanted magnets are used to sense electromagnetic fields (Heffernan, et al., 2016). Science fiction too has prepared people for possible futures with insertables — leading to implicit knowledge of how to operate them, yet also unfounded fears and expectations of GPS tracking abilities.
As we have illustrated, there many examples of personal devices that have evolved from luggables towards insertables. Just as luggables define a large sub-set of objects (desktops, laptops, telephones, tablets etc.), insertables also characterize a class of devices that go through or under the skin or otherwise inside a person. We use insertables to refer to this category of devices that are contained within the boundaries of the human body. This includes devices inserted into, and removed from, cavities of the body easily by the individual, and those that must be inserted by medical professionals or qualified body modification artists. The classification of insertables includes:
- ‘Smart’ body jewellery
- ‘Smart’ contact lenses
- ‘Smart’ menstrual aids
- Emerging insertables such as RFID and NFC microchips and neodymium magnets
Devices which are removable and voluntary, but still provide medical benefits blur the line between insertable and implantable, for example: implantable contraceptive and pharmaceutical delivery devices; dental implants and orthodontics; prosthetics; pessary and suppository devices, and; swallowable devices that are temporarily traversing the insides of a body, for example diagnostic pill cameras (Toennies, et al., 2010). Re-appropriating RFID and NFC chips, and inserting them against ones will (for Alzheimer’s wandering alerts, for prisoner checkpoints and other nefarious purposes) is not only ethically questionable, but unlawful in many parts of the world under pre-emptive U.S. laws against forced microchipping in “at least 17 states” including California (Graafstra, et al., 2010), Wisconsin (Pagnattaro, 2008) and Rhode Island (Gad, 2006). In the U.K. forced insertion would likely fall under their anti-mutilation laws (Anonym, 2015).
As in biology, classification is important to understand the interconnections between similar items. Classifying all these devices as insertables means that standards, design and ethical considerations can be made at scale for all devices that go through the human body, rather than tackling each individual devices as a separate case.
Our classification does not include recent innovations, that are comparable to insertables but are more accurately classed as wearables. Such innovations include: NailO, an input device that attaches to a finger nail developed by Kao, et al. (2015); iSkin, body touch sensors that go over existing skin, developed by Weigel, et al. (2015) or DuoSkin an on-skin device (Kao, et al., 2016). Nor does it include biometrics, smart eyelashes (Jhajharia, et al., 2014), conductive make up (Vega and Fuks, 2013), heart authentications using ECG devices (El-Bendary, et al., 2010), and smart tattoos (Hirschberg, et al., 2014). These technologies must be put on to the body, not inside the body. Insertables are the only ubiquitous devices that can truly always with a person as they are physically inside the body.
There is still a great deal to learn about insertable technologies. We do not know the types of insertable devices individuals are carrying, nor how the devices are being used. Future research should seek to understand what individuals are inserting and why. Reasons for inserting, and particularly for choosing an insertable over an available wearable device should be better understood. Specific questions for future research include:
- What are the characteristics of individuals using insertables?
- Why do individuals decide to modify their bodies instead of using wearables?
- What are the kinds of insertables they are using and what capabilities of the device do they wish to exploit?
- How are insertables used to interact with existing computing systems?
While not every device can, or will, become insertable, and not every person will want to get an insertable device, we have demonstrated the evolution of devices from being lugged by a person, to worn on a person and now being contained within a person. This trend towards insertables has been seen in the form of IMDs and towards voluntary insertable devices in individuals that chose to augment their bodies. This research has also defined and classified insertables as a category of device, separate from wearables, and disctinct from other implantable devices.
About the authors
Kayla J. Heffernan is a doctoral candidate in the School of Computing and Information Systems at The University of Melbourne and user experience designer at SEEK Ltd. She has a Master’s in information systems from the University of Melbourne (2014) and a Bachelor’s in business information systems from Monash University (2011). Kayla’ss research explores the use of digital devices inserted inside the human body voluntarily for non-medical purposes.
E-mail: kayla [dot] heffernan [at] gmail [dot] com
Frank Vetere is a Professor in the Department of Computing and Information Systems at the University of Melbourne, Director of the Microsoft Research Centre of Social Nature User Interfaces and lead of the Interaction Design Laboratory, both also at The University of Melbourne. His primary research areas are social computing, natural user interfaces and technologies for ageing-well. His broad research agenda is to generate knowledge about the use and design of ICTs for human well-being and social benefit.
Shanton Chang is an associate professor in the Department of Computing and Information Systems at the University of Melbourne. Shanton’s core research areas are three-fold: online behaviour in health, education and wider society, consumer health information and information needs and information systems security culture and management.
1. Oxford Dictionaries, at https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/implant, accessed 19 February 2017.
2. Oxford Dictionaries, at https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/insert, accessed 19 February 2017.
Lepht Anonym, 2015. “Biohacking 101,” Futurist talks in Nottingham, number 2 (31 October), at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxZXy_80YNwBT25qVTJ2Qm0xdnc/view, accessed 19 February 2017.
Bruce W. Bode, Hassan T. Sabbah, Todd M. Gross, Linda P. Fredrickson and Paul C. Davidson, 2002. “Diabetes management in the new millennium using insulin pump therapy,” Diabetes/Metabolism Research and Reviews, volume 18, supplement 1, pp. S14–S20.
doi: http://doi.org/10.1002/dmrr.205, accessed 19 February 2017.
Andy Clark, 2001. “Natural-born cyborgs?” In: Meurig Beynon, Chrystopher L. Nehaniv and Kerstin Dautenhahn (editors). Cognitive technology: Instruments of mind. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, volume 2117. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, pp. 17–24.
doi: http://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44617-6_2, accessed 19 February 2017.
Gurpreet Singh Dhillon and Kenneth W. Horch, 2005. “Direct neural sensory feedback and control of a prosthetic arm,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, volume 13, number 4, pp. 468–472.
doi: http://doi.org/10.1109/TNSRE.2005.856072, accessed 19 February 2017.
John P. DiMarco, 2003. “Implantable cardioverter–defibrillators,” New England Journal of Medicine, volume 349, number 19 (6 November), pp. 1,836–1,847.
doi: http://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra035432, accessed 19 February 2017.
Nashwa El-Bendary, Hameed Al-Qaheri, Hossam M. Zawbaa, Mohamed Hamed, Aboul Ella Hassanien, Qiangfu Zha and Ajith Abraham, 2010. “HSAS: Heart sound authentication system,” paper presented at the 2010 Second World Congress on Nature and Biologically Inspired Computing (NaBIC).
doi: http://doi.org/10.1109/NABIC.2010.5716306, accessed 19 February 2017.
Peter Fernandez, 2014. “Wearable technology: Beyond augmented reality,” Library Hi Tech News, volume 31, number 9.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/LHTN-09-2014-0082, accessed 19 February 2017.
Andrew Fry, 2012. “Insulin delivery device technology 2012: Where are we after 90 years?” Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, volume 6, number 4, pp. 947–953.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/193229681200600428, accessed 19 February 2017.
Anthony Gad, 2006. “Human microchip implantation,” Legislative Briefs from the Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau, Legislative Brief 06–13, at http://cdm16831.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p16831coll2/id/1356, accessed 19 February 2017.
Mark N. Gasson, 2008. “ICT implants: The invasive future of identity?” In: Simone Fischer-Hübner, Penny Duquenoy, Albin Zuccato and Leonardo Martucci (editors). The future of identity in the information society. Boston, Mass.: Springer, pp. 287–295.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-79026-8_20, accessed 19 February 2017.
Amal Graafstra, Katina Michael and M.G. Michael, 2010. “Social-technical issues facing the humancentric RFID implantee sub-culture through the eyes of Amal Graafstra,” paper presented at the 2010 IEEE International Symposium on Technology and Society (ISTAS).
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ISTAS.2010.5514602, accessed 19 February 2017.
Kayla J. Heffernan, Frank Vetere and Shanton Chang, 2016. “You put what, where? Hobbyist use of insertable devices,” CHI ’16: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1,798–1,809.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858392, accessed 19 February 2017.
Starr Roxanne Hiltz, Hyo-Joo Han and Vladimir Briller, 2003. “Public attitudes towards a national identity ‘smart card:’ Privacy and security concerns,” HICSS ’03: Proceedings of the 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, volume 5, p. 139.1.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2003.1174312, accessed 19 February 2017.
David L. Hirschberg, Kelley Betts, Peter Emanuel and Matt Caples, 2014. “Assessment of wearable sensor technologies for biosurveillance.,” Edgewood Chemical Biological Center, ECBC-TR-1275 (30 September), at www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA611718, accessed 19 February 2017.
Christian Holz, Tovi Grossman, George Fitzmaurice and Anne Agur, 2012. “Implanted user interfaces,” CHI ’12: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 503–512.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2207745, accessed 19 February 2017.
Vincent Ilardi, 1976. “Eyeglasses and concave lenses in fifteenth-century Florence and Milan: New documents,” Renaissance Quarterly, volume 29, number 3, pp. 341–360.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2860275, accessed 19 February 2017.
R. Ip, Katina Michael and M.G. Michael, 2008. “Amal Graafstra-The Do-It-Yourselfer RFID Implantee: The culture, values and ethics of hobbyist implantees,” University of Wollongong, Faculty of Informatics, Papers, number 582, at http://ro.uow.edu.au/infopapers/582/, accessed 19 February 2017.
Smita Jhajharia, S.K. Pal and Seema Verma, 2014. “Wearable computing and its application,” International Journal of Computer Science and Information Technologies, volume 5, number 4, pp. 5,700–5,704.
Eduardo Kac, 2000. “Time capsule,” Ai & Society, volume 14, number 2, pp. 243–249.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01205454, accessed 19 February 2017.
Hsin-Liu (Cindy) Kao, Christian Holz, Asta Roseway, Andres Calvo and Chris Schmandt, 2016. “DuoSkin: Rapidly prototyping on-skin user interfaces using skin-friendly materials,” ISWC ’16: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM International Symposium on Wearable Computers, pp. 16–23.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2971763.2971777, accessed 19 February 2017.
Hsin-Liu (Cindy) Kao, Artem Dementyev, Joseph A. Paradiso and Chris Schmandt, 2015. “NailO: Fingernails as an input surface,” CHI ’15: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 3,015–3,018.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702572, accessed 19 February 2017.
Grant Keddie, 1989. “Symbolism and context: The world history of the Labret and cultural diffusion on the Pacific Rim,” paper presented at the Circum-Pacific Prehistory Conference (Seattle, Wash.), at http://staff.royalbcmuseum.bc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/LABRET-PAPER-1989-Grant-Keddie.pdf, accessed 19 February 2017.
Jerome Levy, Margaret Sewell and Norman Goldstein, 1979. “II. A short history of tattooing,” Journal of Dermatologic Surgery and Oncology, volume 5, number 11, pp. 851–856.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4725.1979.tb00768.x, accessed 19 February 2017.
LoonCup, 2015. “LOONCUP — The world’s first SMART menstrual cup,” at https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/700989404/looncup-the-worlds-first-smart-menstrual-cup, accessed 19 February 2017.
Amelia Masters and Katina Michael, 2005. “Humancentric applications of RFID implants: the usability contexts of control, convenience and care,” paper presented at WMCS ’05: Second IEEE International Workshop on Mobile Commerce and Services.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/WMCS.2005.11, accessed 19 February 2017.
Meg McGinity, 2000. “Staying connected: Body of technology,” Communications of the ACM, volume 43, number 9, pp. 17–19.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/348941.348964, accessed 19 February 2017.
Larry McMurchie, 1999. “Identifying risks in biometric use,” Computing Canada, volume 25, number 6, p. 11.
Katina Michael, 2010. “RFID implantable devices for humans and the risk versus reward debate: ‘What are we waiting for?’,” at https://works.bepress.com/kmichael/205/, accessed 19 February 2017.
Katina Michael, 2008. “Homo electricus and the continued speciation of humans,” In: Marian Quigley (editor). Encyclopedia of information ethics and security. Hershey, Pa.: Information Science Reference, pp. 312–318.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59140-987-8.ch047, accessed 19 February 2017.
Katina Michael and M.G. Michael, 2013. “The future prospects of embedded microchips in humans as unique identifiers: the risks versus the rewards,” Media, Culture & Society, volume 35, number 1, pp. 78–86.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0163443712464561, accessed 19 February 2017.
Katina Michael and M.G. Michael, 2010. “The diffusion of RFID implants for access control and epayments: A case study on Baja Beach Club in Barcelona,” paper presented at the 2010 IEEE International Symposium on Technology and Society (ISTAS).
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ISTAS.2010.5514631, accessed 19 February 2017.
Katina Michael and M.G. Michael, 2006. “Towards chipification: the multifunctional body art of the Net Generation,” University of Wollongong, Faculty of Informatics, Papers, number 372, at http://ro.uow.edu.au/infopapers/372/, accessed 19 February 2017.
Katina Michael and M.G. Michael, 2005. “Microchipping people: The rise of the electrophorus,” University of Wollongong, Faculty of Informatics, Papers, number 374, at http://ro.uow.edu.au/infopapers/374/, accessed 19 February 2017.
Katina Michael and M.G. Michael and Rodney Ip, 2008. “Microchip implants for humans as unique identifiers: A case study on VeriChip,” University of Wollongong, Faculty of Informatics, Papers, number 586, at http://ro.uow.edu.au/infopapers/586/, accessed 19 February 2017.
Harry G. Mond, J. Graeme Sloman and Rowland H. Edwards, 1982. “The first pacemaker,” Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology, volume 5, number 2, pp. 278–282.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-8159.1982.tb02226.x, accessed 19 February 2017.
G.D. Nelson, 1993. “A brief history of cardiac pacing,” Texas Heart Institute Journal, volume 20, number 1, pp. 12–18.
Marisa Anne Pagnattaro, 2008. “Getting under your skin — Literally: RFID in the employment context,” Journal of Law, Technology & Policy, volume 2008, number 2, pp. 237–257, and at http://illinoisjltp.com/journal/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Pagnattaro.pdf, accessed 19 February 2017.
Alex P. Pentland, 1998. “Wearable intelligence,” Scientific American, pp. 90–95, at http://web.media.mit.edu/~sandy/wearable_intelligence.pdf, accessed 19 February 2017.
Elaine M. Ramesh, 1997. “Time enough — Consequences of human microchip implantation,” Risk: Health, Safety & Environment, volume 8, number 4, pp. 373–407.
Melvin L. Rubin, 1986. “Spectacles: Past, present, and future,” Survey of Ophthalmology, volume 30, number 5, pp. 321–327.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0039-6257(86)90064-0, accessed 19 February 2017.
Jonathan H. Spindel, Paul R. Lambert and Roger A. Ruth, 1995. “The round window electromagnetic implantable hearing aid approach,” Otolaryngologic Clinics of North America, volume 28, number 1, pp. 189–205.
Karl D. Stephan, Katina Michael, M.G. Michael, Laura Jacob and Emily P. Anesta, 2012. “Social implications of technology: The past, the present, and the future,” Proceedings of the IEEE, volume 100, special centennial issue, pp. 1,752–1,781.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/JPROC.2012.2189919, accessed 19 February 2017.
S.D.G. Stephens and J.C. Goodwin, 1984. “Non-electric aids to hearing: A short history,” Audiology, volume 23, number 2, pp. 215–240.
Michael A. Stone, Brian C.J. Moore, José I. Alcántara and Brian R. Glasberg, 1999. “Comparison of different forms of compression using wearable digital hearing aids,” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, volume 106, number 6, pp. 3,603–3,619.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.428213, accessed 19 February 2017.
SureFlap, 2015. “Microchip cat door,” at https://www.sureflap.com/en-gb/pet-doors/microchip-pet-door, accessed 19 February 2017.
Alan J. Thurston, 2007. “Paré and prosthetics: The early history of artificial limbs,” ANZ Journal of Surgery, volume 77, number 12, pp. 1,114–1,119.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1445-2197.2007.04330.x, accessed 19 February 2017.
Jenna L. Toennies, Giuseppe Tortora, Massimiliano Simi, Pietro Valdastri R.J. Webster, 2010. “Swallowable medical devices for diagnosis and surgery: The state of the art,” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part C: Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science, volume 224, number 7, pp. 1,397–1,414.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1243/09544062JMES1879, accessed 19 February 2017.
Bonnie Poitras Tucker, 1998. “Deaf culture, cochlear implants, and elective disability,” Hastings Center Report, volume 28, number 4, pp. 6–14.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3528607, accessed 19 February 2017.
Katia Vega and Hugo Fuks, 2013. “Beauty technology as an interactive computing platform,” ITS ’13: Proceedings of the 2013 ACM International Conference on Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces, pp. 357–360.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2512349.2512399, accessed 19 February 2017.
Kevin Warwick, 2003. “Cyborg morals, cyborg values, cyborg ethics,” Ethics and Information Technology, volume 5, number 3, pp. 131–137.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:ETIN.0000006870.65865.cf, accessed 19 February 2017.
Martin Weigel, Tong Lu, Gilles Bailly, Antti Oulasvirta, Carmel Majidi and Juürgen Steimle, 2015. “iSkin: Flexible, stretchable and visually customizable on-body touch sensors for mobile computing,” CHI ’15: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 2,991–3,000.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702391, accessed 19 February 2017.
Received 31 October 2015; revised 25 October 2016; accepted 20 February 2017.
Copyright © 2017, Kayla J. Heffernan, Frank Vetere, and Shanton Chang.
Towards insertables: Devices inside the human body
by Kayla J. Heffernan, Frank Vetere, and Shanton Chang.
First Monday, Volume 22, Number 3 - 6 March 2017