Author: elizabeth.trevinopadilla

This article presented a novel approach to sound integration in the aerial arts through SALTO (Sonic Aerialist eLecTrOacoustic system), a MaxMSP-based system that translates movement data from the Myo Armband sent via Bluetooth and OSC [1]. Christiana Rose, the author of the paper, worked with Katharine Geber, an aerial artist and choreographer, and together they created a hybrid visual and sound piece called “Splinter” as a proof of concept of SALTO [1]. 

Rose uses the MAX objects of click~ (an impulse generator), a resonant filter, and a spectral delay to translate emg signals into short percussion sounds. She also uses the accelerometer values to control the MAX grainstretch~ object’s grain size, speed, and pitch. Furthermore, she uses iosc~ and cascade~ MAX objects to sonify the gyroscope data, which controls the frequency and gain of recordings loaded into the oscillator bank. 

What’s interesting about this article, in the technical sense, is that both the aerialist and the author worked together in mapping each arm movement (medial or lateral rotation; flextion, extension, and abduction; circumduction; and grasping or holding on) into a different sonic idea, as shown in the table below [1]. 

What’s interesting about this article, in the conceptual sense and relating to my own topic of investigation, is how they were able to translate internal bodily sensations into sound, so that the audience could get a modicum of understanding what it feels like to be up on the apparatus (in the paper’s case, trapeze) [1]. 

Rose even states that “An aerialist’s perception of sound during performance is unique in the way it is filtered by the body. (…) Often viewers have limited, if any, embodied idea of this kinesonic experience. Geber and I aimed to blend movement and music using the internal kinesonic experience of the performer to sonify those elements.” [1]. 

My specific area of research aims to do just that, figure out how to communicate the tacit knowledge of a performer’s physical bodily experience on the aerial silk. However, the SALTO tool proposed by Rose is limited in its scope as it was specifically designed for the trapeze and, not only that, but for this specific performance with this specific aerialist. SALTO might be a useful tool for capturing the audience’s interest, but I believe that, rather than being a potential solution to my research question, it is a valuable proof of concept showing how to implement an auditory interface into aerial dance. 

— 

Source: 

[1] C. Rose, “SALTO: A System for Musical Expression in the Aerial Arts,” Proceedings of the International Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression, pp. 302-306, 2017, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.1176260 

Last semester, I concluded the blog posts with some insights about what ideas could work for beginners and advanced students. Following up on that, I created my 3 prototypes. 

1. Hanger silk 

Some aerial knots are easier to explain time and time again when the teacher doesn’t have to continually do them in the air. In my class observations, I’ve noticed that teachers often mimic the movement of legs or feet with their hands, like so: 

Own video. 

In order to improve this communication, I designed a prototype using 2 simple materials I already had at home: a hanger and a scarf. 

Own image. 

Own video. 

With this, I would be able to more clearly explain base knots, by using the smaller silk with my hands. The following is an explanatory video showing how this would work, specifically for demonstrating the difference between a  basic footlock and a dancer’s footlock.  

Own video. 

2. Neon sleeves 

One of my findings of the past semester’s interviews was that a lot of people weren’t able to very clearly differentiate their right from their left. To solve this problem, I created a prototype using scissors and a 5€ thrifted sport jacket (since all of my old sports clothes are in Mexico, and I didn’t want to cut up one of my newer garments). 

Own image. 

Own video. 

With the sleeves, I would be able to quickly and efficiently demonstrate the core idea that needs to be communicated with figures. This is because, while it is possible to explain figures with left and right, what is actually important in aerial silks figures is if you’re using the same leg and arm or the opposing leg and arm. The following is a use suggestion in order to be able to differentiate sleeved side and normal side. 

Own image. 

3. Little guy 

Last semester I also talked about having a 3D model of a person as a potential aid in teaching complex figures. A possible solution for a 3D model prototype is using a ready-made doll; however, the options available in thrift stores don’t satisfy the need that they should be articulated and able to bend both arms and legs; plus, new options would be too expensive. As such, I decided to prototype this using wood sticks, UHU Patafix, and some ribbon, all of which I already had in my house. 

Own image. 

Own video. 

Using this model, it’s possible to convey the physical movements needed for a specific figure, without needing to expense so much physical energy. Plus, students are able to see the same knot in different spatial perspective variations, improving their knowledge of the theory behind the knots and making observational learning in the future easier. An added advantage is that it’s easier to convey what effect that small bodily position changes will have on the outcome of a figure, especially as it pertains to safety. In the following example, I demonstrate how bending towards your knees while doing a hip key is the safety lock you need in order to stay in place, while if you stay straight you will fall, just like the little guy. 

Own video. 

– 

Sources: 

Own data. 

As a continuation of the last blog post, I would like to explain my findings about what works for advanced students, regarding the central research question of: How can we use interaction design to assist in the training of aerial silks, especially in enhancing people’s proprioception? 

Besides what was already explained as best practices for beginners (which can also help some advanced students), the other strategies that I’ve found to be beneficial are as follows. 

• 3D model miniature 

Some teachers utilize novel methods such as 3D miniatures to explain figures and sequences, eliminating the need to go up in the silk, which when done repeatedly, takes a lot of physical energy from the teacher. 

• Real-time communicator (through video or speech) 

When up in the air, advanced aerialists find it helpful to have a second person (or even a video projection) to keep track of what the next move is, and either be able to communicate it through shared language (if there’s a second person), or through observational learning (if it’s a video). 

• Reference to base knots and common language 

Since advanced aerialist now have learned the names of the base knots and basic figures (footlock, kneelock, hip key, catcher’s pose, porter, star drop, etc.), when building new knowledge it’s more beneficial to fall back on this past knowledge, instead of relying on the beginner’s explanation methods. 

• Analogies to other figures 

In a similar manner to the past point, when learning a new skill in aerial silks, advanced students find themselves unconsciously relating them to past knowledge. For the figure shown in the picture, the unmethodological approach would be to explain it as “go upside down, hug one silk with one leg, keep grabbing it, and now use the hand that’s not on the wrapped silk to grab it from below and put it over your other leg, so that the silk is hanging in between your legs and toward the back.” Obviously, this unmethodological approach to explaining the knot is not sustainable, so advanced aerialist would translate it as follows: 

1. Go upside down = invert 

2. Hug one silk with one leg = make a half angel 

3. Everything else = make a catcher’s pose / as if you were doing a star drop 

Or, even simpler, a more advanced aerialist would just explain it as “make a catcher’s wrap on one silk” (since it’s assumed that to do a catcher’s wrap you must either invert and make a half angel, or invert and hook). 

Own image. 

– 

Sources: 

Own research. 

Throughout the whole semester, I’ve been conducting field research in order to try to answer the question of: How can we use interaction design to assist in the training of aerial silks, especially in enhancing people’s proprioception? 

In these last 2 blog posts, I would like to expose my findings, divided by what works for beginners and what works for advanced students. Moving forward, I expect these 2 to be protopersonas for testing future prototypes and validating my results next semesters. 

Now, on to what works for beginners: 

• Naming figures 

Even though there are no international or national standards for naming sequences or figures, each studio should have their own set of naming conventions to facilitate shared language. 

• Directory of figures 

Since new students can join a studio at any time, and to lower the cognitive load of remembering previously learned sequences or figures, studios should follow Nielsen’s heuristic of Recognition rather than Recall, and document the names and pictures (or ideally, videos) of the sequences and figures in a directory accessible to all students. 

• 2-colored unitard / specific accessories 

For students who struggle differentiating their left from their right, teachers could provide the option to tailor a custom unitard with half a side in one color and the other half in another. This would help students clearly see and understand the relationship between each side of their body in the air, whether it be through observational learning or through own practice with a real-time communicator. 

If there’s not enough budget for this, however, students could also wear a big bracelet on one hand and a big anklet on the respective leg, in order to help in differentiating left from right. 

• 2-colored silk 

For even more directionally challenged students, silks where each tail is a different color could be helpful, since it would be easier to explain to them “grab the red silk” instead of relying on “grab one silk … no not that one, the other one.” 

• Floorial work

Learning a new wrap and understanding how it feels is not an easy task. As such, it’s always easier to simulate the silk wrapping process while on the floor, to be able to wrap your mind around where each silk and part of your body must go in order to complete it.

• Limb position references relative to our body, not the world 

When communicating a new sequence or figure, teachers must not use world-relative references. It’s easier for students to understand relationships between body parts when they’re being explained to them in a way that they can see (eg. Explaining directions of turns with either “towards your pinky toe” or “towards your big toe”). 

• Analogies to everyday experiences 

When teaching new moves, it’s also helpful to relate the physical movements to other, everyday movements students are already used to. For example, one specific type or grip (depicted in the image), can be explained as “look at your watch, and then straighten your arm” / “move your hand to your temple as if you had a fever, and then straighten your arm” / “imagine you were a flamenco dancer, now do the typical move” — this helps the student more easily learn and remember the direction of the grip, instead of needing advanced spatial awareness. 

Image from [1]. 

– 

Sources: 

[1] “Half flamenco grip,” Aerial Fit Online, Accessed: Jan. 22, 2026. [Online.] Available: http://aerialfitonline.com/silks/half-flamenco-grip/ 

The exact origins of aerial silks are still disputed [1]. Some sources mention that the first mentions of it were in a French newspaper in the 1950s, in which a circus student presented a novel act with long pieces of fabric [1] [2].  

Other sources debate that it was actually invented by André Simard of Cirque du Soleil in 1980s Canada, where he combined his circus and gymnastics training into this new discipline [1]. However, Simard not only focused on the athletic aspect of the sport, but he also transformed silks into the highly performative art form it is today – it’s not just a display of strength, but also a method to convey narrative through performance art [1]. 

Isabelle Vaudelle is also sometimes credited as one of the initiators of the sport, since she performed silks at the Festival Mondial du Cirque de Demain in 1995, where according to some, it was first officially recognized [1]. On the other hand, some say the first official recognition of the sport was when Vaudelle performed silks with Isabelle Chassé in the Cirque du Soleil show Quidam in 1998 [1]. 

Several sources report the following photo being taken in the early 1900s, showing a silks performance at a vaudeville theater by Amy LeVan [1]. 

Image from [1]. 

The origins of the art get even more complicated to pinpoint with some sources citing records of silks being used in ancient Chinese circus performances more than 2,000 years ago [2].  

Whatever the origin, modern aerial silks captivated the audience for its unique storytelling, since earlier circus apparatuses used for acrobatic performances were rigid and unmoving, such as the trapeze [2]. As such, acrobats could now use not only their own bodies but also the apparatus in itself in their narrative pursuits [2]. 

Nowadays, aerial silks are not only used in a circus context, but they have also been introduced as a fun fitness exercise due to the nature of the sport, which requires full-body strength [2]. 

– 

Sources: 

[1] “The Fuzzy History of Aerial Silks,” Aerial Physique, Accessed: Jan. 16, 2026. [Online.] Available: https://www.aerialphysique.com/post/have-you-been-wondering-this-too 

[2] “A Fascinating Guide to Aerial Silks History,” Synergy Gymnastics London, Accessed: Jan. 16, 2026. [Online.] Available: https://www.synergygymnastics.co.uk/a-fascinating-guide-to-aerial-silks-history/ 

Proprioception, defined as “the awareness of the mechanical and spatial state of the body and its musculoskeletal parts” [1], or in plain English, the sensation of inhabiting your body, is an ineffable sense, as [2] states. How do we describe in words the internal physical feelings of our body’s physical state? Not only that, but how do we communicate to create the same physical sensation to another person, when proprioception is an inherently internal sense? [2] points out that other senses like vision and hearing allow for a shared sensory experience between different people, due to the fact that they deal with the external environment. In contrast, proprioception deals with the internal body sensations and is thus individual and excluded from the collective conscious perception [2].  

[1] states that “proprioceptive signals include peripheral inputs from muscle spindles, Golgi tendon organs, cutaneous, and joint receptors, along with central inputs from efferent motor commands (i.e., corollary discharges)”. All of these stimuli are then processed by our brains in order to be able to tell what position our body is in, what kind of movement is happening, how much effort is being made by our muscles (and which ones), and how heavy objects we lift are [1]. 

An important thing to note is that researchers have found is that there are 2 different senses related to how we perceive the position of our bodies, which measure the following, respectively [1]:  

1. Limb position relative to our bodies [1] 

2. Limb location relative to the outside world [1] 

[1] also introduces the concept of high-level proprioceptive judgements, defined as “judgments made in a different frame of reference.” In this context, the latter refers to the different spatial maps (or mental representations of a person’s physical environment) that the brain can process since each has a distinct frame of reference [1][3]. Some of these maps are enumerated as follows [1]: 

1. Retinotopic (mapping of the visual world [4]) 

2. Somatotopic (mapping of the body to the central nervous system [5]) 

3. Egocentric (self-to-object [3]) 

4. Face-centered  

5. Object-centered  

6. World-centered  

Furthermore, [1]’s framework is shown graphically in the following excerpt from the paper, including [1]’s own self-described caption. 

Image from [1] 

– 

Sources: 

[1] M. E. Héroux, A. A. Butler, L. S. Robertson, G. Fisher, and S. C. Gandevia, “Proprioception: a new look at an old concept,” Journal of Applied Physiology, vol. 132, pp. 811-814, February 2022. 

[2] J. C. Tuthill and E. Azim, “Proprioception,” Current Biology, vol. 28, pp. R194-R203, March 2018. 

[3] M. Kozhevnikov and J. Puri, “Different Types of Survey-Based Environmental Representations: Egocentric vs. Allocentric Cognitive Maps,” Brain sciences, vol. 13, May 2023. 

[4] O. Braddick, “Occipital Lobe (Visual Cortex): Functional Aspects,” International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, pp. 10826-10828, 2001. 

[5] K. B. See, D. J. Arpin, D. E. Vaillancourt, R. Fang, and S. A. Coombes, “Unraveling somatotopic organization in the human brain using machine learning and adaptive supervoxel-based parcellations,” NeuroImage, vol. 245, November 2021. 

[1] states that “a central puzzle that people face, from a design perspective, is how to make communication possible that was once difficult, impossible or unimagined.” This problem is exacerbated when the communication topic is one’s own body awareness and proprioception – and it’s an even bigger problem when you add the extra element of being suspended in the air. 

I believe that a possible solution to my identified design problem is redesigning the communication strategies used in aerial silks teaching, but to do so, we must first understand what communication design actually is. [1] defines it as “an intervention into some ongoing activity through the invention of techniques, devices, and procedures that aim to redesign interactivity and thus shape the possibilities for communication.” We, as designers, must design communication strategies in the preferred form of interactivity of the receiver, eliminating the nonpreferred forms [1]. 

According to [2], good communication must be effective (achieving the objective), appropriate (conforming to the rules of a situation), satisfying (fulfilling expectations), efficient (achieving the valued outcomes relative to the amount invested), verisimilar (having clearly understood symbol-referent links), and task-achieving (accomplishing the correct interpretation). It is also located in perception rather than in behavior [2]. This means that good communication is evaluated by people’s subjective perception that a communicator and their performance are appropriate and effective [2]. 

Communication can be classified by channel (i.e., the medium, means, manner, and methods): verbal or non-verbal [3]. Verbal communication can be either oral (either face-to-face or via a distance) or written, whereas non-verbal communication is more subtle [3]. Non-verbal communication consists of facial expressions, gestures, body language, eye contact, touch, space, and personality [3]. Communication can also be classified by style: formal (as in, within the professional environment) or informal (also called word-of-mouth) [3]. 

In the context of aerial silks, effective communication must: 

• Reference mutually understood signifiers for basic movements (e.g. Footlock, hip key, S-wrap, etc.) 

• Be both visual (observation of a teacher/video) and verbal (naming the steps) 

• Be memorable (or in its defect, have a communicator repeating the steps while the aerialist does the figure) 

Plus, I would add that communication in aerial silks does not terminate once the communicator gives the steps to the aerialist; but rather, it ends once the aerialist has climbed the silk and actually felt the figure in the air. 

– 

Sources:  

[1] M. Aakhus, “Communication as Design,” Communication Monographs, vol. 74, pp. 112-117, March 2007. 

[2] B. H. Spitzberg, “What is Good Communication?,” Journal of tbe Association for Communication Administration, vol. 29, pp. 103-119, January 2000. 

[3] R. Kapur, “The Types of Communication,” Multidisciplinary International Journal, vol. 6, pp. 1-7, December 2020. 

For the last blog post, I conducted interviews to figure out aerialists’ attitudes toward learning body awareness. For this one, I would like to see their behavior rather than their attitude, in order to be able to compare and contrast what they say versus what they do. 

This time, I decided to make a video blog (vlog) for this week’s entry, chronicling the different ways that teachers and students have tried to explain new figures to me (the constant participant in all of this). 

Own video. 

In the video, you can see how the Slovenian teacher, who focuses on making the figures look pretty and performative, moves my body in order to try to make me understand how I should move. This is directly contrasting what the Ukrainian teacher does, since she only uses verbal input while I’m in the air (since it’s also higher up). You can also see how the lack of a standardized language makes it hard to understand each other. In the video, I translate literally the name of one movement in Spanish (“camiseta” – “shirt”) and the teacher doesn’t understand me. For context, I had to learn the English names for some basic moves (“hip key”, which is used in the video, was not a word I knew before coming here; I called that move “tijera” or in English, “scissor”).  

In the video, you can also see how the learning process in silks doesn’t go in incremental steps. Since it’s in the air, people have to try out the full figure immediately. Unlike in silks, in gymnastics, you can see that there’s different prerequisites before fully trying out a new move. This helps in understanding what the body must do to successfully complete it without help (even though I still haven’t been able to figure out the 2^nd move). 

What’s not shown in the video, however, is that throughout the past few weeks’ class observation, I’ve noticed a pattern present in novice explainers (read: when it’s not the teacher, but another student explaining a figure or correction). Usually, they would say “left hand”, and when they see it’s the wrong hand, they correct it with “no, the other left”. If it’s a move where the person must go into the silks or wrap around them, and the apprentice doesn’t do it correctly, novice explainers usually say “no, the other way”, even when there’s many “other ways” to wrap around (sometimes, novice explainers go as far as to say “no, the other other way”). When asked about this, they all agreed that learning new skills in aerial silks is half about trial and error in learning how their body is supposed to move, and half about trial and error in learning how to communicate the steps from person to person. 

– 

Source: own observation. 

In the past blog post, I talked about scientific studies that proved that externalizing the internal sensations of proprioception through sound and sight helped increase athletic performance and artistic expression. 

However, this week, I decided to take a different approach to answering the question I proposed 2 blog posts ago: have there been experimental tests to try to overcome [learning body and silk awareness off the ground] in a different way? 

Instead of looking to scientific papers, I turned to my aerial silks colleagues, conducting informal group and individual interviews (n=10(+1) participants) that yielded interesting results. I asked them if they ever experienced the problem of trying to both communicate and understand body awareness and proprioception in a new figure, and what they empirically found to be solutions to this. 

One participant (female, 38, Austrian) said she had a lot of problem differentiating left from right (even in normal life). Since this participant knew how to sew, she created her own unitard she uses for training, in which one half of the body is blue, and the other half is red. She also created one for her daughter (female, 7, Austrian), who is also learning silks and has the same problem. The participant cited that both her and her daughter have found success with this method, as it’s easier to both see and communicate if they have the correct leg and arm placements when learning a new figure. 

Another participant (female, 36, Mexican) is a teacher, and says she takes magnetic bracelets to class. When she finds students struggling with body orientation, she gives these bracelets to them and asks them to put them on one side of their body. This way, when they’re up in the air, she can refer to left and right as “the side with/without the bracelet”. She also explains that in her 7 years of teaching, she has found that with every new student, she learns different ways of explaining the same figure, since everyone has their own understanding of their body in space. However, she mentions that since she’s very cautious, she makes sure that every student first feels comfortable doing new figures close to the floor, and then she tells them they can finally try them out higher up. Her teaching assistant (female, 24, Mexican) echoes this sentiment, and adds that when she herself learns new figures, she likes to analyze and experiment different ways to get in and out of it while she’s on the silk, rather than in theory outside of it. 

A second teacher (female, 33, Slovakian) had a completely different experience. In her words, some people just aren’t meant to be aerialists, and if they can’t learn through copious practice then maybe it isn’t for them. Her approach to teaching proprioception centered more around diligent practice and repetition rather than finding novel ways to teach, which she says has worked for her students. She also incorporates “floorial” (aerial on the floor) exercises at the beginning of her workshops, to increase artists’ body awareness and get them in tune with the silk.  

One student (female, 25, Austrian) said she would like to be able to have a video of the figure she’s referencing while she’s in the air, for example by projecting it on a wall. However, another student (female, 26, Austrian) said she wouldn’t like that, since she would still struggle with orientation if she’s upside down. This student also said she prefers communicating with references relative to her position (e.g. “the free leg” or “the upper arm”), instead of left and right. A third student (female, 23, Austrian) contradicted this sentiment, as she said, “my right leg will always be my right leg, and the upper/lower reference confuses me”. Both of these 2 last students, however, agreed that most of the time, while being in the air, they move one leg/arm slightly and ask, “this one?” to confirm if it’s the correct one. 

Two students (female, 33, Mexican; and female, 42, Mexican) echoed the same sentiment: they first watch the teacher do the figure, and then watch someone else. The first student (33-year-old) said she repeats the steps verbally to the teacher to confirm, while the second one said she likes to take a video of the demostration in order to watch it multiple times. The second student says, “When I’m on the silk, after the first two or three steps, I find it difficult to relate what I saw in front of me to what I have to do when I’m the one who’s tangled up. I take the steps I can and go back to watch a recording.” What’s also interesting to note is that this second student separates new figures into 2 categories: hard mental process and hard corporal process. She says, “When the physical corporal process is complicated and not just the mental one, then there are other challenges, which I usually address with repetition. Front balance, for example, I added to the preparations/warm-up to better position my hands, support myself, etc. The same goes for the double bracelet (unstandardized name).”’ 

Finally, a third teacher (female, 39, Ukrainian), while teaching a new figure, said “the first time you just do something, and then after you can figure out what to do.” This directly contrasts the teaching philosophy of the Mexican teacher interviewed, who is more methodical and splits up each figure into smaller steps, always on the floor, before allowing students to try something new in the air. 

– 

Source: own interviews. 

In the last post, I proposed the question: have there been experimental tests to try to overcome [learning body and silk awareness off the ground] in a different way?  

Consider the following image of a split in the air [1]: 

Image from Silks Stars, 2025. [1] 

To get into a Carpenter’s square (unstandardized name), the first step the aerialist must do is turn her body in between the 2 pieces of fabric. Then, she must go in front of one piece of fabric and then hook her foot in it, like so: 

Own gif, 2024. 

However, this begs the question that this post is titled after, and exemplifies the interaction design problem once again. In this specific example, the direction of the 2 turns is explained as “towards the pinky toe you see”, since this is a reference relative to your body and not relative to the environment. The next moves are explained as “stand up, bring your hand up to the silk as if you had a fever, go in front of it, and bring the foot that you’re standing on to the top of the silk.” 

3 other experimental studies address the body awareness problem through external stimuli regarding vision, sound, or both. These are explained in the next paragraphs.  

In an experimental study, [2] created technology training probes to “augment proprioceptive information and make it available through exteroceptive senses.” These consisted of an embedded system sewn into different wearable fabrics, each designed specifically for different body parts and circus disciplines [2].  

Image from Márquez Segura et al., 2019. [2] 

In training with the wearable devices, [2] discovered that focusing on external stimuli made children enjoy the exercise more and improved their overall performance, specifically: children were focused more, were more aware and in control of their posture, were more aware of their movement patterns, could maintain challenging positions longer, were able to engage and relax different body parts easier, had more endurance, could move past fear, and enjoy the exercise more. This study wasn’t focused on aerial silks specifically, but it proved that, in floor acrobatics, externalizing proprioception through a range of lights and sounds helped children with sensory-based motor disorder [2]. 

In another study, [3] created an aerial hoop which “generates auditory feedback based on capacitive touch sensing.” They added electrodes to a normal hoop in order to detect different touch data, which is then turned into auditory feedback through non-obstructing hardware housed in a wooden box [3]. 

Image from Liu et al., 2021. [3] 

The study found that the extrinsic auditory feedback helped artists to be more aware of the quality of their movements, including details that they would normally not pay attention to [3]. However, this study was done with expert hoop artists, which mentioned it would not be an accessible tool for beginners who are at first barely learning what their body must do [3].  

In a third experiment, [4] used a head-mounted VR headset to partially blind participants while being suspended from a 2-point harness, as shown in the picture.  

Image from Topaz et al., 2025. [4] 

While not specifically designed for circus disciplines, the study found that when they took vision away from participants, they were forced to focus more on their internal sensations, muscles, and body movements, increasing their bodily awareness [4]. Two relevant quotes from participants of the study were as follows: “The black environment helped me focus on the muscles to regain balance” and “When I used to perform, I was far above the audience. Using the blindfold application reminded me how stimulating and distracting I find the outside world. It felt very peaceful and focused to be in the virtual world alone with my body” [4]. 

– 

[1] “Flexibility,” Silks Stars. Accessed: Nov. 23, 2025. [Online.] Available: https://www.silksstars.com/category/foundations/flexibility/ 

[2] E. Márquez Segura, L. Turmo Vidal, L. Padilla Bel, and A. Waern, “Circus, Play and Technology Probes: Training Body Awareness and Control with Children,” Proceedings of the 2019 on Designing Interactive Systems Conference, vol. 1, pp. 1223-1236, June 2019.  

[3] W. Liu, A. Dementyev, D. Schwarz, E. Fléty, W.E. Mackay, M. Beaudouin-Lafon, and F. Bevilacqua, “SonicHoop: Using Interactive Sonification to Support Aerial Hoop Practices,” Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, vol. 1, pp. 1-16, May 2021. 

[4] A. Topaz, M.F. Montoya, R. Patibanda, J. Andres, and F. Mueller, “Blindfolded in the Air: Towards the Design of Interactive Aerial Play,” Proceedings of the First Annual Conference on Human-Computer Interaction and Sports, vol. 1, pp. 1-16, November 2025.