Paper deep dive
15 Years of Augmented Human(s) Research: Where Do We Stand?
Steeven Villa, Abdallah El Ali
Intelligence
Status: succeeded | Model: google/gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview | Prompt: intel-v1 | Confidence: 95%
Last extracted: 4/10/2026, 2:17:04 AM
Summary
This paper presents a 15-year scientometric analysis of the Augmented Human(s) conference series (2010-2025), covering 735 papers. The study identifies key research themes (Haptics, Wearable Sensing, Vision & Eye Tracking, Embodied Interaction, and Sports/Motion), highlights the influence of the Japanese HCI community, and notes a bimodal publication distribution. It also addresses definitional ambiguities between Human Augmentation and Transhumanism, suggesting a need for clearer foundational scope in the field.
Entities (6)
Relation Signals (3)
Steeven Villa → authored → 15 Years of Augmented Human(s) Research: Where Do We Stand?
confidence 100% · Steeven Villa and Abdallah El Ali. 2026. 15 Years of Augmented Human(s) Research: Where Do We Stand?
Human Augmentation → distinguishedfrom → Transhumanism
confidence 95% · This pragmatic view of HA can be sharply distinguished from Transhumanism (TH)
Augmented Human(s) Conference → influencedby → ACM CHI
confidence 90% · The ACM CHI conference is highly influential in the AH(s) community as foundation
Cypher Suggestions (0)
No Cypher suggestions yet.
Abstract
Abstract:The Augmented Human vision broadly seeks to improve or expand baseline human functioning through the restoration or extension of physical, intellectual, and social capabilities. However, given the rapid pace of technology development, we ask: what exactly does Augmented Human research involve, what are its core themes, and how has the Augmented Human(s) conference series evolved over time? To answer this, we conducted a scientometric analysis on the past 15 years of the Augmented Human(s) conference (N=735 paper), focusing on: geographical aspects, submissions and citation timelines, author frequency and popularity, and topic modeling. We find that: (a) Number of papers in the conference exhibit a bimodal distribution, peaking in 2015 and 2025, but showing periods of stagnant growth; (b) key topics over time include Haptics, Wearable Sensing, Vision & Eye Tracking, Embodied Interaction, and Sports / Motion; (c) some seminal papers on AH are not published in AH(s), but rather at related venues (e.g., CHI); (d) the conference has an active Japanese HCI community despite its historical Eurocentric location dominance. We contribute a closer look at the trajectory of the AH(s) field, and raise considerations of definitional and research scope ambiguities given the core problems/enhancements the field seeks to address.
Tags
Links
- Source: https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.03715v1
- Canonical: https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.03715v1
Trouble viewing inline? Open PDF directly →
Full Text
99,560 characters extracted from source content.
Expand or collapse full text
15 Years of Augmented Human(s) Research: Where Do We Stand? STEEVEN VILLA, LMU Munich, Germany ABDALLAH EL ALI, Centrum Wiskunde & Informatica, The Netherlands and Utrecht University, The Netherlands Augmented Humans Augmented HumansAugmented Humans Augmented Humans Augmented Humans ACM CHI → AH(s) ACM CHI → AH(s)ACM CHI → AH(s) ACM CHI → AH(s) ACM CHI → AH(s) ACM IMWUT → AH(s) ACM IMWUT → AH(s)ACM IMWUT → AH(s) ACM IMWUT → AH(s) ACM IMWUT → AH(s) ACM ISWC → AH(s) ACM ISWC → AH(s)ACM ISWC → AH(s) ACM ISWC → AH(s) ACM ISWC → AH(s) ACM PACM CHI → AH(s) ACM PACM CHI → AH(s)ACM PACM CHI → AH(s) ACM PACM CHI → AH(s) ACM PACM CHI → AH(s) ACM TEI → AH(s) ACM TEI → AH(s)ACM TEI → AH(s) ACM TEI → AH(s) ACM TEI → AH(s) ACM TOCHI → AH(s) ACM TOCHI → AH(s)ACM TOCHI → AH(s) ACM TOCHI → AH(s) ACM TOCHI → AH(s) ACM UIST → AH(s) ACM UIST → AH(s)ACM UIST → AH(s) ACM UIST → AH(s) ACM UIST → AH(s) IEEE Access → AH(s) IEEE Access → AH(s)IEEE Access → AH(s) IEEE Access → AH(s) IEEE Access → AH(s) IEEE TVGC → AH(s) IEEE TVGC → AH(s)IEEE TVGC → AH(s) IEEE TVGC → AH(s) IEEE TVGC → AH(s) IEEE VR → AH(s) IEEE VR → AH(s)IEEE VR → AH(s) IEEE VR → AH(s) IEEE VR → AH(s) IEEE/ACM ISMAR → AH(s) IEEE/ACM ISMAR → AH(s)IEEE/ACM ISMAR → AH(s) IEEE/ACM ISMAR → AH(s) IEEE/ACM ISMAR → AH(s) LNCS → AH(s) LNCS → AH(s)LNCS → AH(s) LNCS → AH(s) LNCS → AH(s) MDPI Sensors → AH(s) MDPI Sensors → AH(s)MDPI Sensors → AH(s) MDPI Sensors → AH(s) MDPI Sensors → AH(s) MUM → AH(s) MUM → AH(s)MUM → AH(s) MUM → AH(s) MUM → AH(s) MobileHCI → AH(s) MobileHCI → AH(s)MobileHCI → AH(s) MobileHCI → AH(s) MobileHCI → AH(s) Others → AH(s) Others → AH(s)Others → AH(s) Others → AH(s) Others → AH(s) AH(s) → ACM CHI AH(s) → ACM CHIAH(s) → ACM CHI AH(s) → ACM CHI AH(s) → ACM CHI AH(s) → ACM IMWUT AH(s) → ACM IMWUTAH(s) → ACM IMWUT AH(s) → ACM IMWUT AH(s) → ACM IMWUT AH(s) → ACM ISWC AH(s) → ACM ISWCAH(s) → ACM ISWC AH(s) → ACM ISWC AH(s) → ACM ISWC AH(s) → ACM TEI AH(s) → ACM TEIAH(s) → ACM TEI AH(s) → ACM TEI AH(s) → ACM TEI AH(s) → ACM TOG AH(s) → ACM TOGAH(s) → ACM TOG AH(s) → ACM TOG AH(s) → ACM TOG AH(s) → ACM UIST AH(s) → ACM UISTAH(s) → ACM UIST AH(s) → ACM UIST AH(s) → ACM UIST AH(s) → IEEE Pervasive Computing AH(s) → IEEE Pervasive ComputingAH(s) → IEEE Pervasive Computing AH(s) → IEEE Pervasive Computing AH(s) → IEEE Pervasive Computing AH(s) → IEEE TVGC AH(s) → IEEE TVGCAH(s) → IEEE TVGC AH(s) → IEEE TVGC AH(s) → IEEE TVGC AH(s) → IEEE VR AH(s) → IEEE VRAH(s) → IEEE VR AH(s) → IEEE VR AH(s) → IEEE VR AH(s) → IEEE/ACM ISMAR AH(s) → IEEE/ACM ISMARAH(s) → IEEE/ACM ISMAR AH(s) → IEEE/ACM ISMAR AH(s) → IEEE/ACM ISMAR AH(s) → LNCS AH(s) → LNCSAH(s) → LNCS AH(s) → LNCS AH(s) → LNCS AH(s) → MobileHCI AH(s) → MobileHCIAH(s) → MobileHCI AH(s) → MobileHCI AH(s) → MobileHCI AH(s) → Others AH(s) → OthersAH(s) → Others AH(s) → Others AH(s) → Others AH(s) → Presence: tel. & Virt. Env. AH(s) → Presence: tel. & Virt. Env.AH(s) → Presence: tel. & Virt. Env. AH(s) → Presence: tel. & Virt. Env. AH(s) → Presence: tel. & Virt. Env. AH(s) → SIGGRAPH AH(s) → SIGGRAPHAH(s) → SIGGRAPH AH(s) → SIGGRAPH AH(s) → SIGGRAPH AH(s) → SIGGRAPH Emerging Technologies AH(s) → SIGGRAPH Emerging TechnologiesAH(s) → SIGGRAPH Emerging Technologies AH(s) → SIGGRAPH Emerging Technologies AH(s) → SIGGRAPH Emerging Technologies Fig. 1. Sankey diagram showcasing the intellectual foundations and external impact of the AH(s) conference. The ACM CHI conference is highly influential in the AH(s) community as foundation, but it is also impacted by AH(s) works. The Augmented Human vision broadly seeks to improve or expand baseline human functioning through the restoration or extension of physical, intellectual, and social capabilities. However, given the rapid pace of technology development, we ask: what exactly does Augmented Human research involve, what are its core themes, and how has the Augmented Human(s) conference series evolved over time? To answer this, we conducted a scientometric analysis on the past 15 years of the Augmented Human(s) conference (N=735 paper), focusing on: geographical aspects, submissions and citation timelines, author frequency and popularity, and topic modeling. We find that: (a) Number of papers in the conference exhibit a bimodal distribution, peaking in 2015 and 2025, but showing periods of stagnant growth; (b) key topics over time include Haptics, Wearable Sensing, Vision & Eye Tracking, Embodied Interaction, and Sports / Motion; (c) some seminal papers on AH are not published in AH(s), but rather at related venues (e.g., CHI); (d) the conference has an active Japanese HCI community despite its historical Eurocentric location dominance. We contribute a closer look at the trajectory of the AH(s) field, and raise considerations of definitional and research scope ambiguities given the core problems/enhancements the field seeks to address. Authors’ Contact Information: Steeven Villa, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany, villa@posthci.com; Abdallah El Ali, Centrum Wiskunde & Informatica, Amsterdam, The Netherlands and Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands, aea@cwi.nl. Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from permissions@acm.org. © 2026 Copyright held by the owner/author(s). Publication rights licensed to ACM. Manuscript submitted to ACM Manuscript submitted to ACM1 arXiv:2604.03715v1 [cs.HC] 4 Apr 2026 2Villa and El Ali CCS Concepts:• Human-centered computing→ HCI theory, concepts and models. Additional Key Words and Phrases: Augmented Humans, Augmented Human, scientometric, bibliometric, analysis, core themes ACM Reference Format: Steeven Villa and Abdallah El Ali. 2026. 15 Years of Augmented Human(s) Research: Where Do We Stand?. In The Augmented Humans International Conference 2026 (AHs 2026), March 16–19, 2026, Okinawa, Japan. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 24 pages. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3795011.3795065 1 Introduction Augmenting human capabilities with technology has become a key theme in Human-Computer Interaction (HCI). This reflects the ongoing development of systems and technologies that enable integrations between humans and machines [43,67,84]. Over the past two decades, researchers have explored a wide spectrum of enhancements, ranging from medical prostheses and exoskeletons to perceptual tools such as AR/VR glasses and wearable sensors, all of which aim to restore, supplement, or even exceed human potential [10,84]. In the context of HCI, this sub-field is often named as human augmentation (HA), and, in practice, it explores how on- or near-body digital technologies can restore or enhance human sensory, motor, and cognitive capabilities [105]. In parallel HCI itself has been evolving in a similar direction, where HCI and related human-factors fields are moving toward an integration of human and artificial intelligence. This has already triggered a debate of whether the future of HCI is human augmentation, or whether human augmentation can stand as its own discipline [13]. Given this, the Augmented Human conference (established in 2010; h5-index: 19, h5-median: 25 1 ) and related venues (e.g., CHI, UIST) have spawned much research, from bionic limbs, brain–computer interfaces, cognitive tools, to embodied extensions of human–computer interaction [29]. In one implementation of this Augmented Human vision, there are efforts to conceptually move from the traditional HCI paradigm toward human–computer integration (HInt) or Augmentation (HA), essentially towards a blend of humans and machines, rather than having machines, computers, or UIs as simple tools in isolation [24, 67]. We find that the field of Human Augmentation itself faces conceptual, methodological, and socio-ethical challenges that may complicate its consolidation and responsible advancement [10,29,84]. At an anecdotal / observational level, the term “augmented human” has been used inconsistently, overlapping with “augmented reality,” “human enhancement,” and even the philosophical view of “transhumanism,” often without clear boundaries. For example, Rakkolainen[85] finds that although augmented human technologies and transhumanist ideas both aim to extend human capacities, they differ significantly in scope and assumptions (cf., [26]). This definitional ambiguity is mirrored in the diversity of topics presented at the Augmented Humans conference 2 , from interface design and wearable systems to ethical, societal and philosophical analyses, all of which can muddle discourse on what constitutes Augmented Humans (AHs) research, and in turn, how progress should best be measured and assessed. Moreover, as augmentation technologies transition from the lab into everyday life [10], it comes as no surprise that the community would need to address critical issues around privacy [29,105], user autonomy [16], safety, and the risk of exacerbating a technological divide based on access [70], appearance, or disability [107]. To better understand and realize the promise of augmenting human ability, and to truly delineate what is meant by Augmented Humans, the field may benefit from a more structured articulation of its foundations and empirical contributions. This includes defining what is and is not core AHs (as empirically observed in the conference series), and how this may relate to tangential visions such as transhumanism or cyborg philosophy (e.g., Clark’s vision of extended 1 https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&view_op=list_hcore&venue=HqiGvACsawYJ.2025 2 See e.g., AHs 2026 Call for Papers https://augmented-humans.org/ Manuscript submitted to ACM 15 Years of Augmented Human(s) Research: Where Do We Stand?3 mind [15]). To address this, we conduct a scientometric analysis on the past fifteen years of the Augmented Humans 3 conference (AHs, in plural) and its predecessor Augmented Human conference (AH, in singular). Such analyses provide a quantitative foundation for understanding the evolution and intellectual structure of scientific communities, an activity broadly defined as the science of analyzing science [38]. Within HCI, several researchers have conducted scientometric and/or bibliometric analyses of conferences (including CHI conference [6], CSCW [17], OzCHI [65], HAI [66]), where such analyses typically focus on citations, topic trends, and author frequency and institutions. Our primary research question is: How has the AH(s) field developed over time? More specifically, what are the main topics being presented and published there, what is their impact, and how does the conference series cater to this? To answer this, we employ a mixed approach combining bibliometric analysis, network analysis, and computational text mining, that allows us to analyze publication patterns, scientific influences, key contributors, as well as topic evolution over time. Clarification: Augmented Humans (plural) emerged in 2020 following a split from the original Augmented Human (singular) community. Both venues co-existed from 2020–2022, after which Augmented Human transitioned into the Augmented Human Research journal. This paper focuses on the conference and community that evolved into Augmented Humans; papers from the 2020–2022 Augmented Human conference are analyzed separately for completeness. Accordingly, Augmented Human(s) is used as an umbrella term encompassing both the singular and plural conference trajectories of the field. Our key findings show that: (a) the AH(s) conference publication numbers exhibit a bimodal distribution, with peaks in 2015 and again in 2025, however with some periods of stagnant growth; (b) the dominant research themes were: Haptics, Wearable Sensing, Vision & Eye Tracking, Embodied Interaction, and Sports / Motion. Whereas Haptics emerged as the most prevalent topic with increasing community interest, Vision & Eye Tracking showed decline over the years; (c) the highest cited papers on AH(s), some of which are seminal works, are not published in AH(s), but rather at ACM CHI 4 or UIST 5 , indicating considerations of venue impact or prestige; (d) the ACM CHI conference dominates as the most referenced venue, whereas AH(s) has the highest external impact on ACM CHI, UIST, but primarily on a constellation of "other" venues; and (e) the most active contributors to the conference come from the Japanese HCI community, despite the largely Eurocentric location of the conference’s history. Our work serves to help steer the field of AH(s) through not only resolving definitional ambiguities (given entan- glements with closely related areas like Transhumanism), but to primarily expand on and raise awareness of the core problems/enhancements the conference seeks to address. In the next sections, we firstly summarize our data collection and data preparation process. Thereafter, we describe the trends found in the data, with a focus on the topical analysis. We then speculate and discuss the potential implications for the AH(s) research community. 2 Background In this section we provide an overview of Augmented Humans research, provide a look into the working definition of Human Augmentation as a field for this paper and highlight the relevance of this scientometric analysis for the Augmented Humans community. 3 Throughout this work, we aim to encompass both communities through the abbreviation of AH(s). 4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conference_on_Human_Factors_in_Computing_Systems 5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACM_Symposium_on_User_Interface_Software_and_Technology Manuscript submitted to ACM 4Villa and El Ali 2.1 Definitions, Visions, and Boundaries of Augmented Humans Research The concept of enhancing human abilities through technology has roots tracing back to early visions of man-computer symbiosis [57] and Douglas Engelbart’s seminal work on augmenting human intellect [21]. This domain, frequently referred to as Human Augmentation (HA) or Augmented Human (AH) [1,29,84], signifies a paradigmatical change within HCI, marked by moving away from the design of interfaces to the integration of technology with the human body [86]. This emerging Human-Computer Integration/Human Augmentation paradigm is characterized by a close coupling or fusion of computational and human systems [1,55,67,70], ultimately shifting research focus away from "How do we interact with computers?" toward "How are humans and computers integrated?" [67]. Based on prior works [10, 29, 85–87] and our own observations, we provide the following working definition of the field: Definition: The field of Augmented Humans seeks to improve or expand baseline human functioning through the restoration or extension of physical, cognitive, affective, sensory, and social capabilities. This involves developing practical technology, spanning sensors and on-body devices, implants, brain-computer interfaces, (medical) prostheses and exoskeletons, and perceptual augmentations such as AR/VR glasses, tactile interfaces, and wearable sensors. Indeed, augmentations can vary in their degree of integration with the user, ranging from external tools to systems experienced as intuitive or self-like (cf., [15]). Their effectiveness is often studied with respect to user agency, embodi- ment, identity, control distribution, and/or interaction with the environment. Despite such degrees of tool separation, it is becoming a more widely accepted notion in HCI that HA technologies primarily use near-body digital systems, serving as the user’s subordinate rather than assuming full autonomous control over the task [105]. This pragmatic view of HA can be sharply distinguished from Transhumanism (TH), a closely related philosophical and cultural framework [82,85]. While both movements champion using technology to enhance human abilities [85], TH is an ideological and speculative endeavor focused on achieving radical change, ultimately aiming to transcend biological limitations and evolve into a new species, namely Homo Excelsior [26,85]. By contrast, HA operates on a near-future timeline, focusing largely on incremental improvements using currently available, well-regulated engineering and medical tools [85]. This last aspect, is indeed frequently overlooked in the sense that for a technology to be considered HA, should, in some way, improve human performance, augment the human, not only the environment, not only the interaction. However, despite the efforts to clearly delineate these boundaries, the field of Augmented Humans research remains young, and its core concepts and definitions can be criticized as both broad and vague [29,84,105]. Such lack of clarity makes it difficult to characterize what truly constitutes core Augmented Humans research, which can potentially lead to misuse of terminology [29]. As such, resolving this definitional ambiguity becomes essential, especially given that the HA focus represents a critical (cf., HCI grand challenges [94]), and sometimes historically neglected path for HCI, which would strongly benefit from foundational principles of increasing human capacity and capability, or through assistive augmentation [70], through symbiotic relationships between humans and technology [13]. Given the foregoing, our work aims to further elucidate the scope and works (in the conference series) driving the field of Augmented Humans, through a scientometric lens. 2.2 Role of Scientometric Analysis for Research Progress By systematically studying publication patterns, citation flows, and metadata, these bibliometric methodologies offer a robust, data-driven perspective essential for moving beyond anecdotal accounts within fast developing fields [6,38]. Manuscript submitted to ACM 15 Years of Augmented Human(s) Research: Where Do We Stand?5 Such studies can help provide novice researchers with a reliable roadmap to landmark research and current topical trends, while at the same time offering a global overview necessary to clarify intuitions about the field’s structure and dynamics [38]. By systematically collecting and analyzing publication data, researchers can gauge the growth and impact of conferences, evaluate the relative quality of papers, and establish essential historical context for future work [65,66,71]. Within HCI, several researchers have conducted scientometric and/or bibliometric analysis of conferences, where such analyses typically focus on citations, topic trends, and author frequency and institutions. This includes the CHI conference [6], CSCW [17], OzCHI [65], HAI [66], and so on. Moreover, geographical aspects are important for understanding where communities gather. As such, we believe it is extremely valuable to study and reflect on the publication data of a specialized conference such as Augmented Humans. We believe this is needed for the Augmented Humans conference, given the field’s intellectual core is undergoing rapid growth and development, primarily due to incredible advances in technology (cf., AI’s fast growth alongside HCI [28]). As highlighted earlier, the history of HCI shows that the discipline is intrinsically multidisciplinary, marked by a “nomadic” tendency driven by rapid technological shifts (cf., [68]) that result in knowledge that is highly contextual rather than perhaps universal [30,59]. This inherent diversity, while certainly a unique point and strength, can pose challenges for assessing manuscript quality through peer-review, or aligning research efforts across otherwise disparate paradigms [6,17,59]. As such, one key observation across previous HCI research is the absence of strong, cohesive “motor themes" [54], which are well-established areas of knowledge applicable across new technologies [59]. To that end, we believe a scientometric review is necessary to help demarcate the central, core, and backbone research themes currently driving Augmented Humans research, and on a practical level, identify and characterize what kind of work gets accepted (and cited) there. 3 Scientometric Analysis This scientometric analysis examines 15 years of the Augmented Human(s) Conference, analyzing publication patterns, scientific influences, key contributors, and topic evolution. We employed a mixed approach combining bibliometric analysis, network analysis, and computational text mining. 3.1 Data Collection and Preprocessing In order to build the core content for the scientometric analysis we followed a series of steps, specified as follows: 3.1.1 Corpus Assembly. We collected the complete corpus of the Augmented Human International Conference (2010–2022) and the Augmented Humans International Conference (2020–2025) from the ACM Digital Library. For each conference year, we extracted bibliographic metadata including publication year, keywords, venue location, authors, titles, URLs, and abstracts. 3.1.2 Citation Data. We retrieved citation data using two APIs: Crossref provided aggregate metrics including reference counts and citation counts for each paper. Semantic Scholar supplied detailed information about citing papers, including DOIs and publication years, enabling more granular citation network analysis. 3.1.3 Text Preprocessing. We implemented a multi-stage preprocessing pipeline to prepare documents for topic model- ing: First we eliminated copyright notices, DOI references, ACM reference format blocks, and venue location information, then we isolated scientific content by extracting text between ABSTRACT and REFERENCES sections when present, or removing all content following the REFERENCES heading, finally we performed a text normalization by converting Manuscript submitted to ACM 6Villa and El Ali Unicode ligatures, standardized quotation marks, removed hyphenation artifacts from line breaks, and eliminated lone surrogate codepoints. 3.2 Analysis Methods We conducted a series of analysis to form an overarching view of the Augmented Humans community, these analysis are the following: 3.2.1 Local Referents. We constructed a directed citation graph to identify influential papers within the conference community. Nodes represent conference papers, and edges indicated citation relationships between them. For each paper, we calculated the number of internal citations (citations from other papers within the same conference corpus) and ranked papers by this metric to identify the most influential works. 3.2.2 External Referents. To understand broader citation patterns, we aggregated all citations across the corpus and ranked the most frequently cited external works. This analysis revealed which papers outside the conference had the greatest influence on the Augmented Humans community. 3.2.3 External Impact Analysis. We analyzed the venues where papers citing Augmented Humans research were published. Using the Crossref API, we retrieved venue information for each citing paper, including journal or conference names, publishers, publication types, and event details. We aggregated this data to identify which conferences and journals most frequently cited Augmented Humans work, providing insight into the conference’s external reach and impact. 3.2.4 Reference Analysis. To understand the intellectual foundations of the conference, we examined reference lists of all papers in our corpus. For each paper, we retrieved its references from Crossref and obtained venue information for works with valid DOIs. This analysis revealed the publication types, venues, and conferences that AH(s) authors most frequently cited, illuminating the interdisciplinary connections and influences shaping the community. 3.2.5 Topic Modeling. Model Architecture: We employed BERTopic [27], a transformer-based topic modeling framework, to identify and track research themes. Document embeddings were generated using the all-MiniLM-L6-v2 sentence transformer model, producing 384-dimensional dense vector representations. We accelerated computation using CUDA-enabled GPU processing. Dimensionality Reduction and Clustering: We applied UMAP (Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection) for dimensionality reduction with the following parameters: 5 components, 15 neighbors, minimum distance of 0.0, and cosine similarity metric. Clustering was performed using HDBSCAN (Hierarchical Density-Based Spatial Clustering of Applications with Noise) with a minimum cluster size of 25 documents, Euclidean distance metric, and the Excess of Mass (EOM) cluster selection method with probability estimation enabled. Topic Representation: We generated topic representations using a custom CountVectorizer configured with domain- specific stop words to filter common HCI terminology (e.g., "participant", "user", "study", "task", "method", "result") and venue-related terms. The vectorizer extracted n-grams ranging from unigrams to trigrams, requiring terms to appear in at least 2 documents. To improve interpretability, we applied two representation models sequentially: First, Part-of-Speech filtering for noun phrases, adjective-noun combinations, and proper noun sequences. Then, Maximal Manuscript submitted to ACM 15 Years of Augmented Human(s) Research: Where Do We Stand?7 Marginal Relevance (MMR) [11] for selecting the top 10 most representative and diverse keywords. Following initial extraction, we applied automatic topic reduction using BERTopic’s similarity-based merging to consolidate semantically related topics. Temporal Analysis. To examine topic evolution, we filtered documents with valid year metadata and excluded outlier assignments. We applied BERTopic’s topics-over-time method with both evolution tuning and global tuning enabled to track topic frequency changes across years. Based on top keywords and representative documents, we manually labeled the primary topics. Topic prevalence was calculated as the percentage of corpus documents assigned to each topic per year. 2010201120122013201420152016201720182019202020212022202320242025 Year 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Number of papers Publications per year AH conference AHs conference Fig. 2. Number of papers published per year. The diagonal lines represent the conference years after the split to Augmented Humans. Dashed lines demarcate the period where both conferences co-existed, until Augmented Human switched to journal format. 4 Results We processed a total of 787 papers across 15 years of the conference. In this section, we report the results of the scientometric analysis. We first report the number of publications over time, then the most productive contributors to the conference, followed by the topic modeling analysis. Subsequently, we report the internal and external citation networks, the external impact analysis, and the reference analysis. 4.1 Conference Metrics Overall, the conference has published a total of 787 papers across 15 years, with an average of 45.93 (SD = 9.38) papers per year. Figure 4 shows the number of papers published at the Augmented Humans conference across its 15-year history (2010–2025). The conference began modestly in 2010 with 25 papers and experienced steady growth through its first five years, reaching a peak of 60 papers in 2015. Following this peak, the conference maintained a relatively stable output, averaging 44.3 (SD = 10.3) papers per year from 2016 to 2019. Although there was an initial decline in publication numbers in the period from 2016 to 2020, the numbers started to increase after the conference re-branding in 2020, for this period (starting from 2020), the average number of papers per edition is 48.66 (SD = 6.77), for the newly created AHs conference. Table 1 lists all conference edition locations and publicly available acceptance rates. Regarding geographic distribution, the conference has been historically Eurocentric, with 8 of the 15 editions hosted in European countries. Asian countries, Manuscript submitted to ACM 8Villa and El Ali Table 1. Summary of Augmented Humans conferences. EditionLocationAcronymAccept Rate 2010Megève, FranceAH 1054% 2011Tokyo, JapanAH 11- 2012Megève, FranceAH 12- 2013Stuttgart, GermanyAH 1371% 2014Kobe, JapanAH 14- 2015Singapore, SingaporeAH 15- 2016Geneva, SwitzerlandAH 1615% 2017Silicon Valley, California, USAAH 17- 2018Seoul, Republic of KoreaAH 18- 2019Reims, FranceAH 1949 % 2020Kaiserslautern, GermanyAHs’20- 2020Winnipeg, CanadaAH 20- 2021Rovaniemi, FinlandAHs’2143% 2021Geneva, SwitzerlandAH 21- 2022Kashiwa, Chiba, JapanAHs’22- 2022Winnipeg, CanadaAH 22- 2023Glasgow, United KingdomAHs’2338% 2024Melbourne, VIC, AustraliaAHs’2443% 2025Abu Dhabi, UAEAHs’25- particularly Japan, have hosted 4 editions (and the upcoming 2026 edition). The remaining three editions were distributed across America (United States), Oceania (Australia), and the Middle East (United Arab Emirates), each hosting once. 4.2 Author Productivity Figure 3 presents the top 15 most productive authors in the Augmented Humans conference history. Jun Rekimoto leads with 42 contributions, significantly ahead of other contributors. Masahiko Inami follows with 35 publications, and Kai Kunze with 32 publications, establishing these three researchers as the conference’s most prolific contributors. The distribution reveals a core group of highly engaged researchers from the Japanese HCI community, with 12 of the top 15 authors being affiliated with Japanese institutions. The fourth and fifth most prolific authors, Hideki Koike (29 publications) and Suranga Nanayakkara (28 publications), continue this pattern of sustained contribution. The remaining top contributors show relatively consistent productivity levels, ranging from 11 to 25 publications. An interesting pattern emerging from these trends is the Eurocentric location of the conference versus the Japanese-centric nature of the contributions. Table 2. Summary of identified topics with counts, percentage of corpus, and top words. Topic Name Count Percent Top WordsRepresentative Papers Haptics11615.8haptic, tactile, stimulation[77, 79, 108] Wearable Interaction11415.5gestures, wearable, sensing[62, 88, 101] Vision & Eye Tracking8411.4gaze, vision, eye[40, 41, 48] Embodied Interaction7610.3design, body, virtual[37, 93, 100] Sports / Motion5307.2ball, sports, motion[31, 46, 95] Manuscript submitted to ACM 15 Years of Augmented Human(s) Research: Where Do We Stand?9 0510152025303540 Number of publications Jun Rekimoto Masahiko Inami Kai Kunze Hideki Koike Suranga Nanayakkara Tsutomu Terada Takuji Narumi Masahiko Tsukamoto Maki Sugimoto Hiroyuki Kajimoto Michitaka Hirose Kouta Minamizawa Yuta Sugiura Yoichi Ochiai Pattie Maes Author Top 15 most frequent authors Fig. 3. Top 15 Authors historically 4.3 Dominant Research Topics In our topic analysis, we identified five dominant research themes across the conference corpus: Haptics, Wearable Interaction, Vision & Eye Tracking, Embodied Interaction, and Sports/Motion. Haptics emerged as the most prevalent topic throughout the conference’s history, encompassing papers on haptic feedback in VR, tactile and vibrotactile stim- ulation, electrical stimulation, and wearable haptics systems. The second most recurring topic, Wearable Interaction, focused primarily on interaction techniques rather than feedback mechanisms. Papers in this category reported novel input methods using wearables and sensing applications, including activity recognition. The third topic, Vision & Eye Tracking, included research on gaze-based interaction, visual displays, eye tracking techniques, and other forms of visual feedback, as well as the use of eyes as an input modality. The fourth topic, Embodied Interaction, comprised papers investigating body representation and embodiment more broadly, including studies of embodiment in VR and the embodiment of robots. Finally, Sports and Motion encompassed research on various sports (including ball sports and skiing) and physical exertion more generally. Table 2 provides a summary of these topics, including the number of papers assigned to each category and representative example papers. Figure 4 illustrates the evolution of the five identified topics across the 15-year history of the conference. The temporal analysis reveals distinct patterns in research focus over time: The conference has evolved from an initial focus on wearable input technologies toward a more diverse research landscape, with haptic feedback and embodied experiences dominating in recent years. Wearable Interaction dominated the early years of the conference (2010-2016), with a notable peak in 2014 at 17 papers, reflecting the strong initial focus on wearable sensing and input techniques during the emergence of wearable computing technologies. Following this period, Haptics gained prominence and became increasingly central to the conference, particularly from 2017 onward. This topic showed sustained engagement with a significant spike in 2019 (14 papers) and again in 2025 (13 papers), establishing haptics as a core and enduring research area within the AH(s) community. Vision & Eye Tracking maintained relatively consistent presence throughout the conference’s history, with moderate fluctuations between 5-9 papers annually. However, this topic showed declining Manuscript submitted to ACM 10Villa and El Ali 2010201120122013201420152016201720182019202020212022202320242025 Year 0 5 10 15 20 Number of papers Topics over time in Augmented Humans papers Topic Haptics Wearable Interaction Vision & Eye Tracking Sports / Motion Embodied Interaction Fig. 4. Topic evolution over time: We found five dominant topics in the corpus of the Augmented Humans Conference. The relevance of these topics has shifted over time with Wearable interaction and Vision & Eye Tracking being dominant in the early years of the conference, and Embodied Interaction and Haptics being more dominant in recent years. attention in recent years, suggesting a potential saturation or shift in research interest. The most dramatic change occurred with Embodied Interaction, which remained relatively small since 2016 until 2020 but then experienced a significant growth, peaking at 22 papers in 2023. This surge coincides with increased accessibility of VR technologies and growing interest in virtual embodiment research. The topic showed some decline in 2024-2025 but remained a significant area of focus. Sports and Motion maintained the most stable trajectory, with consistent but modest representation (typically 2-4 papers per year) throughout the conference’s history, indicating a niche but sustained research interest. To further characterize the type of works published in AH(s), in Figure 5 we visualized the works in a word cloud. Pre-processing included removing empty abstract entries (N=2), lowercase conversion, removing elements (punctuation, numerical digits, source tags, common stop words, common academic terms), and filtering entries shorter than three characters. As shown, these dominant themes are well reflected in this visualization. Fig. 5. Word cloud over N=733 abstracts. Manuscript submitted to ACM 15 Years of Augmented Human(s) Research: Where Do We Stand?11 Table 3. Top 10 Cited Papers by AH(s) Venue Paper TitleYear 퐴퐻푠 퐶 퐴퐶푀 퐶 Ref CHIPossessedHand: techniques for controlling human hands using electrical mus- cles stimuli 201120189[98] CHISkinput: Appropriating the Skin as an Interactive Canvas20101327[34] CHIThe Aligned Rank Transform for Nonparametric Factorial Analyses Using Only ANOVA Procedures 2011121853[109] UISTOmniTouch: wearable multitouch interaction everywhere201111486[33] UISTMetaArms: Body Remapping Using Feet-Controlled Artificial Arms20181195[90] CHI Parallel Eyes: Exploring Human Capability and Behaviors with Paralleled First Person View Sharing 20161051[49] CHINext Steps for Human-Computer Integration202010155[67] AH(s)Realtime sonification of the center of gravity for skiing20121055[36] CHI Cruise Control for Pedestrians: Controlling Walking Direction using Electrical Muscle Stimulation 201510140[80] CHI iSkin: Flexible, Stretchable and Visually Customizable On-Body Touch Sensors for Mobile Computing 201510310[106] 4.4 Local and External Referents We analyzed citation patterns both within the conference community and across the broader research landscape. Table 3, Table 4, and Table 5 present the most influential papers as measured by different citation metrics. From Table 3, we find that only one paper from the top 10 most cited papers in AH(s) is from AH(s), namely the work by Hasegawa et al. [36], where the rest span CHI and UIST. From Table 4, we see that the top 10 most cited papers overall from AH(s), four are about human activity recognition (a common UbiComp topic), three on multimodal input (common to ISWC / UIST), one multimodal feedback, one on XR, and only one that appears to be typical of AH(s), namely work by Kasahara and Rekimoto[51]. From Table 5, we find that the top 10 internally cited at AH(s), these reflect some of the dominant research topics, where four are on Sports / Motion, four on Vision & Eye tracking, and two on Embodied Interaction. External Papers Most Cited by AH(s) Authors: The conference’s intellectual foundations are heavily rooted in body- based interaction techniques from CHI, particularly electrical muscle stimulation and on-skin interfaces. PossessedHand by Tamaki et al. [98](CHI 2011, 20 citations) and Skinput by Harrison et al. [34](CHI 2010, 13 citations) exemplify this focus. The list is dominated by CHI papers (7 of 10), with methodological work (Aligned Rank Transform by Wobbrock et al. [109]) also appearing, suggesting both technical and analytical influences from the broader HCI community. AH(s) Papers Most Cited Externally: Augmented Humans has produced substantial external impact, with top papers receiving 67-135 citations. Activity recognition using wearables emerged as the most influential contribution, with In the blink of an eye Ishimaru et al. [45](2014, 135 citations) leading significantly. The 2013-2014 period was particularly productive, generating 6 of the top 10 most-cited papers. These works have resonated primarily with wearable computing and activity recognition communities. AH(s) Papers Most Cited Within AH(s): Internal citations (6-10 per paper) are notably lower than external citations, reflecting the smaller community size. Realtime sonification of the center of gravity for skiing by Hasegawa et al. [36] Manuscript submitted to ACM 12Villa and El Ali Table 4. Top 10 Cited Papers from AH(s) Paper TitleYear Cites Citation In the blink of an eye: combining head motion and eye blink frequency for activity recognition with Google Glass 2014135[45] Qualitative activity recognition of weight lifting exercises2013112[103] JackIn: integrating first-person view with out-of-body vision generation for human-human augmentation 2014111[51] HASC Challenge: gathering large scale human activity corpus for the real-world activity understandings 2011103[52] EyeRing: a finger-worn input device for seamless interactions with our sur- roundings 201375[69] Let me grab this: a comparison of EMS and vibration for haptic feedback in free-hand interaction 201475[81] Distributed Metaverse: Creating Decentralized Blockchain-based Model for Peer-to-peer Sharing of Virtual Spaces for Mixed Reality Applications 201874[89] TongueBoard: An Oral Interface for Subtle Input201972[56] Wearability Factors for Skin Interfaces201668[58] Airwriting recognition using wearable motion sensors201067[3] (2012, 10 citations) serves as both the most internally and externally cited work. Several papers appear across both internal and external citation lists. Table 5. Top 10 Internally Cited Papers from AH(s) Paper TitleYear Cites Citation Realtime sonification of the center of gravity for skiing201210[36] Swimoid: a swim support system using an underwater buddy robot20138[102] Bouncing Star project: design and development of augmented sports application using a ball including electronic and wireless modules 20107[47] JackIn: integrating first-person view with out-of-body vision generation for human-human augmentation 20147[51] Laplacian Vision: Augmenting Motion Prediction via Optical See-Through Head- Mounted Displays 20166[46] TongueBoard: An Oral Interface for Subtle Input20196[56] Aided eyes: eye activity sensing for daily life20106[44] MultiSoma: Distributed Embodiment with Synchronized Behavior and Percep- tion 20216[64] SpiderVision: extending the human field of view for augmented awareness20146[23] HoverBall: augmented sports with a flying ball20146[72] 4.5 External Impact and Reference Analysis Table 6 presents the citation relationships between AH(s) and external venues, showing both where AH(s) papers are cited (external impact) and which venues AH(s) authors most frequently reference (intellectual foundations). Figure 1 visualizes these bidirectional relationships as flows between venues and the conference, with the width of each flow Manuscript submitted to ACM 15 Years of Augmented Human(s) Research: Where Do We Stand?13 proportional to the number of citations or references. The analysis reveals strong bidirectional connections with the broader HCI and extended reality research communities. 4.5.1 External Impact: ACM CHI emerges as the most significant venue citing AH(s) research, with 812 citations representing 12.02% of all external citations. This substantial citation rate from the premier HCI conference demonstrates the relevance and influence of AH(s) research within the broader human-computer interaction community. As visible in the Sankey diagram, the flow from AH(s) to CHI is the most prominent outgoing connection, reflecting this strong relationship. ACM UIST follows with 228 citations (3.38%), and IEEE VR with 265 citations (3.92%), indicating strong connections with specialized communities in user interface software and virtual reality. The conference also shows notable impact in computer graphics venues (SIGGRAPH, SIGGRAPH ET) and ubiquitous computing (ACM ISWC), though these venues cite AH(s) research less frequently. Venues such as ACM IMWUT, IEEE Access, and MDPI Sensors cite AH(s) work but do not appear prominently in AH(s) reference lists, suggesting unidirectional knowledge transfer to these communities, as shown by the one-way flows in the Sankey diagram. The "Others" category accounts for 65.61% of citations, representing the largest aggregate flow in the visualization and indicating that AH(s) research reaches a diverse array of venues beyond the core HCI and VR conferences. 4.5.2 Reference Analysis: ACM CHI also dominates as the most referenced venue, with 1,582 references constituting 14.97% of all citations made by AH(s) papers. The Sankey diagram shows this as the thickest incoming flow to AH(s), confirming CHI as the primary intellectual hub for the AH(s) community. ACM UIST (497 references, 4.70%) and IEEE VR (290 references, 2.74%) follow as key reference sources, maintaining their positions as important foundations for AH(s) research. Interestingly, several venues appear more frequently in AH(s) references than in citations to AH(s) work: SIGGRAPH (158 references vs. 0 citations) and SIGGRAPH Emerging Technologies (145 references vs. 0 citations) are heavily referenced but do not cite AH(s) papers back. These asymmetric relationships are clearly visible in the Sankey diagram as incoming flows with no corresponding outgoing flows, suggesting that AH(s) researchers draw upon computer graphics methods without necessarily contributing back to those venues. Similarly, IEEE/ACM ISMAR (107 references, 1.01%) is referenced more than it cites AH(s) work. The "Others" category represents 66.98% of references, slightly higher than the citation percentage and visible as the largest incoming flow in the diagram, indicating that AH(s) authors draw upon an even broader and more diverse set of intellectual sources than the venues that cite their work. 4.6 Core Topics of the Augmented Human Conference for Year Range 2020-2022 In Table 7 we present the summary of the identified stable topics of the Augmented Human (singular) conference for the years ranging from 2020 to 2022, which is the period where both conferences co-existed. It is important to highlight that we did not analyze in detail the fluctuation of these topics, nor the topical exchange across these years between Augmented Human and Augmented Humans. Therefore, the information presented in this section is indicative rather than explanatory of the conference dynamics during this period. The most dominant and stable topic during these years was Conceptual Frameworks with 13 publications. This cluster includes contributions addressing the design of augmentation systems, theoretical models of human augmentation, communication frameworks, and broader philosophical reflections such as transhumanist perspectives and conceptualizations of technology-mediated human extension. The second most represented topic was Physical Interaction with 11 papers, including work on actuators, haptic feedback and physically embodied interaction techniques. Papers in this cluster focus on the technical realization and Manuscript submitted to ACM 14Villa and El Ali Table 6. External Impact and Intellectual Foundations of the Augmented Human(s) Conference: Almost 15% of the cited works at AH(s) come from the ACM CHI conference and 12.02% of the citations come from the same conference, showing that AH(s) is strongly tied to this conference VenueCitesReferencedCites (%)Referenced (%) ACM CHI812158212.0214.97 ACM UIST2284973.384.70 IEEE VR2652903.922.74 LNCS2352413.482.28 ACM ISWC1262351.872.22 SIGGRAPH–1580.001.50 SIGGRAPH Em. Tech.–1450.001.37 ACM TEI1161181.721.12 IEEE TVGC1261161.871.10 MobileHCI661150.981.09 IEEE/ACM ISMAR1041071.541.01 ACM TOG–910.000.86 ACM IMWUT153762.260.72 Presence: Tel. & Virt. Env.–710.000.67 IEEE Pervasive Comp.–580.000.55 ACM PACM CHI110–1.630.00 MUM85–1.260.00 IEEE Access115–1.700.00 ACM TOCHI60–0.890.00 MDPI Sensors147–2.180.00 Others4007666759.3263.09 Total675510567100100 empirical evaluation of bodily augmentation systems, connecting with the previous conference’s years of sustained engagement with hardware-driven and sensorimotor approaches to augmentation. Smartphone Usage emerged as a distinct topic centered on mobile devices, app-based systems, and behavioral support applications. Contributions in this cluster examine how everyday mobile technologies function as augmentation platforms, particularly in contexts such as health monitoring, reminders, and activity recognition. Finally, Input Techniques captured research on gesture interaction, touchscreen input, pen-based systems, gaze input, and tactile feedback mechanisms. These works address interaction design at the level of modality and technique, exploring how users control, manipulate, and communicate with augmented systems. Table 7. Summary of identified topics with counts, percentage of corpus, and top words. Topic Name Count Percent Top WordsRepresentative Papers Conceptual Frameworks1325.0design, communication, augmentation[4, 83, 92] Physical Interaction1121.2activity, actuators, haptic[2, 73, 91] Smartphone Usage815.4smartphone, mobile, apps[35, 60, 112] Input Techniques713.5gestures, touchscreen, touch[5, 22, 96] Manuscript submitted to ACM 15 Years of Augmented Human(s) Research: Where Do We Stand?15 5 Discussion In this section we synthesize the main observations resulting from our scientometric analysis, analyze the core themes of the conference, and propose future directions of the Augmented Human(s) conference. 5.1 The Augmented Human(s) Conference: Key Observations Given our analysis, we distill the following empirical observations: First, we find that AH(s) publication numbers exhibit a bimodal distribution, peaking in 2015 and again in 2025, with some periods of stagnant growth. This may reflect the distinction between the Augmented Humans conference (AHs, in plural) and its predecessor Augmented Human conference (AH, in singular), and their respective research trajectories. Second, we observe that dominant research themes (Sec 4.3) comprised of the following topics: Haptics, Wearable Sensing, Vision & Eye Tracking, Embodied Interaction, and Sports / Motion. Whereas Haptics emerged as the most prevalent topic with increasing community interest, Vision & Eye Tracking shows decline. Third, we see that the highest cited papers on AH(s), some of which are seminal or landmark works, are not published in AH(s), but rather at CHI or UIST (e.g., [98] or [90]). This may be due to considerations of venue prestige (cf., [61]). Fourth, regarding citation impact, we find that only one paper from the top 10 most cited papers in AH(s) is from AH(s), namely the work by Hasegawa et al. [36], where the rest span CHI and UIST. From the top 10 most cited papers overall from AH(s), four are about human activity recognition (a common UbiComp topic), three on multimodal input (common to ISWC / UIST), one multimodal feedback, one on XR, and the work of Kasahara and Rekimoto[51], which most typically represents AH(s) research. From the top 10 internally cited at AH(s), these reflect some of the dominant research topics, where four are on Sports / Motion, four on Vision & Eye tracking, and two on Embodied Interaction. Fifth, we find that ACM CHI dominates as the most referenced venue, whereas AH(s) has the highest impact (with respect to citations) partially on ACM CHI and UIST, but most largely on a constellation of ‘other’ venues. Sixth, we observe that the most active contributors to the conference come from the Japan-based HCI community, which highlights an interesting pattern where the largely Eurocentric location of the conference witnesses a high amount of contributions from Japanese institute affiliations. Lastly, an interesting pattern emerging from these trends is the Eurocentric location of the conference versus the Japanese-centric nature of the contributions. 5.2 Does the Augmented Human(s) Field have a Core Theme? By now it has become clear that HCI is largely an applied and inherently interdisciplinary field, and largely defined by the relationships it creates between disciplines rather than punctuating a singular intellectual foundation [9,76]. Are we seeing the same pattern for Augmented Humans research, and if so, does this affect the field’s core theme(s)? To answer this, it is perhaps worth first revisiting the status of HCI, and how the field consistently grapples with challenges to its intellectual status and efficiency [7]. Throughout the last decade, several critical perspectives have emerged, and identified a persistent so-called "big hole" in HCI research [9,54], one that is largely characterized by a lack of a solid intellectual or methodological core. This observation runs parallel to our own and others’ observations that the field tends to sometimes chase technological trends instead of pursuing deep, long-term themes, or “big questions" [7,76]. This lends itself to disciplinary fragmentation [59,75], which ends up boosting work that is more incremental and context-dependent over cumulative theoretical progress [76,110]. Recent bibliometric analyses suggests that the disruptiveness of HCI research, specifically its ability to introduce paradigm-shifting knowledge, is sharply decreasing [12] – and falling at a faster rate than the general decline seemingly seen across science. This is potentially due to Manuscript submitted to ACM 16Villa and El Ali increasing consensus on conventional norms that penalize unconventional studies [12,75]. However, while HCI’s disruptiveness may appear to be declining, based on our analysis we still find that AH(s) (even if viewed as a sub-field of HCI) encourages speculative, high-risk, and functionally unusual prototypes that can challenge our existing notions of human capability. Reflecting further, we believe that this persistent disciplinary fragmentation and struggle to consolidate knowledge highlights the necessity of not only establishing strong, focused research communities united by a core theme, but also reflected in a living (and ever-evolving) HCI educational curricula (cf., [14,42]). Consider that by organizing around the goal of augmenting human capabilities and designing technology for harmonious integration [13], whether on- or near-body, we find that the AH(s) community can similarly run the risk of losing sight of crucial HCI grand challenges (cf., human-technology symbiosis [94]. However, unlike the fragmentation seen in HCI, we believe AH(s)’ emphasis on enhancing / restoring capabilities helps provide the field with perhaps a clearer organizing principle. Based on our analysis, we find that AH(s) does have a core theme, and this is evident when humans merge with machines for the purpose of enhancing human functioning. For example, consider HA factors relating to agency and autonomy [8,16] (e.g., boosting reaction time performance [50]), virtual co-embodiment [25,104], or shared augmented vision [51]), but also other wild new ideas published in AH(s) which may as of yet not have seen wider recognition (cf., Sec 4.5). Examples include Living Bits [78], the JIZAI body [43], Aided Eyes for memory enhancement [44], flying sports [39], bionic vision using machine learning [32], wearable reasoning assistance [18], controlling multiple robotic arms [97], wearable haptics for collaboration [63], or perception modification through AR-based reality alterations [53,111]. Across these examples, we find that a coherent theme emerges: AH(s) research seems to systematically explore new forms of human–machine integration in the sensorimotor loop, aiming to expand human action capabilities through sensory and perceptual amplification / modification / diminishment. Moreover, we believe the aforementioned works constitute a unique aspect of AH(s) research, of putting forward brave new ideas that remain grounded in HA, rather than lofty transhumanism goals or common HCI interaction techniques. While there may be overlap with technical HCI and/or AR/VR communities, these types of works help establish a core theme, despite our analysis showing a more scattered topic distribution and unsteady citation counts across the years. 5.3 Where Do We Go From Here? Our work raises several considerations regarding the future direction of the Augmented Human(s) conference: Intermitted checkpoints to clarify conference vision and scope. The recent calls for papers emphasize physical, cognitive, and perceptual augmentation of humans through digital technologies, while also highlighting societal-scale impact and drawing on the historical lineage of augmenting human intellect. Despite this broad framing however, the relationship between the stated scope of AH(s) and the work actually published remains under-defined. While the range of topics listed as relevant to the conference span multiple established HCI subdomains, it offers limited guidance on what distinguishes an AH(s) contribution from related research at venues (e.g., CHI, UIST, ISWC). As such, intermittently revisiting how the call for papers evolves over time, and what it foregrounds as central concerns versus peripheral interests, may help create checkpoints that can help clarify whether the community is converging on a shared vision of augmentation or whether its breadth obscures the field’s distinctive lens and aims. Revisiting definitions of human augmentation. A closely related question concerns how augmentation itself is defined and/or conceived within the AH(s) community. Early conceptions of human augmentation (e.g., Engelbart’s notion of amplifying human intellect [21]) focused primarily on cognitive extension through interactive systems. However, we find that much of the work presented at AH(s) emphasizes embodied, perceptual, and sensorimotor Manuscript submitted to ACM 15 Years of Augmented Human(s) Research: Where Do We Stand?17 integration between humans and machines. Whether these perspectives represent complementary interpretations of a common concept (cf., [67]), or reflect different assumptions about what augmentation entails, remains open for discussion. As such, continually re-engaging with historical definitions of augmentation may help further specify the conceptual boundaries of the field. Knowledge accumulation and methodological expectations. Beyond conceptual framing, our analysis raises practical questions about how knowledge in AH(s) accumulates over time. Many contributions rely on bespoke hardware, narrowly scoped use cases, and/or short-term user evaluations, which can make comparison, replication, and extension challenging. This further complicates the formation of a cumulative research trajectory, particularly for systems that aim to alter perception, action, or skill acquisition beyond brief experimental contexts. Here we posit that rather than positioning AH(s) as independent from HCI, it may be helpful to articulate methodological expectations (e.g., open science approaches) that acknowledge the exploratory and high-risk nature of augmentation research while still supporting longer-term insight through longitudinal, in-the-wild studies. Human agency in AI-mediated augmentation. Recent advances in machine learning and generative artificial intelligence further complicate the development of augmentation systems. As such systems increasingly rely on predictive models and adaptive behavior, the relationship between human agency and machine autonomy becomes less clear. For AH(s), this raises questions about how the human sensorimotor loop is reshaped when intelligence is distributed across human and computational components (e.g., parallel running agents), and how notions of control, responsibility, and dependence should be interpreted in this context. Assistive technologies, inclusion, and social impact. Finally, the future of AH(s) research cannot be separated from its broader social implications. While much work in the community focuses on enhancement beyond normative baselines, the relationship between AH(s) and assistive (cf., [70,99] or accessibility-oriented (cf., [107,113]) research can further flourish, particularly given the presence of established communities such ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS) 6 . At the same time, augmentation technologies raise concerns about unequal access and the potential amplification of social disparities. Addressing these issues may require AH(s) researchers to engage more explicitly with questions of inclusion, accessibility, and the long-term societal consequences of deploying augmentation technologies beyond research settings – such social issues may go well beyond assessment of technical risks and alignment. 5.4 Limitations and Future Work We note that our study provides analysis and interpretation that is inherently limited by the scope of 15 years of the AH(s) conference series. This excludes not only venues that may have HA work (e.g., CHI, UIST), but also the journal Augmented Human Research 7 . While this was a deliberate choice, we acknowledge that this may pose an incomplete view of the HA field. Similarly, we do not consider the myriad of works that pertain to Transhumanism, whether from a medical or philosophical standpoint. Furthermore, our analysis is by definition limited to what was published at AH(s), which intrinsically exhibits a survivorship bias – there could have been many works that are seemingly far more related to the AH(s) vision and conference topics, but did not make it through. Nevertheless, we do believe that our analysis provides a representative characterization of the field, where it stands, and insights that may help steer its future. 6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIGACCESS 7 https://link.springer.com/journal/41133 Manuscript submitted to ACM 18Villa and El Ali 6 Conclusion With the rapid pace of technology development, our work sought to answer what exactly the field of Augmented Human(s) involves, focusing on its core themes and how these evolved over time. To answer this, we conducted a scientometric analysis on the past 15 years of the Augmented Human(s) conference series, focusing on: geographical aspects, submissions and citation timelines, author frequency and popularity, and topic modeling. Our key findings showed that the number of papers in the conference exhibit a bimodal distribution, with peaks in 2015 and 2025, however also showing periods of stagnant growth. We found that key topics over time include Haptics, Wearable Sensing, Vision & Eye Tracking, Embodied Interaction, and Sports / Motion, and these largely cover some of the internally most cited works. We also find that some seminal papers on HA are not published in AH(s), but rather at related venues (e.g., CHI, UIST). Lastly, we observe that the conference has an active Japanese HCI community while its geographic history shows Eurocentric dominance. Our work contributes a closer look at the trajectory of the AH(s) field, where we hope it raises meaningful considerations regarding definitional and research scope ambiguities given the core problems/enhancements of human capability that the field focuses on. Positionality and AI Usage Disclosure Statement We recognize that author positionality shapes the perspectives and interpretations in this paper [74]. We are two researchers situated in Germany and the Netherlands, with backgrounds in Cognitive Science, HCI, and Engineering. Our diverse perspectives informed our research framing and analysis. In the spirit of augmenting human capability, we used LLMs (GPT-5, Claude Sonnet 4, Gemini 3 Pro) to gather unknown references for related work, provide feedback on section structures and argumentation, and support with data analysis and plotting functions. All analytical decisions and interpretive claims, specifically all interpretation, reflection, and discussion, were human-only. We disclose our AI usage (cf., [19]) in efforts to ensure transparency in AI-mediated scholarship within HCI [20] and beyond. Acknowledgments This work was conducted as part of the AI-Twin project, which is funded by the European Research Council (ERC-2024-ADG) as part of the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (grant agreement no. 101200584). References [1]Bradly Alicea. 2018. An Integrative Introduction to Human Augmentation Science. arXiv:1804.10521 [q-bio.NC] https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.10521 [2]Maryam Alimardani and Mory Kaba. 2021. Deep Learning for Neuromarketing; Classification of User Preference using EEG Signals. In 12th Augmented Human International Conference (AH2021). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–7. doi:10.1145/3460881.3460930 [3]Christoph Amma, Dirk Gehrig, and Tanja Schultz. 2010. Airwriting Recognition Using Wearable Motion Sensors. In Proceedings of the 1st Augmented Human International Conference (AH ’10). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–8. doi:10.1145/1785455.1785465 [4]Leonardo Angelini, Massimo Mecella, Hai-Ning Liang, Maurizio Caon, Elena Mugellini, Omar Abou Khaled, and Danilo Bernardini. 2022. Towards an Emotionally Augmented Metaverse: a Framework for Recording and Analysing Physiological Data and User Behaviour. In 13th Augmented Human International Conference (AH2022). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–5. doi:10.1145/3532530.3532546 [5]Sandra Bardot, Sawyer Rempel, Bradley Rey, Ali Neshati, Yumiko Sakamoto, Carlo Menon, and Pourang Irani. 2020. Eyes-free graph legibility: using skin-dragging to provide a tactile graph visualization on the arm. In Proceedings of the 11th Augmented Human International Conference (AH ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–8. doi:10.1145/3396339.3396344 [6]Christoph Bartneck and Jun Hu. 2009. Scientometric analysis of the CHI proceedings. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Boston, MA, USA) (CHI ’09). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 699–708. doi:10.1145/1518701.1518810 [7]Jordan Beck and Erik Stolterman. 2017. Reviewing the Big Questions Literature;: or, Should HCI Have Big Questions?. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (Edinburgh, United Kingdom) (DIS ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 969–981. doi:10.1145/3064663.3064673 Manuscript submitted to ACM 15 Years of Augmented Human(s) Research: Where Do We Stand?19 [8]Dan Bennett, Oussama Metatla, Anne Roudaut, and Elisa D. Mekler. 2023. How does HCI Understand Human Agency and Autonomy?. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Hamburg, Germany) (CHI ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 375, 18 pages. doi:10.1145/3544548.3580651 [9] Alan F. Blackwell. 2015. Filling the big hole in HCI research. Interactions 22, 6 (Oct. 2015), 37–41. doi:10.1145/2830317 [10] Muriel De Boeck and Kristof Vaes. 2024. Human augmentation and its new design perspectives. International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation 12, 1 (2024), 61–80. arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/21650349.2023.2288125 doi:10.1080/21650349.2023.2288125 [11]Jaime Carbonell and Jade Goldstein. 1998. The use of MMR, diversity-based reranking for reordering documents and producing summaries. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (Melbourne, Australia) (SIGIR ’98). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 335–336. doi:10.1145/290941.291025 [12]Zhilong Chen and Yong Li. 2025. The Sharply Decreasing Disruptiveness of HCI. In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 454, 24 pages. doi:10.1145/3706598.3713917 [13]Mark Chignell, Lu Wang, Atefeh Zare, and Jamy Li. 2023. The Evolution of HCI and Human Factors: Integrating Human and Artificial Intelligence. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 30, 2, Article 17 (March 2023), 30 pages. doi:10.1145/3557891 [14] Elizabeth F. Churchill, Anne Bowser, and Jennifer Preece. 2016. The future of HCI education: a flexible, global, living curriculum. Interactions 23, 2 (Feb. 2016), 70–73. doi:10.1145/2888574 [15] Andy Clark. 2003. Natural-Born Cyborgs: Minds, Technologies, and the Future of Human Intelligence (1 ed.). Oxford University Press, Inc., USA. [16]Patricia Cornelio, Patrick Haggard, Kasper Hornbaek, Orestis Georgiou, Joanna Bergström, Sriram Subramanian, and Marianna Obrist. 2022. The sense of agency in emerging technologies for human-computer integration: A review. Frontiers in Neuroscience Volume 16 - 2022 (2022). doi:10.3389/fnins.2022.949138 [17] António Correia, Hugo Paredes, and Benjamim Fonseca. 2018. Scientometric analysis of scientific publications in CSCW. Scientometrics 114, 1 (Jan. 2018), 31–89. doi:10.1007/s11192-017-2562-0 [18]Valdemar Danry, Pat Pataranutaporn, Yaoli Mao, and Pattie Maes. 2020. Wearable Reasoner: Towards Enhanced Human Rationality Through A Wearable Device With An Explainable AI Assistant. In Proceedings of the Augmented Humans International Conference (Kaiserslautern, Germany) (AHs ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 23, 12 pages. doi:10.1145/3384657.3384799 [19]Abdallah El Ali, Karthikeya Puttur Venkatraj, Sophie Morosoli, Laurens Naudts, Natali Helberger, and Pablo Cesar. 2024. Transparent AI Disclosure Obligations: Who, What, When, Where, Why, How. In Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI EA ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 342, 11 pages. doi:10.1145/3613905.3650750 [20]Passant Elagroudy, Jie Li, Kaisa Vänänen, Paul Lukowicz, Hiroshi Ishii, Wendy E. Mackay, Elizabeth F Churchill, Anicia Peters, Antti Oulasvirta, Rui Prada, Alexandra Diening, Giulia Barbareschi, Agnes Gruenerbl, Midori Kawaguchi, Abdallah El Ali, Fiona Draxler, Robin Welsch, and Albrecht Schmidt. 2024. Transforming HCI Research Cycles using Generative AI and “Large Whatever Models” (LWMs). In Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI EA ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 584, 5 pages. doi:10.1145/3613905.3643977 [21] D. C. Engelbart. 1962. Augmenting Human Intellect: A Conceptual Framework. Air Force Office of Scientific Research, AFOSR-3233, w. bootstrap.org/augdocs/friedewald030402/augmentinghumanintellect/ahi62index.html. [22]Shariff A. M. Faleel, Michael Gammon, Yumiko Sakamoto, Carlo Menon, and Pourang Irani. 2020. User gesture elicitation of common smartphone tasks for hand proximate user interfaces. In Proceedings of the 11th Augmented Human International Conference (AH ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–8. doi:10.1145/3396339.3396363 [23]Kevin Fan, Jochen Huber, Suranga Nanayakkara, and Masahiko Inami. 2014. SpiderVision: Extending the Human Field of View for Augmented Awareness. In Proceedings of the 5th Augmented Human International Conference (AH ’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–8. doi:10.1145/2582051.2582100 [24]Florian ‘Floyd’ Mueller, Nathan Semertzidis, Josh Andres, Martin Weigel, Suranga Nanayakkara, Rakesh Patibanda, Zhuying Li, Paul Strohmeier, Jarrod Knibbe, Stefan Greuter, Marianna Obrist, Pattie Maes, Dakuo Wang, Katrin Wolf, Liz Gerber, Joe Marshall, Kai Kunze, Jonathan Grudin, Harald Reiterer, and Richard Byrne. 2022. Human–Computer Integration: Towards Integrating the Human Body with the Computational Machine. Found. Trends Hum.-Comput. Interact. 16, 1 (Oct. 2022), 1–64. doi:10.1561/1100000086 [25] Rebecca Fribourg, Nami Ogawa, Ludovic Hoyet, Ferran Argelaguet, Takuji Narumi, Michitaka Hirose, and Anatole Lécuyer. 2021. Virtual Co- Embodiment: Evaluation of the Sense of Agency While Sharing the Control of a Virtual Body Among Two Individuals. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 27, 10 (Oct. 2021), 4023–4038. doi:10.1109/TVCG.2020.2999197 [26]Pablo García-Barranquero and Marcos Alonso Fernández. 2025. Differentiating Human Enhancement and Transhumanism: Better or Perfect? Scientia et Fides 13, 1 (2025), 121–142. doi:10.12775/setf.2025.007 [27] Maarten Grootendorst. 2022. BERTopic: Neural topic modeling with a class-based TF-IDF procedure. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.05794 (2022). [28] Jonathan Grudin. 2009. AI and HCI: Two Fields Divided by a Common Focus. AI Mag. 30, 4 (Dec. 2009), 48–57. doi:10.1609/aimag.v30i4.2271 [29] Graciela Guerrero, Fernando José Mateus da Silva, Antonio Fernández Caballero, and Antà 3 nio Pereira. 2022. Augmented Humanity: A Systematic Mapping Review. Sensors 22, 2 (2022). doi:10.3390/s22020514 [30]Fatih Gurcan, Nergiz Ercil Cagiltay, and Kursat Cagiltay. 2021. Mapping Humanâ-Computer Interaction Research Themes and Trends from Its Existence to Today: A Topic Modeling-Based Review of past 60 Years. International Journal of HumanâComputer Interaction 37, 3 (2021), 267–280. arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2020.1819668 doi:10.1080/10447318.2020.1819668 Manuscript submitted to ACM 20Villa and El Ali [31]Natsuki Hamanishi and Jun Rekimoto. 2020. PoseAsQuery: Full-Body Interface for Repeated Observation of a Person in a Video with Ambiguous Pose Indexes and Performed Poses. In Proceedings of the Augmented Humans International Conference (AHs ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–11. doi:10.1145/3384657.3384658 [32] Nicole Han, Sudhanshu Srivastava, Aiwen Xu, Devi Klein, and Michael Beyeler. 2021. Deep Learning–Based Scene Simplification for Bionic Vision. In Proceedings of the Augmented Humans International Conference 2021 (Rovaniemi, Finland) (AHs ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 45–54. doi:10.1145/3458709.3458982 [33]Chris Harrison, Hrvoje Benko, and Andrew D. Wilson. 2011. OmniTouch: wearable multitouch interaction everywhere. In Proceedings of the 24th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (Santa Barbara, California, USA) (UIST ’11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 441–450. doi:10.1145/2047196.2047255 [34]Chris Harrison, Desney Tan, and Dan Morris. 2011. Skinput: appropriating the skin as an interactive canvas. Commun. ACM 54, 8 (Aug. 2011), 111–118. doi:10.1145/1978542.1978564 [35]Khalad Hasan, Debajyoti Mondal, David Ahlström, and Carman Neustaedter. 2020. An exploration of rules and tools for family members to limit co-located smartphone usage. In Proceedings of the 11th Augmented Human International Conference (AH ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–8. doi:10.1145/3396339.3396364 [36]Shoichi Hasegawa, Seiichiro Ishijima, Fumihiro Kato, Hironori Mitake, and Makoto Sato. 2012. Realtime sonification of the center of gravity for skiing. In Proceedings of the 3rd Augmented Human International Conference (Megève, France) (AH ’12). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 11, 4 pages. doi:10.1145/2160125.2160136 [37] Yuji Hatada, Shigeo Yoshida, Takuji Narumi, and Michitaka Hirose. 2019. Double Shellf: What Psychological Effects Can Be Caused through Interaction with a Doppelganger?. In Proceedings of the 10th Augmented Human International Conference 2019 (AH2019). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–8. doi:10.1145/3311823.3311862 [38]Nathalie Henry, Howard Goodell, Niklas Elmqvist, and Jean-Daniel Fekete. 2007. 20 Years of Four HCI Conferences: A Visual Exploration. International Journal of Humanâ-Computer Interaction 23, 3 (2007), 239–285. arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/10447310701702402 doi:10.1080/ 10447310701702402 [39]Keita Higuchi, Tetsuro Shimada, and Jun Rekimoto. 2011. Flying sports assistant: external visual imagery representation for sports training. In Proceedings of the 2nd Augmented Human International Conference (Tokyo, Japan) (AH ’11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 7, 4 pages. doi:10.1145/1959826.1959833 [40]Yuichi Hiroi, Yuta Itoh, Takumi Hamasaki, and Maki Sugimoto. 2017. AdaptiVisor: Assisting Eye Adaptation via Occlusive Optical See-through Head-Mounted Displays. In Proceedings of the 8th Augmented Human International Conference (AH ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–9. doi:10.1145/3041164.3041178 [41]Yuichi Hiroi, Takumi Kaminokado, Atsushi Mori, and Yuta Itoh. 2020. DehazeGlasses: Optical Dehazing with an Occlusion Capable See-Through Display. In Proceedings of the Augmented Humans International Conference (AHs ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–11. doi:10.1145/3384657.3384781 [42] Kasper Hornbæk, Per Ola Kristensson, and Antti Oulasvirta. 2025. Rethinking HCI Education for the Era of AI. Interactions 33, 1 (Dec. 2025), 40–43. doi:10.1145/3777517 [43]Masahiko Inami, Daisuke Uriu, Zendai Kashino, Shigeo Yoshida, Hiroto Saito, Azumi Maekawa, and Michiteru Kitazaki. 2022. Cyborgs, Human Augmentation, Cybernetics, and JIZAI Body. In Proceedings of the Augmented Humans International Conference 2022 (Kashiwa, Chiba, Japan) (AHs ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 230–242. doi:10.1145/3519391.3519401 [44]Yoshio Ishiguro, Adiyan Mujibiya, Takashi Miyaki, and Jun Rekimoto. 2010. Aided eyes: eye activity sensing for daily life. In Proceedings of the 1st Augmented Human International Conference (Megève, France) (AH ’10). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 25, 7 pages. doi:10.1145/1785455.1785480 [45]Shoya Ishimaru, Kai Kunze, Koichi Kise, Jens Weppner, Andreas Dengel, Paul Lukowicz, and Andreas Bulling. 2014. In the Blink of an Eye: Combining Head Motion and Eye Blink Frequency for Activity Recognition with Google Glass. In Proceedings of the 5th Augmented Human International Conference (AH ’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–4. doi:10.1145/2582051.2582066 [46]Yuta Itoh, Jason Orlosky, Kiyoshi Kiyokawa, and Gudrun Klinker. 2016. Laplacian Vision: Augmenting Motion Prediction via Optical See-Through Head-Mounted Displays. In Proceedings of the 7th Augmented Human International Conference 2016 (AH ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–8. doi:10.1145/2875194.2875227 [47]Osamu Izuta, Toshiki Sato, Sachiko Kodama, and Hideki Koike. 2010. Bouncing Star Project: Design and Development of Augmented Sports Application Using a Ball Including Electronic and Wireless Modules. In Proceedings of the 1st Augmented Human International Conference (AH ’10). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–7. doi:10.1145/1785455.1785477 [48]Jari Kangas, Oleg Špakov, Poika Isokoski, Deepak Akkil, Jussi Rantala, and Roope Raisamo. 2016. Feedback for Smooth Pursuit Gaze Tracking Based Control. In Proceedings of the 7th Augmented Human International Conference 2016 (AH ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–8. doi:10.1145/2875194.2875209 [49]Shunichi Kasahara, Mitsuhito Ando, Kiyoshi Suganuma, and Jun Rekimoto. 2016. Parallel Eyes: Exploring Human Capability and Behaviors with Paralleled First Person View Sharing. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (San Jose, California, USA) (CHI ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1561–1572. doi:10.1145/2858036.2858495 Manuscript submitted to ACM 15 Years of Augmented Human(s) Research: Where Do We Stand?21 [50]Shunichi Kasahara, Jun Nishida, and Pedro Lopes. 2019. Preemptive Action: Accelerating Human Reaction using Electrical Muscle Stimulation Without Compromising Agency. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Glasgow, Scotland Uk) (CHI ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–15. doi:10.1145/3290605.3300873 [51] Shunichi Kasahara and Jun Rekimoto. 2014. JackIn: integrating first-person view with out-of-body vision generation for human-human augmentation. In Proceedings of the 5th Augmented Human International Conference (Kobe, Japan) (AH ’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 46, 8 pages. doi:10.1145/2582051.2582097 [52]Nobuo Kawaguchi, Nobuhiro Ogawa, Yohei Iwasaki, Katsuhiko Kaji, Tsutomu Terada, Kazuya Murao, Sozo Inoue, Yoshihiro Kawahara, Yasuyuki Sumi, and Nobuhiko Nishio. 2011. HASC Challenge: Gathering Large Scale Human Activity Corpus for the Real-World Activity Understandings. In Proceedings of the 2nd Augmented Human International Conference (AH ’11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–5. doi:10.1145/1959826.1959853 [53]Pascal Knierim, Thomas Kosch, Gabrielle LaBorwit, and Albrecht Schmidt. 2020. Altering the Speed of Reality? Exploring Visual Slow-Motion to Amplify Human Perception using Augmented Reality. In Proceedings of the Augmented Humans International Conference (Kaiserslautern, Germany) (AHs ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 2, 5 pages. doi:10.1145/3384657.3384659 [54] Vassilis Kostakos. 2015. The big hole in HCI research. Interactions 22, 2 (Feb. 2015), 48–51. doi:10.1145/2729103 [55] Jiunde Lee. 2024. Bridging Divide with Innovative Media: Telexistence and Human Augmentation. Emerging Media 2, 2 (2024), 288–310. arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1177/27523543241266075 doi:10.1177/27523543241266075 [56]Richard Li, Jason Wu, and Thad Starner. 2019. TongueBoard: An Oral Interface for Subtle Input. In Proceedings of the 10th Augmented Human International Conference 2019 (AH2019). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–9. doi:10.1145/3311823.3311831 [57] J. C. R. Licklider. 1992. Man-Computer Symbiosis. IEEE Ann. Hist. Comput. 14, 1 (Jan. 1992), 24. [58] Xin Liu, Katia Vega, Pattie Maes, and Joe A. Paradiso. 2016. Wearability Factors for Skin Interfaces. In Proceedings of the 7th Augmented Human International Conference 2016 (Geneva, Switzerland) (AH ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 21, 8 pages. doi:10.1145/2875194.2875248 [59]Yong Liu, Jorge Goncalves, Denzil Ferreira, Bei Xiao, Simo Hosio, and Vassilis Kostakos. 2014. CHI 1994-2013: mapping two decades of intellectual progress through co-word analysis. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Toronto, Ontario, Canada) (CHI ’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 3553–3562. doi:10.1145/2556288.2556969 [60] Ali Maddahi, Anna Polyvyana, Amir Mahdi Nassiri, Yaser Maddahi, and Mohamed-Amine Choukou. 2020. Caring4Dementia: a mobile application to train people caring for patients with dementia. In Proceedings of the 11th Augmented Human International Conference (AH ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–7. doi:10.1145/3396339.3396342 [61]Lauren A. Maggio, Natascha Chtena, Juan Pablo Alperin, Laura Moorhead, and John M. Willinsky. 2024. “The Best Home for This Paper”: A Qualitative Study of How Authors Select Where to Submit Manuscripts. Perspectives on Medical Education 13, 1 (2024). doi:10.5334/pme.1517 [62] Katsutoshi Masai, Kai Kunze, and Maki Sugimoto. 2020. Eye-Based Interaction Using Embedded Optical Sensors on an Eyewear Device for Facial Expression Recognition. In Proceedings of the Augmented Humans International Conference (AHs ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–10. doi:10.1145/3384657.3384787 [63]Akira Matsuda, Kazunori Nozawa, Kazuki Takata, Atsushi Izumihara, and Jun Rekimoto. 2020. HapticPointer: A Neck-worn Device that Presents Direction by Vibrotactile Feedback for Remote Collaboration Tasks. In Proceedings of the Augmented Humans International Conference (Kaiserslautern, Germany) (AHs ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 7, 10 pages. doi:10.1145/3384657.3384777 [64]Reiji Miura, Shunichi Kasahara, Michiteru Kitazaki, Adrien Verhulst, Masahiko Inami, and Maki Sugimoto. 2021. MultiSoma: Distributed Embodiment with Synchronized Behavior and Perception. In Proceedings of the Augmented Humans International Conference 2021 (AHs ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–9. doi:10.1145/3458709.3458878 [65]Omar Mubin, Abdullah Al Mahmud, and Muneeb Ahmad. 2017. HCI down under: reflecting on a decade of the OzCHI conference. Scientometrics 112, 1 (July 2017), 367–382. doi:10.1007/s11192-017-2293-2 [66]Omar Mubin, Max Manalo, Muneeb Ahmad, and Mohammad Obaid. 2017. Scientometric Analysis of the HAI Conference. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Human Agent Interaction (Bielefeld, Germany) (HAI ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 45–51. doi:10.1145/3125739.3125747 [67]Florian Floyd Mueller, Pedro Lopes, Paul Strohmeier, Wendy Ju, Caitlyn Seim, Martin Weigel, Suranga Nanayakkara, Marianna Obrist, Zhuying Li, Joseph Delfa, Jun Nishida, Elizabeth M. Gerber, Dag Svanaes, Jonathan Grudin, Stefan Greuter, Kai Kunze, Thomas Erickson, Steven Greenspan, Masahiko Inami, Joe Marshall, Harald Reiterer, Katrin Wolf, Jochen Meyer, Thecla Schiphorst, Dakuo Wang, and Pattie Maes. 2020. Next Steps for Human-Computer Integration. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–15. doi:10.1145/3313831.3376242 [68]Brad A. Myers. 1998. A brief history of human-computer interaction technology. Interactions 5, 2 (March 1998), 44–54. doi:10.1145/274430.274436 [69]Suranga Nanayakkara, Roy Shilkrot, Kian Peen Yeo, and Pattie Maes. 2013. EyeRing: A Finger-Worn Input Device for Seamless Interactions with Our Surroundings. In Proceedings of the 4th Augmented Human International Conference (AH ’13). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 13–20. doi:10.1145/2459236.2459240 [70]Suranga Chandima Nanayakkara, Masahiko Inami, Florian Mueller, Jochen Huber, Chitralekha Gupta, Christophe Jouffrais, Kai Kunze, Rakesh Patibanda, Samantha W T Chan, and Moritz Alexander Messerschmidt. 2023. Exploring the Design Space of Assistive Augmentation. In Proceedings Manuscript submitted to ACM 22Villa and El Ali of the Augmented Humans International Conference 2023 (Glasgow, United Kingdom) (AHs ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 371–373. doi:10.1145/3582700.3582729 [71]David M. Nichols and Sally Jo Cunningham. 2015. A scientometric analysis of 15 years of CHINZ conferences. In Proceedings of the 15th New Zealand Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (Hamilton, New Zealand) (CHINZ 2015). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 73–80. doi:10.1145/2808047.2808060 [72]Kei Nitta, Keita Higuchi, and Jun Rekimoto. 2014. HoverBall: Augmented Sports with a Flying Ball. In Proceedings of the 5th Augmented Human International Conference (AH ’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–4. doi:10.1145/2582051.2582064 [73]Akane Okuno and Yasuyuki Sumi. 2022. Classification of Daily Activities Based on the Amount of Social and Physical Activity for Behavioral Change Toward Wellbeing. In 13th Augmented Human International Conference (AH2022). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–9. doi:10.1145/3532525.3532526 [74]Alexandra Olteanu, Michael Ekstrand, Carlos Castillo, and Jina Suh. 2023.Responsible AI Research Needs Impact Statements Too. arXiv:2311.11776 [cs.AI] https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.11776 [75]Jonas Oppenlaender and Simo Hosio. 2025. Keeping Score: A Quantitative Analysis of How the CHI Community Appreciates Its Milestones. In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 452, 17 pages. doi:10.1145/3706598.3713464 [76]Antti Oulasvirta and Kasper Hornbæk. 2016. HCI Research as Problem-Solving. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (San Jose, California, USA) (CHI ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 4956–4967. doi:10.1145/ 2858036.2858283 [77]Carlos Paniagua, Hiroki Ota, Yutaro Hirao, Monica Perusquia-Hernandez, Hideaki Uchiyama, and Kiyoshi Kiyokawa. 2025. Tape-Tics: A Flexible and Modular Vibrotactile Feedback System for Rapid Prototyping of Haptic Applications in Education. In Proceedings of the Augmented Humans International Conference 2025 (AHs ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 92–104. doi:10.1145/3745900.3746092 [78]Pat Pataranutaporn, Angela Vujic, David S. Kong, Pattie Maes, and Misha Sra. 2020. Living Bits: Opportunities and Challenges for Integrating Living Microorganisms in Human-Computer Interaction. In Proceedings of the Augmented Humans International Conference (Kaiserslautern, Germany) (AHs ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 30, 12 pages. doi:10.1145/3384657.3384783 [79]M. Perusquía-Hernández, T. Enomoto, T. Martins, M. Otsuki, H. Iwata, and K. Suzuki. 2017. Embodied Interface for Levitation and Navigation in a 3D Large Space. In Proceedings of the 8th Augmented Human International Conference (AH ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–9. doi:10.1145/3041164.3041173 [80]Max Pfeiffer, Tim Dünte, Stefan Schneegass, Florian Alt, and Michael Rohs. 2015. Cruise Control for Pedestrians: Controlling Walking Direction using Electrical Muscle Stimulation. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (CHI ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2505–2514. doi:10.1145/2702123.2702190 [81] Max Pfeiffer, Stefan Schneegass, Florian Alt, and Michael Rohs. 2014. Let Me Grab This: A Comparison of EMS and Vibration for Haptic Feedback in Free-Hand Interaction. In Proceedings of the 5th Augmented Human International Conference (AH ’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–8. doi:10.1145/2582051.2582099 [82]Bogdan Popoveniuc and Radu-Daniel Vatavu. 2022. Transhumanism as a Philosophical and Cultural Framework for Extended Reality Applied to Human Augmentation. In 13th Augmented Human International Conference (Winnipeg, MB, Canada) (AH2022). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 6, 8 pages. doi:10.1145/3532525.3532528 [83] Bogdan Popoveniuc and Radu-Daniel Vatavu. 2022. Transhumanism as a Philosophical and Cultural Framework for Extended Reality Applied to Human Augmentation. In 13th Augmented Human International Conference (AH2022). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–8. doi:10.1145/3532525.3532528 [84]Roope Raisamo, Ismo Rakkolainen, P A€ivi Majaranta, Katri Salminen, Jussi Rantala, and Ahmed Farooq. 2019. Human augmentation: Past, present and future. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 131 (2019), 131–143. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2019.05.008 50 years of the International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. Reflections on the past, present and future of human-centred technologies. [85]Ismo Rakkolainen. 2025. Augmented Human and Transhuman: What is the Difference? Augmented Human Research 11, 2 (3 Nov. 2025). doi:10.1007/s41133-025-00089-9 [86] Jun Rekimoto. 2014. A New You: From Augmented Reality to Augmented Human. In Proceedings of the Ninth ACM International Conference on Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces (Dresden, Germany) (ITS ’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1. doi:10.1145/2669485. 2670531 [87]Jun Rekimoto and Katashi Nagao. 1995. The world through the computer: computer augmented interaction with real world environments. In Proceedings of the 8th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface and Software Technology (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA) (UIST ’95). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 29–36. doi:10.1145/215585.215639 [88]Tobias Röddiger, Michael Beigl, Daniel Wolffram, Matthias Budde, and Hongye Sun. 2020. PDMSkin: On-Skin Gestures with Printable Ultra- Stretchable Soft Electronic Second Skin. In Proceedings of the Augmented Humans International Conference (AHs ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–9. doi:10.1145/3384657.3384789 [89]Bektur Ryskeldiev, Yoichi Ochiai, Michael Cohen, and Jens Herder. 2018. Distributed Metaverse: Creating Decentralized Blockchain-based Model for Peer-to-peer Sharing of Virtual Spaces for Mixed Reality Applications. In Proceedings of the 9th Augmented Human International Conference (AH ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–3. doi:10.1145/3174910.3174952 Manuscript submitted to ACM 15 Years of Augmented Human(s) Research: Where Do We Stand?23 [90]MHD Yamen Saraiji, Tomoya Sasaki, Kai Kunze, Kouta Minamizawa, and Masahiko Inami. 2018. MetaArms: Body Remapping Using Feet-Controlled Artificial Arms. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (Berlin, Germany) (UIST ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 65–74. doi:10.1145/3242587.3242665 [91] Bastian Schmeier, Jan Patrick Kopetz, Borge Kordts, and Nicole Jochems. 2021. Manipulating Virtual Objects in Augmented Reality Using a New Ball-Shaped Input Device. In 12th Augmented Human International Conference (AH2021). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–8. doi:10.1145/3460881.3460935 [92]Colin T. Schmidt. 2020. Extensions of mind: relating to data and others. In Proceedings of the 11th Augmented Human International Conference (AH ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–7. doi:10.1145/3396339.3396402 [93] Kenichiro Shirota, Makoto Uju, Yurike Chandra, Elaine Czech, Roshan Peiris, and Kouta Minamizawa. 2020. Design of Altered Cognition with Reshaped Bodies. In Proceedings of the Augmented Humans International Conference (AHs ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–10. doi:10.1145/3384657.3384773 [94]Constantine Stephanidis, Gavriel Salvendy, Margherita Antona, Vincent G. Duffy, Qin Gao, Waldemar Karwowski, Shinâichi Konomi, Fiona Nah, Stavroula Ntoa, Pei-Luen Patrick Rau, Keng Siau, and Jia Zhou. 2025. Seven HCI Grand Challenges Revisited: Five-Year Progress. International Journal of Humanâ-Computer Interaction 41, 19 (2025), 11947–11995. arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2025.2450411 doi:10.1080/10447318.2025.2450411 [95]Shuya Suda, Yasutoshi Makino, and Hiroyuki Shinoda. 2019. Prediction of Volleyball Trajectory Using Skeletal Motions of Setter Player. In Proceedings of the 10th Augmented Human International Conference 2019 (AH2019). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–8. doi:10.1145/3311823.3311844 [96] Junwei Sun, Margaret Foley, Qiang Xu, Chenhe Li, Jun Li, Pourang Irani, and Wei Li. 2021. PenShaft: Enabling Pen Shaft Detection and Interaction for Touchscreens. In 12th Augmented Human International Conference (AH2021). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–9. doi:10.1145/3460881.3460934 [97]Kazuma Takada, Midori Kawaguchi, Akira Uehara, Yukiya Nakanishi, Mark Armstrong, Adrien Verhulst, Kouta Minamizawa, and Shunichi Kasahara. 2022. Parallel Ping-Pong: Exploring Parallel Embodiment through Multiple Bodies by a Single User. In Proceedings of the Augmented Humans International Conference 2022 (Kashiwa, Chiba, Japan) (AHs ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 121–130. doi:10.1145/3519391.3519408 [98]Emi Tamaki, Takashi Miyaki, and Jun Rekimoto. 2011. PossessedHand: techniques for controlling human hands using electrical muscles stimuli. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Vancouver, BC, Canada) (CHI ’11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 543–552. doi:10.1145/1978942.1979018 [99]Felicia Fang-Yi Tan, Chitralekha Gupta, Dixon Prem Daniel Rajendran, Pattie Maes, and Suranga Nanayakkara. 2025. Assistive Augmentation: Fundamentally Transforming Human Ability. Interactions 32, 1 (Jan. 2025), 22–27. doi:10.1145/3702656 [100]Yuka Tashiro, Shio Miyafuji, Dong-Hyun Hwang, Satoshi Kiyofuji, Taichi Kin, Takeo Igarashi, and Hideki Koike. 2023. GAuze-MIcrosuture- FICATION: Gamification in Microsuture Training with Real-Time Feedback. In Proceedings of the Augmented Humans International Conference 2023 (AHs ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 15–26. doi:10.1145/3582700.3582704 [101] Marian Theiss, Philipp M. Scholl, and Kristof Van Laerhoven. 2016. Predicting Grasps with a Wearable Inertial and EMG Sensing Unit for Low-Power Detection of In-Hand Objects. In Proceedings of the 7th Augmented Human International Conference 2016 (AH ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–8. doi:10.1145/2875194.2875207 [102]Yu Ukai and Jun Rekimoto. 2013. Swimoid: A Swim Support System Using an Underwater Buddy Robot. In Proceedings of the 4th Augmented Human International Conference (AH ’13). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 170–177. doi:10.1145/2459236.2459265 [103]Eduardo Velloso, Andreas Bulling, Hans Gellersen, Wallace Ugulino, and Hugo Fuks. 2013. Qualitative Activity Recognition of Weight Lifting Exercises. In Proceedings of the 4th Augmented Human International Conference (AH ’13). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 116–123. doi:10.1145/2459236.2459256 [104]Karthikeya Puttur Venkatraj, Wo Meijer, Monica Perusquia-Hernandez, Gijs Huisman, and Abdallah El Ali. 2024. ShareYourReality: Investigating Haptic Feedback and Agency in Virtual Avatar Co-embodiment. In Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 100, 15 pages. doi:10.1145/3613904.3642425 [105]Steeven Villa, Jasmin Niess, Takuro Nakao, Jonathan Lazar, Albrecht Schmidt, and Tonja-Katrin Machulla. 2023. Understanding Perception of Human Augmentation: A Mixed-Method Study. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Hamburg, Germany) (CHI ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 65, 16 pages. doi:10.1145/3544548.3581485 [106]Martin Weigel, Tong Lu, Gilles Bailly, Antti Oulasvirta, Carmel Majidi, and Jürgen Steimle. 2015. iSkin: Flexible, Stretchable and Visually Customizable On-Body Touch Sensors for Mobile Computing. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (CHI ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2991–3000. doi:10.1145/2702123.2702391 [107]Rua Mae Williams and Chorong Park. 2023. Cyborg Assemblages: How autistic adults construct sociotechnical networks to support cognitive function. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Hamburg, Germany) (CHI ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 62, 15 pages. doi:10.1145/3544548.3581556 [108]Dennis Wittchen, Valentin Martinez-Missir, Sina Mavali, Nihar Sabnis, Courtney N. Reed, and Paul Strohmeier. 2023. Designing Interactive Shoes for Tactile Augmented Reality. In Proceedings of the Augmented Humans International Conference 2023 (AHs ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–14. doi:10.1145/3582700.3582728 Manuscript submitted to ACM 24Villa and El Ali [109]Jacob O. Wobbrock, Leah Findlater, Darren Gergle, and James J. Higgins. 2011. The aligned rank transform for nonparametric factorial analyses using only anova procedures. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Vancouver, BC, Canada) (CHI ’11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 143–146. doi:10.1145/1978942.1978963 [110] Jacob O. Wobbrock and Julie A. Kientz. 2016. Research contributions in human-computer interaction. Interactions 23, 3 (April 2016), 38–44. doi:10.1145/2907069 [111] Kaito Yokoro, Monica Perusquia-Hernandez, Naoya Isoyama, Hideaki Uchiyama, and Kiyoshi Kiyokawa. 2023. DecluttAR: An Interactive Visual Clutter Dimming System to Help Focus on Work. In Proceedings of the Augmented Humans International Conference 2023 (Glasgow, United Kingdom) (AHs ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 159–170. doi:10.1145/3582700.3582718 [112] Zuoyi Zhang, Huizhe Zheng, Sawyer Rempel, Kenny Hong, Teng Han, Yumiko Sakamoto, and Pourang Irani. 2020. A smart utensil for detecting food pick-up gesture and amount while eating. In Proceedings of the 11th Augmented Human International Conference (AH ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–8. doi:10.1145/3396339.3396361 [113]Songchen Zhou, Mark Armstrong, Giulia Barbareschi, Toshihiro Ajioka, Zheng Hu, Masatane Muto, Ando Ryoichi, Kentaro Yoshifuji, and Kouta Minamizawa. 2025. Augmented Body Communicator: Enhancing daily body expression for people with upper limb limitations through LLM and a robotic arm. In Proceedings of the Augmented Humans International Conference 2025 (2025-01-01). 174–186. Manuscript submitted to ACM