Co-Designing Environment-Based Strategies with Neurodivergent Individuals for Sensory-Inclusive Dental Visit Experiences
This is a solid CHI design-space paper: the novelty is not a new deployed system, but a carefully argued, technology-agnostic catalogue for sensory-inclusive dental environments. The strongest contribution is methodological and generative, with tangible materials used as a practical proxy to surface environment strategies that can later map to AR, projection, or physical interventions.
Axes Lens
Rare contribution shape, typical evidence profile. The point here is not a score. It is to show what kind of claim the paper makes, and whether the evidence pattern is unusual or baseline in this 268 -review set.
Contribution shape
- Knowledge form
- generative knowledge typical · 35/268
- Novelty type
- design space typical · 10/268
- Abstraction level
- practice typical · 85/268
- Generalization target
- design family typical · 38/268
- Validation mode
- qualitative study typical · 63/268
Evidence profile
- Evidence strength
- moderate typical · 105/268
- Claim alignment
- strong typical · 231/268
- Overclaim risk
- medium typical · 210/268
Review Summary
This paper’s value is in reframing sensory-inclusive dental design away from a single interface or clinic-specific prototype and toward a broader environment-based design space co-created with neurodivergent participants. The authors’ use of tangible materials as proxies is a sensible and well-justified departure from a common tech-first instinct: instead of forcing early-stage co-design into AR headsets or electronic displays, they let participants manipulate spatial relationships and imagine interventions at meaningful locations and scales. That choice is not merely a convenience; it is part of the method contribution, because it supports richer discussion of environmental change while reducing the cognitive and sensory burden of complex technology during ideation. The main novelty is therefore generative rather than causal: a technology-agnostic catalogue with five design goals and associated strategies that can inform multiple implementation pathways, including projection mapping, ambient displays, responsive physical elements, and even AR-mediated interventions. The evidence base is appropriately scoped for that claim. The paper is explicit that the work is exploratory, based on 13 participants, and not intended for statistical generalization. It also acknowledges that the catalogue remains conceptual and untested in real clinical settings. That makes the contribution credible as a CHI design-space paper, but it also means the paper should not be read as validating a deployable dental system. In field terms, it advances inclusive design practice by offering a structured vocabulary for environment-based interventions and by showing how participatory methods can be adapted for neurodivergent communities in a sensitive domain. The limitations are real but well aligned with the claims: sample specificity, possible exclusion of people with higher support needs, and the low-fidelity nature of the materials all constrain transferability. Overall, this is a strong honorable-mention style contribution because it is methodologically thoughtful, clearly bounded, and useful as a foundation for future implementation and evaluation.
What Changed
Canon before
Prior CHI work on sensory-inclusive or neurodivergent design often centers on specific tools, interfaces, or clinic-specific interventions rather than a broader environment-based design catalogue for dental settings.
Departure from common sense
The paper departs from the usual tech-first framing by using tangible materials and physical models as proxies for environmental interventions during co-design, rather than starting with AR headsets or electronic displays. This lets participants manipulate spatial relationships and imagine environment changes at participant-specified locations and scales.
Actual novelty
The paper’s main novelty is a technology-agnostic catalogue of environment-based strategies co-designed with neurodivergent participants for dental visits. Rather than evaluating one room, system, or software prototype, it synthesizes a broader design space with five goals and strategies that can inform multiple implementation pathways.
Evidence
The evidence supports an exploratory qualitative contribution: 13 neurodivergent participants took part in in-depth co-design sessions, and the authors explicitly frame the output as a qualitative design space and illustrative strategies rather than a statistically generalized or clinically validated system. The paper also states that the catalogue remains conceptual and untested in real clinical environments.
“ Instead, we derive a broader catalogue of environment-based strategies co-designed with neurodivergent individuals, articulating how factors such as sensory modulation, spatial framing, and repeated exposure can be combined in different ways”
actual novelty · Abstract/Introduction + Discussion framing of catalogue (within 008_share-on) · confidence 0.72
“ Using low-fidelity materials, physical models, and tangible sensory props, we invited participants to reconfigure the dental environment in ways that foregrounded their sensory experiences and exploratory ideas, rather than asking them to work through potentially overwhelming AR headsets, screens, or specific interface details”
departure from common sense · Method section 3.1 · confidence 0.77
“ A further limitation is that our design catalogue remains conceptual and untested in real clinical environment”
limitation · Limitations and Future Work section 7 · confidence 0.92
“ With 13 participants, this work is explicitly exploratory and does not aim for statistical generalization, but instead offers a qualitative design space and illustrative strategies for sensory-inclusive dental environments”
validation scope · Limitations and Future Work section 7 · confidence 0.88
Limits
Method limits
The study is explicitly exploratory and based on 13 participants, so it does not support statistical generalization. The co-design protocol may not transfer well to neurodivergent individuals with limited speech or higher support needs, and low-fidelity tangible materials may constrain the range of ideas elicited.
Deployment limits
The design catalogue is conceptual and has not yet been implemented or evaluated as an interactive environmental system in real dental clinics. Any deployment would need to account for clinical workflow, sensory safety, and the fact that the paper does not validate a specific technical implementation.
Boundary conditions
Findings are bounded to verbally fluent neurodivergent participants in co-design sessions and to early-stage exploration of dental environments. The approach is most applicable where designers need to elicit environment-based strategies before committing to a specific technology or clinic configuration.
Position in field
This work sits at the intersection of participatory design, accessibility, and interactive environments. Its field contribution is less about a finished system and more about expanding CHI’s design vocabulary for sensory-inclusive dental care through a co-designed, technology-agnostic environment strategy catalogue.