ArticlePDF AvailableLiterature Review

Biosensing and Biosensors—Terminologies, Technologies, Theories and Ethics

November 2024
Geography Compass 18(11):1-13

DOI:10.1111/gec3.70007

License
CC BY 4.0

Authors:

Jan Misera

University of Innsbruck

Johannes Melchert

University of Innsbruck

Tabea Bork-Hüffer

University of Innsbruck

Which biosensing technologies are geographers using in their research, and what exactly do they measure? What are the theoretical origins of geographic interests in biosensing? This article provides an overview of the variety of biosensors applied in biosensing research, tracks the theoretical debates and roots of geographic engagement with biosensing, and discusses the potentials, limitations and ethical implications of applying biosensors. We critically reflect on the varied terminologies that have been used to describe a rapidly evolving array of biosensing technologies and methodologies and suggest a common understanding for key terms such as “biosensing” (technologies or methodologies), “biosensors,” “wearable biosensors” and “biosignals.” We offer an overview of the broader theoretical debates that have inspired geographers turn to biosensing, including behavioral geography, more-than-representational theory, critical neurogeography, the mobilities and biosociality paradigms, and visual geographies. These have called for methodologies that can capture affects neglected in representational research, follow people, things and technologies as they are mobile in space and time, investigate the links between brain, cognition and biopolitics or attend to visualities in everyday life. Although geographers have so far engaged with a limited number of the ever-growing variety of available (bio-)sensors, the development and application of biosensing methodologies is vibrant, highly diverse and very promising for diverse geographical research questions and fields. Going forward, we particularly encourage experimentation with eye-trackers, which come closest to measuring instantaneous responses to environmental stimuli and offer interesting opportunities for the analysis of social and material environments through the visual data they create. Finally, we conclude with a call for a stronger emphasis on data ethics, procedural ethics and ethics of care in biosensing, which have so far received too little attention in these often interdisciplinary and complex biosensing research endeavors.

Content uploaded by Jan Misera

Content may be subject to copyright.

Geography Compass

REVIEW ARTICLE

OPEN ACCESS

Biosensing and Biosensors—Terminologies, Technologies,

Theories and Ethics

Jan Misera

| Johannes Melchert | Tabea Bork‐Hüffer

Department of Geography, University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria

Correspondence: Jan Misera (jan.misera@uibk.ac.at)

Received: 30 November 2023 | Revised: 5 July 2024 | Accepted: 8 October 2024

Funding: This research was funded in whole by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) 10.55776/PAT4606023. For open access purposes, the author has applied a

CC BY public licence to any author accepted manuscript version arising from this submission.

wearable biosensors

ABSTRACT

Which biosensing technologies are geographers using in their research, and what exactly do they measure? What are the

theoretical origins of geographic interests in biosensing? This article provides an overview of the variety of biosensors applied

in biosensing research, tracks the theoretical debates and roots of geographic engagement with biosensing, and discusses the

potentials, limitations and ethical implications of applying biosensors. We critically reect on the varied terminologies that

have been used to describe a rapidly evolving array of biosensing technologies and methodologies and suggest a common

understanding for key terms such as “biosensing” (technologies or methodologies), “biosensors,” “wearable biosensors” and

“biosignals.” We offer an overview of the broader theoretical debates that have inspired geographers turn to biosensing,

including behavioral geography, more‐than‐representational theory, critical neurogeography, the mobilities and biosociality

paradigms, and visual geographies. These have called for methodologies that can capture affects neglected in representational

research, follow people, things and technologies as they are mobile in space and time, investigate the links between brain,

cognition and biopolitics or attend to visualities in everyday life. Although geographers have so far engaged with a limited

number of the ever‐growing variety of available (bio‐)sensors, the development and application of biosensing methodologies is

vibrant, highly diverse and very promising for diverse geographical research questions and elds. Going forward, we partic-

ularly encourage experimentation with eye‐trackers, which come closest to measuring instantaneous responses to environ-

mental stimuli and offer interesting opportunities for the analysis of social and material environments through the visual data

they create. Finally, we conclude with a call for a stronger emphasis on data ethics, procedural ethics and ethics of care in

biosensing, which have so far received too little attention in these often interdisciplinary and complex biosensing research

endeavors.

Introduction

Despite the growing interest in non‐invasive biosensors in

environmental psychology, neuroscience, and related elds, the

scholarly community working with biosensing methodologies

in geography and spatial sciences remains small. Varied

terminologies have been used to describe a rapidly evolving

array of biosensing technologies and methodologies.

Of most interest to geographers and related scholars are wear-

able biosensors integrated into devices such as smartwatches,

wristbands, clothing, earbuds or eye‐trackers (dos Santos

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly

cited.

Geography Compass, 2024; 18:e70007 1 of 13

https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.70007

et al. 2021; Mück et al. 2019; Ray et al. 2019). They enable the

recording, measurement, and monitoring of affective responses

in different environments and foster the understanding of hu-

man (environmental) perception, social interactions, and affects

(Pykett 2018). Over the past decade, wearable biosensors have

become more affordable, less invasive and more suitable for

everyday use. Nonetheless, efforts to measure affective‐

emotional responses through (ever evolving) sensors have a

long history, originating from disciplines such as medicine,

clinical research, psychology, engineering, biology, chemistry,

physics, computer sciences and consumer sciences (Lowe 2007;

Naresh and Lee 2021). Accordingly, elds of application of

biosensors are broad, ranging from environmental monitoring,

healthcare monitoring, disease identication, food quality

management to consumer attention (Paiva et al. 2023).

As Spinney (2015, 239) postulates, biosensing could enable the

gathering of “data in a quantitative form that attempts to avoid

the subjectivism of [previous behavioral geographical] ap-

proaches which seek to interpret bodily experience through

verbal and visual recollections.” It allows the analysis of en-

tanglements of bodies, practices, technologies, and materialities

in situ and in real time (Hesse‐Biber and Johnson 2013; Kauf-

mann et al. 2021). Recent technological advancements of bio-

sensors and the mobile devices in which they are integrated,

along with new theoretical engagements, suggest that it may

only be a matter of time until more and more geographers

become interested in experimenting with different biosensors in

various in situ settings and elds of study.

Geographic interest in biosensing has been inspired by several

broader theoretical debates. When envisioning future interdis-

ciplinary engagements between geographic reasoning and bio-

sensing, it is important to acknowledge that previous theoretical

and methodological endeavors with neuroscience and behav-

ioral science have faced widespread criticism and intra‐

disciplinary “marginalization” (Bunnell, Ng, and Yeo 2023, 2)

since the 1980s. It is therefore to no surprise that many geog-

raphers have long distanced themselves from a deeper engage-

ment with perspectives from the neurosciences and behavioral

sciences, despite shared interests and areas of inquiry (Bunnell,

Ng, and Yeo 2023). However, this has not prevented all scholars

from venturing into what Pykett (2018, 154–155) refers to as

“mind/brain/world interactions.” From feminist and post-

structuralist perspectives on the perception of spatial environ-

ments to non‐/or more‐than‐representational theory, affect

theory and more recent attempts to critically approach a new

form of neurogeography, various engagements—despite

perceived marginalization—have found and developed new

pathways without reiterating some of the blind spots of behav-

ioral geography.

This article pursues two main aims and thereby addresses two

audiences. First, we offer suggestions for a—so far missing—

standardized biosensing terminology, that differentiates spe-

cic technologies and biosensors and debate their varied po-

tentials and limitations. Second, we provide a concise overview

of the different theoretical strands and studies in the eld to

offer a comprehensive overview of the historicities of theoretical

debates that have inspired geographers to experiment with

biosensing methodologies. Thus, this article speaks both to the

biosensing community, to whom we present a discussion on the

delimitation of the led, and to readers new biosensing who

seek an introduction of the terminologies, technologies, and

theories.

To achieve these goals, we begin with an overview of the variety

of technologies and (bio‐)sensors applied in biosensing research,

debating their respective potentials and limitations and suggest

a common terminology that may support interested scholars

navigate this complex eld (Section 2). We then trace the

theoretical debates and roots of geographic engagement with

biosensing, while providing examples of applications in the eld

(Section 3). This is followed by a discussion of the potentials but

also limitations of specic biosensors (Section 4). To conclude

and by providing an outlook we call for the careful and

ethically‐reected implementation of these emerging technolo-

gies (Section 5).

Terminologies and Technologies: Identifying a

Common Approach Toward Delimiting (Wearable)

Biosensing

We note a great diversity of terminologies being used in various

disciplines and elds of application of biosensing, referring to

technologies, biosensors as well as biosensing as methodology.

The beginnings of biosensing, and thus its terminology do not

originate in geography but have been adopted by geographers in

similarly diverse ways. Consequently, there is a need to critically

reect on this terminology and to foster a common under-

standing. Therefore, this section aims to discuss the following

key terms: “biosensing” (technologies or methodologies), “bio-

sensors,” “wearable biosensors” and “biosignals.” What may at

rst glance appear to the reader as a list of terms that each have

a unique understanding is, on closer inspection, a collection of

umbrella terms with varying denitions and parallel uses across

disciplines such as biology, chemistry, physics, engineering or

medicine as well as geography (Kulkarni, Ayachit, and Ami-

nabhavi 2022; Lowe 2007) within diverse elds of applications

(e.g., affective responses to diverse environments, disease

detection, toxin detection, food safety, drug delivery, pathogen

delivery, environmental monitoring or healthcare monitoring

(Kulkarni, Ayachit, and Aminabhavi 2022; Q. Lin et al. 2021)).

It is necessary to briey introduce some of the basic function-

alities common to most biosensing technologies, which can be

used as a foundation for their delimitation. We propose the

following approach to differentiate biosensing technologies ac-

cording to:

�the “biosensors”/“sensors” used; and

�the components of the (bio‐)sensor itself.

Biosensors have been developed to detect specic biological,

physical and chemical reactions, which they convert into

measurable signals (Bollella and Katz 2020; Khan and

Song 2020). Most biosensors are nowadays characterized by

their selectivity, reproducibility, stability or greater indepen-

dence of environmental factors (e.g., pH, temperature), sensi-

tivity, and reusability (Bhalla et al. 2016; Lowe 2007). Common

2 of 13 Geography Compass, 2024

17498198, 2024, 11, Downloaded from https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gec3.70007 by University Of Otago Library, Wiley Online Library on [25/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

biosensing technologies include electrochemical biosensors

(ECG, EEG, EMG, EDA/GSR, pH‐sensors, glucose‐sensor), op-

tical biosensors (eye‐tracking, pulse oximeters, photo-

plethysmography [PPG], near‐infrared thermometer) as well as

mechanical biosensors (accelerometer, gyroscope, magnetom-

eter). Typically, biosensors consist of most of the following

components:

�“Analyte”—the substance of interest or target analyte that

needs to be detected (e.g., glucose, alcohol, lactose).

�“Bioreceptors”—specic molecules that recognize the an-

alyte by generating a signal (e.g., light, heat, pH). Common

bioreceptors are enzymes, antibodies, cells or DNA. The

process is called biorecognition.

�“Transducer”—converts the detected signal or bio-

recognition event into another measurable signal (e.g.,

electrical, electrochemical, optical, thermal). It is therefore

a “process of energy conversion (…) known as signal-

isation” (Bhalla et al. 2016, 1).

�“Electronics”—process and amplify the different signals

(from analog to digital data) to display them on a screen.

�“Display”—projects the digital signal on a screen/display in

a user‐friendly manner through numeric, graphic, tabular

or imagery data output.

(Bhalla et al. 2016; Kim et al. 2019; Naresh and Lee 2021;

Perumal and Hashim 2014).

Being applied by scholars from various disciplines, biosensors are

nowadays developed for highly specic elds of application. Many

of these specialized biosensors might therefore not be of relevance

for research contexts of interest to (human) geographers and

related scholars. Biosensors developed for in vitro or single‐use

measurements, for example, are not necessarily designed to be

wearable or tied to continuous monitoring which would be a

requirement for out of the lab purposes. Of particular interest are

non‐invasive wearable biosensors, which are integrated into small

electronic devices and can be worn or attached to the body (Liu

et al. 2018; Sharma et al. 2021). To date, wearable biosensors have

been applied in life sciences, healthcare (monitoring, prevention,

treatment), sport analytics, psychology and geography (Gianna-

kakis et al. 2022; Kim et al. 2019; Pantelopoulos and Bourba-

kis 2010; Skaramagkas et al. 2021; Smith, Li, and Tse 2023; Ye

et al. 2020). Since the introduction of smartphones in 2007 (Kim

et al. 2019; Pantelopoulos and Bourbakis 2010), accompanied by

improvements of microelectronics, in micro‐ and nano‐sensor

manufacturing and miniaturization processes (Liu et al. 2018;

Naresh and Lee 2021), wearable biosensors are increasingly suited

for real‐time, out‐of‐lab measurements and monitoring. They can

be differentiated according to:

�the stationary or mobile device into which (wearable) bio-

sensors are integrated; and

�the eld of application.

Wearable biosensors are increasingly compact, capable of real‐

time measurement, minimally invasive and require little to no

calibration. Some wearable biosensors can measure biochemical

signals, commonly biouids such as salvia, sweat, tears and

provide insights on diverse conditions such as wellness and

health status, aiding medical practitioners in managing chronic

diseases (Ates et al. 2022; Kim et al. 2019; G. Li and Wen 2020;

Liu et al. 2018). In geographical research, wearable biosensors

are common, with all three types—electrochemical biosensors,

optical biosensors, mechanical biosensors—being applied.

Through the integration of several biosensors—such as elec-

trodermal activity (EDA) sensors and photoplethysmography

(PPG) sensors—the devices can measure multiple body re-

sponses at the same time. Photoplethysmography (PPG), an

optical based near infrared technique, detects volumetric

changes in blood circulation and is commonly integrated into

devices such as smartwatches (Allen 2007; Giannakakis

et al. 2022).

Body responses (physiological or somatic) which are commonly

measured are skin conductance, respiration and breath rate,

heart activity, blood pressure, electrodermal activity, electrical

activity in the brain, electrical activity in the muscles and body

posture/movements and eye movements. Those that can be

measured or detected by (wearable) biosensors are generally

being referred to as biosignals. They are described “as a

description of a physiological phenomenon” (Kaniusas 2012, 1).

Biosignals related to emotional arousal, attention and cognitive

processes (cf., Osborne and Jones 2017; Pykett 2022) regulated

by the autonomic nervous system (Eckstein et al. 2017; Kyr-

iakou et al. 2019) are increasingly measurable through wearable

biosensors integrated in small‐scale devices such as smart-

watches or wristbands.

Less considered, but also attributable to the category of wearable

biosensors, are optical (infrared) sensors integrated in (mobile)

eye‐tracking devices (Sun et al. 2022). Like the previously

mentioned biosignals, eye movements and pupil dilations are

regulated via the sympathetic nervous system (SNS) and para-

sympathetic nervous system (PNS) as part of the autonomic

nervous system (ANS). Their measures are being referred to as

physiological and physical biosignals (Giannakakis et al. 2022).

Hence, and in line with other scholars, we suggest categorizing

them as biosensors too (Skaramagkas et al. 2021; Wu et al. 2022;

Zheng et al. 2023). Novel mobile eye‐trackers, are capable of

measuring eye movements in dynamic outdoor settings, could

be of particular interest to geographers, as they provide “valu-

able information for one's higher cognitive function and state of

affect” (Skaramagkas et al. 2021, 1).

As wearable biosensors are continually developed to improve

out‐of‐the‐lab applications, and as research integrates them into

their methodological designs, it might be fruitful for scholars to

establish a common terminology, especially given the variety of

terms used in parallel. In summary, (wearable) (bio‐)sensors are

integrated into a variety of devices, such as smartphones,

smartwatches, eye‐tracking glasses and stationary systems. We

therefore suggest the following terminology:

�“Biosensing (technologies)” for the broader technology.

�“Biosensing methodologies” and “mobile biosensing

methodologies” for mobile methodological applications in

the eld.

3 of 13

�“Biosensors” when referring to the sensors integrated into

devices

�“Wearable biosensing” or “wearable biosensors” for devices

designed for mobile/non‐stationary use while also consid-

ering their potential for stationary applications.

�“Biosignals” as physical, (bio)‐chemical changes providing

essential information on human body processes.

Theories: Retracing the Theoretical and

Epistemological Roots to Geographic Interest in

Biosensing Methodologies

While the surge of the discipline's interest in biosensing might

still be framed as a relatively recent development, its rich and

diverse theoretical and epistemological roots are anything but

new. This section, therefore, highlights the underlying meta‐

theoretical perspectives that have inuenced and initiated

calls for new epistemologies and experimentation with bio-

sensing methodologies in the rst place. By tracing and (inter)‐

connecting theorizations of and discussions on affects, mobil-

ities, the visual and the brain, with biosensing practices we want

to emphasize some of their epistemological commonalities and

provide foundations for an emerging, yet still fragmented, eld.

3.1

Measuring Affects: From Behavioral

Geography to More‐Than‐Representational Theory

When searching for the very roots of geographic interest in what

nowadays can be measured with biosensing it might be of use to

begin with what became known as behavioral geography, a

subdiscipline which thrived from the 1960s–1980s (cf.,

Argent 2017; Downs 1970; Gold 1980; Golledge and Stim-

son 1987). Through the analysis of patterns and variabilities and

the creation of complex models and schemes, behavioral geog-

raphers sought to understand how certain spaces and environ-

ments inuenced human perception of them and vice versa.

Although evolving itself out of criticism on abstract and deter-

ministic quantitative spatial sciences of the 1950s and 1960s,

concerns were soon raised toward behavioralism, too. The

concerns centered around behavioral geography's tendency to-

ward behaviorism as well as mechanistic model‐thinking and its

dichotomic understanding of human behavior and neglect of

agency (Argent 2017). Prevalent amongst many criticisms was

the notion that their explanations of real‐world occurrences

were too often based upon problematic generalizations of small‐

scale laboratory experiments (Cox 1981; Pile 1993; Pykett 2018).

However, despite being substantially challenged and mostly

replaced by both practice theory and poststructuralist thinking

and their focus on human practice, agency, discourse and po-

wer, and therewith representations, an interest lingered in those

subconscious, momentary aspects that might not be communi-

cated through words and emerge during the coming together of

bodies and materialities in complex situational spaces and en-

vironments. Ever since N. Thrift's (1996) provocative critique of

“traditional researchers” overemphasis on representations and

the “mesmerized attention given to texts and images” (Water-

ton 2018, 91) a growing body of scholars has begun to reassess

some of the discipline's previous engagements with neurosci-

entic explanations of human behavior and affect under the

theoretical perspective of non‐representational theory (NRT).

NRT encompasses a host of differing perspectives, theories, and

methodologies with roots not only in human geography but also

across the humanities, social sciences, arts and philosophy

(Vannini 2015). In relating to theoretical strands such as post-

structuralism, new materialism or postphenomenology, NRT

can be described as a call to reimagine social and humanities

sciences' approach to research and theory‐crafting as a more

open‐minded, imaginative methodological practice—one that

more strongly relates to the dynamic, diverse and non‐human

character of the world, respects experimentation and is atten-

tive to incompleteness and speculation (N. J. Thrift 2008; Wil-

liams 2020). NRT pays equal tribute to materialities,

corporealities and socialities. By placing more emphasis on what

H. Lorimer (2005, 83) referred to as “self‐evidently more‐than‐

human, more‐than textual, multisensual worlds,” NRT un-

derlines the importance of affects as pre‐cognitive, momentary

subconscious elements in human perception that humans do

not manage to verbalize or otherwise express (N. J. Thrift 2008).

Affects “become present only through performance; through the

interaction of bodies, spaces, representations and objects”

(Spinney 2015, 235). According to these understandings, affects

may not be (sufciently) captured by conventional representa-

tional methodologies that build upon people's ability to

verbalize or otherwise express their feelings. A key concern that

emerged as consequence of NRT and its criticism on conven-

tional representational methods, was the question of how to

adequately capture affects and subconscious cognitive pro-

cesses, something which previous attempts of behavioral geog-

raphy had failed to do.

Soon after its proposition—which came much as a radical and

antipodal perspective to traditional practices of research—

there was critique on NRT's deterministic framing of the

rational human being as an affect‐driven actor (Barnett 2008).

There were also calls to situate and contextualize NRT's

ndings in relation to people's own voices and subjective

meaning making (Hitchings 2012), to acknowledge lasting and

more conscious emotions and their representations (Bork‐

Hüffer and Yeoh 2017; Merriman 2014) as well as to consider

the social, historical, political and academic contexts and

discourses within which these ndings emerge (Glasze and

Mattisek 2021; Pykett 2018). As a results, NRT began to move

beyond what Barnett (2008, 189) refers to as “representation-

alist view on representational practices” and widened its

perspective through the lens of more‐than‐representational

theories (MRT) and methodologies (Anderson 2019). Shortly

thereafter, more and more scholars began not only to advocate

for but increasingly to apply innovative research methodolo-

gies and designs that encompass both non‐representational

and representational methods and thinking (Kaufmann

et al. 2021; Laurier and Philo 2006; J. Lorimer 2010). By doing

so and by bringing the experiment out of the very laboratory

conditions, they so often criticized, some scholars eventually

ventured into explorative engagements with diverse biosensors

(Osborne and Jones 2017).

4 of 13 Geography Compass, 2024

3.2

Following Mobilities: Mobilities Paradigm

Beyond the challenge of capturing affects, the question of how

to research them as they unfold and where they unfold was a

related problem. The interest in researching the coming

together of bodies, materialities and technologies in situ as well

as of everyday (im)mobilities, ows and networks of people and

things can also be associated with a mobilities turn and new

mobilities paradigm in the social sciences and human geogra-

phy (Cresswell 2010,2011; Dirksmeier and Helbrecht 2008;

Merriman 2014). Despite a much longer tradition of geograph-

ical research into diverse mobilities, particularly in transport

geographies, this “turn” was propagated from the mid‐2000s

(Cresswell 2010,2011; Cresswell and Merriman 2010; Merri-

man 2014). It emerged from “trenchant critiques of the bounded

and static categories of nation, ethnicity, community, place, and

state within much social science” (Sheller and Urry 2006, 211)

which were perpetuated by the ways in which conventional

social science methods were researching the social world. As

part of this turn, it was claimed that mobility—of people, ob-

jects, media, images, knowledge, information, symbols, places,

technologies and data—should be recognized and researched as

a social norm rather than as exception (Büscher, Urry, and

Witchger 2011; Sheller and Urry 2006; Urry 2007). The core

methodological concern centers on the question of “how to

study mobile phenomena […] without losing sight of what is

fascinating about them—mobility” (Kaufmann and Bork‐

Hüffer 2021, 316, translated).

Inspired by the anthropological research of Arjun Appadurai,

this strand of research was initially more focused on studying

the mobilities of material objects in the sense of follow‐the‐thing

geographies (Cook 2004; Jackson 2000; Pfaff 2010a,2010b).

Soon after, it began to emphasize engaging with “participants

‘on the move’ in a variety of ways” (Evans and Jones 2011, 849).

Overall, methods applied in mobilities research can be broadly

dened as “an array of methods that in different ways capture,

track, simulate, mimic, parallel and ‘go along with’ the kinds of

moving systems and experiences that seem to characterize the

contemporary world” (Büscher, Urry, and Witchger 2011, 7).

These methods explore mobilities, regardless of whether they

are mobile themselves (Kaufmann and Bork‐Hüffer 2021;

Moles 2019). In a narrower sense, however, mobile methods can

be dened as those that are mobile themselves, following ob-

jects, people or data and thus bringing the data collection

method to the research context (Büscher and Urry 2009; Hein,

Evans, and Jones 2008; Spinney 2009,2015) with the aim of

heightening ecological validity (Birenboim, Helbich, and

Kwan 2021). Within human geography particularly qualitative

mobile methods, such as walking interviews (Evans and

Jones 2011; Jones et al. 2008) have become prevalent.

Less often, quantitative methodologies have been employed,

utilizing a range of technologies such as GPS, log data extraction

programs, tracking apps and, importantly, biosensors installed

on mobile devices like smartphones, smartwatches, wristbands

or eye‐trackers (Birenboim, Helbich, and Kwan 2021; Birenboim

and Shoval 2016; Giannotti and Pedreschi 2008). Birenboim

et al. (2019) used wearable biosensors to measure heart rate,

heart rate variability, and skin conductance during an outdoor

walk to compare participants' physiological responses when

they passed through various types of green, blue and gray urban

environments. As part of the so‐called DigitAS (The Digital,

Affects and Space) project, a mixed methods study that included

eye‐tracking in a mobile quasi‐experimental eld study was

conducted to analyze the effects of location‐based media content

on participants' perceptions of public parks (Kaufmann

et al. 2021; Kaufmann and Bork‐Hüffer 2021; Kollert et al. 2021).

Inspired by MRT and the mobilities paradigm, the study aimed

to combine an analysis of the mobile in situ entanglement of

people, technologies and materialities with a comparison of the

more‐than‐representational tracking of affective eye movements

and people's representations of their emotional experiences of

the parks (through retrospective think‐alouds).

There is therefore certainly a compelling argument that the

mobility paradigm has provided scholars experimenting with

wearables and biosensing a theoretical and epistemological

foundation that might have fostered the openness toward a

method(ology) that not only allows for the observation of mo-

bilities but is also mobile in itself (Pykett 2018).

3.3

Attending to Visualities: From Visual

Geographies to Geography as a Ocularcentric

Discipline

Building on the previously outlined understanding of eye‐

tracking as both a biosensing technology and methodology,

one can trace the roots of interest to conceptualizations of ge-

ography as a visual and ocularcentric discipline (Driver 2003;

Rose 2003). A discipline which, as argued by Rose (2003, 212)

“has relied and continues to rely on certain kinds of visualities

and visual images to construct its knowledges.” While early

discussions on the importance of visualizations in geography

(Crang 2003; Rose 2003) and its visual turn (Thornes 2004)

focused more on the analysis of images and photography, and

related questions of aesthetics, performance and power re-

lations, later work—inuenced by more‐than‐representational

thinking—highlighted the discipline's afnity of “doing and

engaging with imagery” (Tolia‐Kelly 2012, 135) and “the mul-

tisensual uidity and rhythms of everyday life” captured by

videography (Garrett 2011, 522). Scholars have outlined the

potential of videography as a method and medium that enables

both participants and researchers to capture and visualize ex-

periences, encounters and mobilities in entangled spaces (Gar-

rett 2011; Heath, Hindmarsh, and Luff 2010; Pink 2021).

Equipping participants with a (e.g., handheld, head‐mounted)

camera gives them agency to record wherever they choose to

direct the sensor. When speaking of geography as a visual

discipline then, it is unsurprising that scholars have started to

engage with mobile eye‐trackers, as these not only capture

snapshots of places, encounters and experiences, but also visu-

alize where the gaze has been directed. In doing so, they allow

researchers to not only “look alongside” (Garrett 2011, 534) but

to see through the eyes of the participant. The gaze‐enriched

recordings offer insights into participant's embodied experi-

ences of their spatial environment, as well as their human and

non‐human interactions, without requiring the researcher to be

present in the moment. The potential of measuring eye move-

ments in mobile, dynamic “out of the lab” environments and

5 of 13

spaces has already been demonstrated by numerous studies in

environmental psychology, GIS science and increasingly in ge-

ography (see also Table 1). In addition to the aforementioned

DigitAS project, Amati et al. (2018) examined the inuence of

natural features in urban environments on viewing behaviors

while strolling to a public park. Kiefer et al. (2017) discussed

some of the prevailing challenges of integrating eye‐tracking in

GIS and spatial science in general. Teo and Pua (2022) utilized

eye‐tracking to research participation processes in inclusive

classrooms. Presenting a spatial imagining of compulsivity,

Beljaars (2019), conducted interviews, participant observations

as well as mobile eye‐tracking with people diagnosed with

Tourette syndrome.

3.4

Capturing the Neural and Bio‐Social Links:

From Biopolitics to Critical Neurogeographies and

the Biosocial Model

Another theoretical debate is linked to the increased interest in

biosensing methodologies: the growing inuence of neurosci-

entic thinking on both, urban policy making and the individual

—fostered by the commercialization of neurotheologies such as

wearable biosensors –, has led to calls for critical reection upon

the consequences of these inuences. This body of research

focused on critical perspectives on “[n]europolitanism” (Fitz-

gerald, Rose, and Singh 2016), “neuro‐urbanisms” (Pykett 2013)

or the “biosocial” (Winz and Söderström 2021). Pykett (2018,

164), drawing on more‐than‐representational thinking—

including the related emergence of affect theories, with post-

structuralist thinking, and related theorizations of the governing

of bodies through biopolitics—suggested critical neuro-

geographies as a eld “informed by, but not indebted to,

neuroscience and cognitive science.” Like more‐than‐

representational perspectives, critical neurogeographers argue

that there “is the need for analytical approaches which can

switch between paradigms, and productively engage with

(rather than attempt to resolve) the deep‐rooted historical con-

ict between positivist and interpretivist forms of analysis”

(Pykett et al. 2020, 4–5). They have started to methodologically

experiment with “neurotechnologies and wearable biosensors

outside of laboratory contexts” (Pykett 2018, 165). Unlike com-

mon (critical) human geographical approaches, critical neuro-

geographies do not emanate from the individual or body as the

starting point of analysis but rather from the brain and human

cognition. The brain and cognition are thus analyzed and

TABLE 1 |Wearable biosensors and their application elds in geography and related elds of interest.

Technology

Body

location Sensor

Measures/

Biosignals

Geographical and related

studies

Mobile eye‐tracker Head Near infrared light (NIR) Eye movement Beljaars (2019), Kaufmann and

Bork‐Hüffer (2021), Kiefer

et al. (2017), Kollert et al. (2021),

Melchert and Misera (2022), and

Teo and Pua (2022)

Video camera Optical

Inertial measurement unit (IMU)

including accelerometer,

gyroscope, magnetometer

Body movement

Microphone Speech/Voice/

Acoustics

Wearable smart device Finger‐

(tip)

Electrodermal activity (EDA)/

Galvanic skin response (GSR)

Skin conductance Berger and Dörrzapf (2018),

Caviedes and Figliozzi (2018),

Chrisinger and King (2018),

Gravenhorst et al. (2012),

Nold (2009), Osborne and

Jones (2017), and H. Zhang

et al. (2022)

Ear‐

(lobe)

Wrist

Wrist,

Chest

Photoplethysmography (PPG) Heart rate (HR) Kim and Fesenmaier (2013), S. Li

et al. (2015), Paül I Agustí,

Rutllant, and Lasala Fortea (2019),

Resch et al. (2014), Winz

et al. (2022), and Zeile et al. (2016)

Blood pressure (PB)

Puls rate (PR)

Pulse rate

variability (PRV)

Blood oxygen

saturation level

(BVP) (SpO2)

Thermometer Skin temperature

(Mobile)

Electroencephalogram

(EEG)

Head Scalp‐placed electrodes Electrical neuron

activity (brain)

Aspinall et al. (2015), W. Lin

et al. (2020), Mavros, Austwick,

and Smith (2016), McMahan,

Parberry, and Parsons (2015),

F. Zhang et al. (2018), and J. Zhang

et al. (2023)

6 of 13 Geography Compass, 2024

conceptualized within their embeddedness in the social milieu

and discourses.

This line of thinking is also prevalent in discussions on bio-

sociality or visceral geographies, which have been brought for-

ward by scholars such as Hayes‐Conroy (Hayes‐Conroy 2010,

2017), Osborne and Jones (2017), Prior, Manley, and

Sabel (2019) or Winz and Söderström (2021). Central to their

argument is the call “to develop more equally‐balanced bio/so-

cial approaches” (Winz and Söderström 2021, 170) and mixed‐

method methodologies that acknowledge the complexities and

entanglements of biological processes and social pathways—

something which can be achieved by integrating more‐than‐

representational biosensing or embodied “visceral methods”

(Hayes‐Conroy 2017) in representational research designs

(Osborne and Jones 2017).

3.5

Experimenting With Biosensors

It should be noted that many geographic and spatial ventures

into biosensing have been driven less by theoretical debates,

such as those introduced above, and more by an interest in

methodological experimentation and innovation. These en-

deavors have utilized a broad range of biosensors. While there

have been efforts to summarize existing geography‐related

studies engaging with biosensing (Osborne et al. 2023;

Osborne and Jones 2017; Paiva et al. 2023) these studies have

not been categorized based on the specic technology and

sensors used. This is evident in Table, which includes many of

the studies mentioned in previous sections.

In general, the increase of scholarly interest in experimenting

with biosensors can be attributed to advancements in technology,

as well as the increasing accessibility and affordability of wear-

able biosensors in the past decade. With the exception of early

pioneers such as Nold's (2009) innovative approach of integrating

GSR and GPS measures on maps, Gravenhorst et al.'s (2012) work

on monitoring electrodermal activity in daily life, or Ward

Thompson et al.'s (2012) stress‐related examination of salivary

cortisol patterns in green spaces, most studies have emerged

since the mid‐2010s. This surge has been driven by a growing

interest in researching affective and emotional responses within

different environments as well as a desire to explore innovative

mobile and more‐than‐representational methods (Pykett 2018;

Spinney 2015). Most of this early work has focused on urban

emotion, mental health as well as stress. It has experimented

with wrist‐ or ankle‐worn wearables that allow the simultaneous

measurement of various somatic responses such as galvanic skin

response (GSR) and heart rate (HR)—likely due to their relative

affordability (Kim and Fesenmaier 2013; S. Li et al. 2015; Resch

et al. 2014; Zeile et al. 2016). Some scholars have examined

cognitive responses in virtual environments using head‐mounted

EEGs (McMahan, Parberry, and Parsons 2015; B. Zhang 2018),

while others have utilized them in outdoor environments

(Aspinall et al. 2015; W. Lin et al. 2020; Mavros, Austwick, and

Smith 2016). EDA/GSR sensors have been applied in study

conditions, where participants were guided to follow a certain

route or trajectory (Berger and Dörrzapf 2018; Caviedes and

Figliozzi 2018; Chrisinger and King 2018).

Applications: Potentials and Limits

While biosensing offers promising avenues for geographers, it

also presents challenges that scholars need to carefully reect

upon, especially as both its application and development are

currently “outpacing the science required to rigorously interpret

the data generated” (Pykett et al. 2020, 1). These challenges

involve practical issues stemming from the complexity of each

sensor and restrictions on their use, and the specic data they

produce. It is therefore hardly possible to provide a compre-

hensive overview of all potential challenges. Nonetheless, we

provide a brief overview of some of the most critical potentials

and challenges associated with specic wearable biosensors.

Although frequently used by geographers, EDA and GSR sen-

sors, along with thermometers, present three crucial constrains.

Firstly, the biosignals measured by these devices do not provide

any recording and evidence of the specic environmental

stimuli that caused a reaction. Secondly, any biochemical

response to a stimulus always occurs with a certain delay

(Kyriakou et al. 2019). Thirdly, these sensors are highly sus-

ceptible to noisy signals, as our skin produces moisture even

after the slightest movements and activities (Blasco and Peris‐

Lopez 2018). It must thus be carefully considered whether these

devices can provide valid results, especially when used outside a

lab environment. In contrast to biosignals measured by EDA

sensors, eye movements occur almost instantaneously in

response to a stimulus (Skaramagkas et al. 2021). They are

measured by optical sensors in mobile eye‐trackers, which have

integrated video cameras that allow researchers to track par-

ticipant's gazes and determine whether the participants have

noticed certain stimuli (Pérez‐Edgar, MacNeill, and Fu 2020).

Although current generation devices have resolved many of the

previous limitations, such as a low Hz rates, and are increas-

ingly suited for outdoor environments, they still tend to rely on

proprietary algorithms developed by software companies (Val-

takari et al. 2021). In comparison to the lightweight design of

mobile eye‐trackers which are hardly distinguishable from

regular glasses, the design of mobile EEGs raises questions

whether they can truly provide ecological validity when used in

outdoor environments (Birenboim et al. 2019).

In general, care must be taken when attributing spikes or pat-

terns of somatic responses to stimuli in “messy, naturalistic

environments” (Harvey 2024, 1), particularly since there re-

mains a limited understanding of the relationship between

biosignals and emotions (Poplin 2020). This has also been

highlighted by Brigstocke et al. (2023, 590) who argue that the

quantitative information gathered by biosensors and inuenced

by uncontrollable variables during mobile use, does not provide

information “about the quality of the affect, or how it is expe-

rienced at a subjective level.” While further technological im-

provements in wearable biosensors may address other current

constraints such as battery life, contamination or the inferior

quality of many biochemical sensors and procedures, the chal-

lenge of “making sense” of the vast datasets generated by these

devices remains.

It is therefore advisable to combine biosensor measurements

with qualitative methodologies as part of mixed methods ap-

proaches (Osborne and Jones 2017). For geographers, the key

7 of 13

contribution here—one that would signicantly complement

existing studies in other disciplines—is to contextualize bio-

sensing data. A more‐than‐representational analysis of bodies,

their (somatic) responses, and affects needs to be situated within

analyses of emotions, power relations, asymmetries and related

inequalities and (im‐)mobilities. Qualitative methods such as

(retrospective) think‐alouds, go alongs, participant narratives

and pre‐ or follow‐up interviews allow the comparison of

measured affects with participants' own accounts and verbalized

emotions (Birenboim et al. 2019; Hall and Bates 2019; Kauf-

mann and Bork‐Hüffer 2021). Additional analysis of socio‐

political discourses, stakeholder and expert interviews or focus

groups can provide insights into the socio‐political space in

which the research is situated. Observations and video content

analysis (e.g., the case of eye‐tracking) can help uncover mate-

rial dimensions. In this way, mixed methods approaches can

address some of the critique directed toward early studies and

their respective behavioral models.

Toward an Ethics of Care in Biosensing

Our overview revealed that geographers have so far focused on a

narrow range of biosensing technologies and few biosensors.

Most have measured EDA, GSR or PPG signals using wearable

smart devices. Although there has been a number of studies

using EEGs and mobile eye‐trackers in spatial research, few

have had geographers among their authors. As other scholars

and we have argued, the use of wearable biosensors within

mixed methods approaches presents an opportunity to explore

the coming together of bodies, material and technological re-

lations, their contextualities and performativities and the asso-

ciated affects, emotions and (im‐)mobilities while they unfold

(Büscher and Urry 2009; Spinney 2015; Kaufmann and Bork‐

Hüffer 2021). This should be of signicant interest to scholars

working with relational, more‐than‐representational, (new)

materialist, posthumanist, mobilities, biosocial and visual ge-

ography perspectives, across a broad spectrum of research

themes and questions.

Given the complexity of biosensing, many geographers have

collaborated with scholars from other disciplines mutually

benetting from each other's expertise. However, just as diverse

as these interdisciplinary engagements but also the studies,

elds of application and publications in other disciplines (see

Section 2) are, so are the terminologies and understandings.

Gaining an overview of the variety of biosensors and their

varying potentials and challenges is time‐consuming and

demanding. Methodologies and applications are informed by a

variety of theoretical paradigms.

Importantly, this diversity brings challenges not only in terms of

differing terminologies and methodologies, but also with respect

to ethical standards (Balsamo and Mitcham 2010; Geballa‐

Koukoula et al. 2023). Thus, in addition to geographers'

important efforts toward the spatial contextualization of bio-

sensing research (see Section 4), we call for attention to the

mobilization, development, implementation and debate of

research ethics in biosensing. While institutional ethics pro-

cedures and data management practices have been continuously

rened over the last 2 decades, we postulate that current su-

pranational (e.g., EC 2021; ALLEA – All European Acade-

mies 2023) and institutional guidelines, with their focus on

social science research and data management, are too super-

cial to provide adequate guidance for the use of biosensors in

mobile, out‐of‐laboratory settings, and for managing the data

these sensors produce. Hence, we argue that applying bio-

sensors in the eld requires not only strict adherence to insti-

tutional ethics procedures (among others proper informed

consent), but also the incorporation of data ethics, procedural

ethics, and an ethics of care.

Many biosensing technologies integrate several biosensors within

a single device, collecting diverse streams of data simultaneously,

much of which is often left unanalyzed. With regard to data ethics

and management this is, of course, an issue. If it is not possible to

deactivate some of the unwanted measures before the start of the

recording, researchers should ensure that any irrelevant data is

deleted immediately afterward. Researchers should also be aware

that the data collected by EEG sensors is personally‐identiable.

Even if data from other sensors may not be personally identiable

on its own, the collection of carious biosignals may enable the

tracing and identication of individuals, especially when pre-

sented together (Yang et al. 2022). A careful approach to data

management becomes particularly urgent when experimenting

with mobile eye‐trackers as they enable both video and audio

recording. Participants' voices and, occasionally parts of their

bodies (such as feet, legs and hands) are recorded, along with

bystanders captured by the video camera or audio recorder. Here,

a highly sensitive approach to visual and audio data is necessary.

Furthermore, it is important to consider that most data collected

through biosensors relates to states of health, well‐being and

disease (Andreoletti et al. 2024). As geographers lack medical

expertise and are not able to detect health‐problems, they should

provide participants with contacts for professional medical care in

the informed consent. Hence, both data security and privacy

concerns must be carefully addressed when handling biosensing

data. Data management should comply with FAIR data proced-

ures (cf. Wilkinson 2016) and (non‐) accessibility should be

carefully considered and clearly outlined in the informed consent.

Data ethics also encompasses the use of appropriate and secure

analysis software. However, such software is often still under

development and becoming increasingly complex. In order to

deal with large and diverse data sets, more and more companies

have started to integrate machine learning, deep neural net-

works, natural language processing and predictive analytics into

their software solutions (Andreoletti et al. 2024). Avoiding

gender, racial, age and other biases in advanced data analytics is

a serious challenge that is not yet sufciently addressed in this

eld to our knowledge. Preventing misuse of data is crucial, as

biosensing itself can contribute to the very biopolitics it seeks to

critique (see Section 3.4). Holding population level datasets

concerning affective states could enable the categorization,

management and governing of particular populations and

matters of concern.

In view of the serious lack of institutional ethics procedures,

“doing ethics” or “procedural ethics” (Guillemin and Gil-

lam 2004) become ever more important, particularly when

using biosensors as part of complex mixed methods approaches

8 of 13 Geography Compass, 2024

in the eld. Procedural ethics can be supported, for example,

through social reection, validation, support, discussion and

decisions within the research team and/or through the inclu-

sion of an ethics advisor or an (ethics) advisory board (Kauf-

mann et al. 2021). Given the complexity of eld settings,

researchers may need to adopt what Spiel et al. (2020) refer to

as “micro‐ethics” spontaneous and exible adaptations that

align research with the specicities of the social, material and

technological environment, including stakeholders, power re-

lations, as well as material conditions (such as weather and

barriers in the eld).

When implementing an “ethics of care” (Burton and Dunn 2013;

Maio 2018) in biosensing research, scholars need to attend to

participants' experiences and needs throughout the research

process. This includes building trust, recognizing emotional

knowledge, and acknowledging power relations involved in the

researcher‐participant and technology‐participant relationships.

Not all participants, of course, may accept biosensors as appro-

priate research tools. This challenge surfaced, for example, in a

study by Nebeker et al. (2017). There, the wrist‐worn technology

was perceived by migrant women from different origins in

Southern California as either untrustworthy, a legal risk, or at

times even incompatible with social norms and religious prac-

tices. Therefore, scholars should carefully consider whether bio-

sensing might cause harm or lead to the exclusion of certain

population groups. Even when appropriate, the implementation

of biosensing demands continuous reection and awareness of

emotional, social, and material boundaries in the eld. Neglecting

these factors could place participants in uncomfortable, stressfull,

and potentially even harmful situations. Additionally, qualitative

methods such as interviews or (retrospective) think‐alouds

should be used to allow participants the possibility to voice

their own experience, feelings and interpretations. Given the

relative novelty of these methodologies, participants should be

invited to evaluate the methodology and research process to

inform future improvements.

Overall, we observe that the development and application of

biosensing is vibrant, highly diverse and very promising for a

great range of geographical research questions and elds. As the

development of biosensing methodologies is still in its early

stages, they continue to evolve and expand through new or

improved technologies. As our discussion of the potentials and

limits of biosensors has shown, we particularly encourage

research using eye‐trackers, which come closest to measuring

instantaneous responses to environmental stimuli and offer

valuable opportunities for the analysis of social, material and

technological environments through the visual data they

generate. Fully realizing this potential will require meticulous

preparation, planning, and the consideration of processual and

careful research and data ethics.

Acknowledgments

The authors have nothing to report.

Conicts of Interest

The authors declare no conicts of interest.

References

ALLEA – All European Academies. 2023. The European Code of

Conduct for Research Integrity. Berlin, DE: ALLEA – All European

Academies. https://doi.org/10.26356/ECoC.

Allen, J. 2007. “Photoplethysmography and Its Application in Clinical

Physiological Measurement.” Physiological Measurement 28, no. 3:

R1–R39. https://doi.org/10.1088/0967‐3334/28/3/R01.

Amati, M., E. Ghanbari Parmehr, C. McCarthy, and J. Sita. 2018. “How

Eye‐Catching Are Natural Features When Walking Through a Park?

Eye‐Tracking Responses to Videos of Walks.” Urban Forestry and Urban

Greening 31: 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.12.013.

Anderson, B. 2019. “Cultural Geography II: The Force of Representa-

tions.” Progress in Human Geography 43, no. 6: 1120–1132. https://doi.

org/10.1177/0309132518761431.

Andreoletti, M., L. Haller, E. Vayena, and A. Blasimme. 2024. “Mapping

the Ethical Landscape of Digital Biomarkers: A Scoping Review.” PLoS

Digital Health 3, no. 5: e0000519. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.

0000519.

Argent, N. 2017. “Behavioral Geography.” In International Encyclopedia

of Geography: People, the Earth, Environment and Technology, edited by

D. Richardson, N. Castree, M. F. Goodchild, A. Kobayashi, W. Liu, and

R. A. Marston, 1–11. Oxford, UK: John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.

1002/9781118786352.wbieg0875.

Aspinall, P., P. Mavros, R. Coyne, and J. Roe. 2015. “The Urban Brain:

Analysing Outdoor Physical Activity With Mobile EEG.” British Journal

of Sports Medicine 49, no. 4: 272–276. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports‐

2012‐091877.

Ates, H. C., P. Q. Nguyen, L. Gonzalez‐Macia, et al. 2022. “End‐to‐End

Design of Wearable Sensors.” Nature Reviews Materials 7, no. 11: 887–

907. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41578‐022‐00460‐x.

Balsamo, A., and C. Mitcham. 2010. “Interdisciplinarity in Ethics and

the Ethics of Interdisciplinarity.” In The Oxford Handbook of Inter-

disciplinarity, edited by R. Frodeman, 259–272. Oxford: Oxford Uni-

versity Press.

Barnett, C. 2008. “Political Affects in Public Space: Normative Blind‐

Spots in Non‐representational Ontologies.” Transactions of the Insti-

tute of British Geographers 33, no. 2: 186–200. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.

1475‐5661.2008.00298.x.

Beljaars, D. 2019. “Towards Compulsive Geographies.” Transactions of

the Institute of British Geographers 45, no. 2: 284–298. https://doi.org/10.

1111/tran.12349.

Berger, M., and L. Dörrzapf. 2018. “Sensing Comfort in Bicycling in

Addition to Travel Data.” Transportation Research Procedia 32: 524–534.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2018.10.034.

Bhalla, N., P. Jolly, N. Formisano, and P. Estrela. 2016. “Introduction to

Biosensors.” Essays in Biochemistry 60, no. 1: 1–8. https://doi.org/10.

1042/EBC20150001.

Birenboim, A., M. Dijst, F. E. Scheepers, F. E. Scheepers, M. P. Poelman,

and M. Helbich. 2019. “Wearables and Location Tracking Technologies

for Mental‐State Sensing in Outdoor Environments.” arXiv: Applica-

tions. https://doi.org/10.1080/00330124.2018.1547978

Birenboim, A., M. Helbich, and M.‐P. Kwan. 2021. “Advances in

Portable Sensing for Urban Environments: Understanding Cities From a

Mobility Perspective.” Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 88:

101650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2021.101650.

Birenboim, A., and N. Shoval. 2016. “Mobility Research in the Age of the

Smartphone.” Annals of the American Association of Geographers 106,

no. 2: 283–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2015.1100058.

Blasco, J., and P. Peris‐Lopez. 2018. “On the Feasibility of Low‐Cost

Wearable Sensors for Multi‐Modal Biometric Verication.” Sensors 18,

no. 9: 2782. https://doi.org/10.3390/s18092782.

9 of 13

Bollella, P., and E. Katz. 2020. “Biosensors—Recent Advances and

Future Challenges.” Sensors 20, no. 22: 22. https://doi.org/10.3390/

s20226645.

Bork‐Hüffer, T., and B. S. A. Yeoh. 2017. “The Geographies of Difference

in Conating Digital and Ofine Spaces of Encounter: Migrant Pro-

fessionals' Throwntogetherness in Singapore.” Geoforum 86: 93–102.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.09.002.

Brigstocke, J., M. Fróes, C. Cabral, L. Malanquini, and G. Baptista. 2023.

“Biosocial Borders: Affective Debilitation and Resilience Among

Women Living in a Violently Bordered Favela.” Transactions of the

Institute of British Geographers 48, no. 3: 587–602. https://doi.org/10.

1111/tran.12601.

Bunnell, T., H. Ng, and S. J. I. Yeo. 2023. “Re‐engaging Psychology for

(More) Human Geographies of the Future.” Geography Compass 17, no.

1: e12673. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12673.

Burton, B. K., and C. P. Dunn. 2013. Ethics of Care. Brittanica: Ency-

clopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/ethics‐of‐care.

Büscher, M., and J. Urry. 2009. “Mobile Methods and the Empirical.”

European Journal of Social Theory 12, no. 1: 99–116. https://doi.org/10.

1177/1368431008099642.

Büscher, M., J. Urry, and K. Witchger. 2011. “Introduction: Mobile

Methods.” In Mobile Methods, edited by M. Büscher, J. Urry, and K.

Witchger, 1–19. New York, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

Caviedes, A., and M. Figliozzi. 2018. “Modeling the Impact of Trafc

Conditions and Bicycle Facilities on Cyclists' On‐Road Stress Levels.”

Transportation Research Part F: Trafc Psychology and Behaviour 58:

488–499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2018.06.032.

Chrisinger, B. W., and A. C. King. 2018. “Stress Experiences in Neigh-

borhood and Social Environments (SENSE): A Pilot Study to Integrate

the Quantied Self With Citizen Science to Improve the Built Envi-

ronment and Health.” International Journal of Health Geographics 17,

no. 1: 17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12942‐018‐0140‐1.

Cook, I. 2004. “Follow the Thing: Papaya.” Antipode 36, no. 4: 642–664.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐8330.2004.00441.x.

Cox, K. R. 1981. “Bourgeois Thought and the Behavioural Geography

Debate.” In Behavioural Problems in Geography Revisited, edited by K. R.

Cox and R. G. Golledge, 256–280. London: Methuen.

Crang, M. 2003. “The Hair in the Gate: Visuality and Geographical

Knowledge.” Antipode 35, no. 2: 238–243. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467‐

8330.00321.

Cresswell, T. 2010. “Towards a Politics of Mobility.” Environment and

Planning D: Society and Space 28, no. 1: 17–31. https://doi.org/10.1068/

d11407.

Cresswell, T. 2011. “Mobilities I: Catching up.” Progress in Human Ge-

ography 35, no. 4: 550–558. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132510383348.

Cresswell, T., and P. Merriman. 2010. “Introduction: Geographies of

Mobilites—Practices, Spaces, Subjects.” In Geographies of Mobilities:

Practices, Spaces, Subjects, edited by T. Cresswell and P. Merriman, 1–18.

Surrey: Ashgate.

Dirksmeier, P., and I. Helbrecht. 2008. “Time, Non‐representational

Theory and the ‘performative Turn’—Towards a New Methodology in

Qualitative Social Research.” Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung.http://

www.qualitative‐research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/385.

dos Santos, C. C., G. N. Lucena, G. C. Pinto, M. J. Júnior, and R. F. C.

Marques. 2021. “Advances and Current Challenges in Non‐invasive

Wearable Sensors and Wearable Biosensors—A Mini‐Review.” Medical

Devices & Sensors 4, no. 1: e10130. https://doi.org/10.1002/mds3.10130.

Downs, R. 1970. “Geographic Space Perception: Past Approaches and

Future Prospects.” Progress in Geography 2: 65–108.

Driver, F. 2003. “On Geography as a Visual Discipline.” Antipode 35, no.

2: 227–231. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467‐8330.00319.

EC. 2021. Ethics in Social Science and Humanities. Brussels: European

Commission.

Eckstein, M. K., B. Guerra‐Carrillo, A. T. Miller Singley, and S. A.

Bunge. 2017. “Beyond Eye Gaze: What Else Can Eyetracking Reveal

About Cognition and Cognitive Development?” Developmental Cognitive

Neuroscience 25: 69–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2016.11.001.

Evans, J., and P. Jones. 2011. “The Walking Interview: Methodology,

Mobility and Place.” Applied Geography 31, no. 2: 849–858. https://doi.

org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2010.09.005.

Fitzgerald, D., N. Rose, and I. Singh. 2016. “Living Well in the Neu-

ropolis.” Sociological Review Monograph 64, no. 1: 221–237. https://doi.

org/10.1002/2059‐7932.12022.

Garrett, B. L. 2011. “Videographic Geographies: Using Digital Video for

Geographic Research.” Progress in Human Geography 35, no. 4: 521–541.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132510388337.

Geballa‐Koukoula, A., G. M. S. Ross, A. J. Bosman, et al. 2023. “Best

Practices and Current Implementation of Emerging Smartphone‐Based

(Bio)sensors ‐ Part 2: Development, Validation, and Social Impact.”

TrAC, Trends in Analytical Chemistry 161: 116986. https://doi.org/10.

1016/j.trac.2023.116986.

Giannakakis, G., D. Grigoriadis, K. Giannakaki, O. Simantiraki, A.

Roniotis, and M. Tsiknakis. 2022. “Review on Psychological Stress

Detection Using Biosignals.” IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing

13, no. 1: 440–460. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAFFC.2019.2927337.

Giannotti, F., and D. Pedreschi. 2008. “Mobility, Data Mining and Pri-

vacy: A Vision of Convergence.” In Mobility, Data Mining and Privacy:

Geographic Knowledge Discovery, edited by F. Giannotti and D. Pedre-

schi, 1–11. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.

org/10.1007/978‐3‐540‐75177‐9_1.

Glasze, G., and A. Mattisek. 2021. “Diskursforschung in der Human-

geographie. Konzeptionelle Grundlagen und empirische Oper-

ationalisierung.” In Handbuch Diskurs und Raum. Theorien und

Methoden für die Humangeographie sowie die sozial‐ und kulturwissen-

schaftliche Raumforschung, edited by G. Glasze and A. Mattisek, 13–62.

Bielefeld, Germany: transcript Verlag.

Gold, J. R. 1980. An Introduction to Behavioural Geography. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Golledge, R. G., and R. J. Stimson. 1987. Analytical Behavioural Geog-

raphy. New York: Croom Helm.

Gravenhorst, F., B. Tessendorf, A. Muaremi, C. Kappeler‐Setz, B.

Arnrich, and G. Tröster. 2012. “Mobile System for Unobtrusive

Monitoring of Electrodermal Activity in Daily Life.” In 6th Interna-

tional Workshop on Ubiquitous Health and Wellness (UbiHealth 2012).

Newcastle, UK

Guillemin, M., and L. Gillam. 2004. “Ethics, Reexivity, and “Ethically

Important Moments” in Research.” Qualitative Inquiry 10, no. 2: 261–

280. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800403262360.

Hall, E., and E. Bates. 2019. “Hatescape? A Relational Geography of

Disability Hate Crime, Exclusion and Belonging in the City.” Geoforum

101: 100–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.02.024.

Harvey, C. 2024. “Sensing Walkability? Opportunities and Limitations of

Electrodermal Activity as an Indicator of Walkable Urban Environ-

ments.” Planning Practice and Research 2024: 1–20. https://doi.org/10.

1080/02697459.2024.2315398.

Hayes‐Conroy, A. 2010. “Feeling Slow Food: Visceral Fieldwork and

Empathetic Research Relations in the Alternative Food Movement.”

Geoforum 41, no. 5: 734–742. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2010.

04.005.

Hayes‐Conroy, A. 2017. “Critical Visceral Methods and Methodologies;

Debate Title: Better Than Text? Critical Reections on the Practices of

Visceral Methodologies in Human Geography.” Geoforum 82: 51–52.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.03.017.

10 of 13 Geography Compass, 2024

Heath, C., J. Hindmarsh, and P. Luff. 2010. Video in Qualitative

Research: Analysing Social Interaction in Everyday Life. Los Angeles:

Sage.

Hein, J. R., J. Evans, and P. Jones. 2008. “Mobile Methodologies: Theory,

Technology and Practice.” Geography Compass 2, no. 5: 1266–1285.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749‐8198.2008.00139.x.

Hesse‐Biber, S., and R. B. Johnson. 2013. “Coming at Things Differently:

Future Directions of Possible Engagement With Mixed Methods

Research.” Journal of Mixed Methods Research 7, no. 2: 103–109. https://

doi.org/10.1177/1558689813483987.

Hitchings, R. 2012. “People Can Talk About Their Practices.” Area 44,

no. 1: 61–67. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475‐4762.2011.01060.x.

Jackson, P. 2000. “Rematerializing Social and Cultural Geography.”

Social & Cultural Geography 1, no. 1: 9–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/

14649369950133449.

Jones, P., G. Bunce, J. Evans, H. Gibbs, and J. R. Hein. 2008. “Exploring

Space and Place With Walking Interviews.” Journal of Research Practice

4, no. 2: 1–9.

Kaniusas, E. 2012. Biomedical Signals and Sensors I: Linking Physio-

logical Phenomena and Biosignals. Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidel-

berg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐3‐642‐24843‐6.

Kaufmann, K., and T. Bork‐Hüffer. 2021. “Mobile Methoden.” In

Handbuch Digitale Geographien: Welt—Wissen—Werkzeuge, edited by T.

Bork‐Hüffer, H. Füller, and T. Straube, 316–329. Paderborn: BRILL

Schöningh.

Kaufmann, K., T. Bork‐Hüffer, N. Gudowsky, M. Rauhala, and M.

Rutzinger. 2021. “Ethical Challenges of Researching Emergent Socio‐

Material‐Technological Phenomena: Insights From an Interdisci-

plinary Mixed‐Methods Project Using Mobile Eye‐Tracking.” Journal of

Information, Communication and Ethics in Society 19, no. 3: 391–408.

https://doi.org/10.1108/JICES‐01‐2021‐0007.

Khan, N. I., and E. Song. 2020. “Lab‐on‐a‐Chip Systems for Aptamer‐

Based Biosensing.” Micromachines 11, no. 2: 220. https://doi.org/10.

3390/mi11020220.

Kiefer, P., I. Giannopoulos, M. Raubal, and A. Duchowski. 2017. “Eye

Tracking for Spatial Research: Cognition, Computation, Challenges.”

Spatial Cognition and Computation 17, no. 1–2: 1–19. https://doi.org/10.

1080/13875868.2016.1254634.

Kim, J., A. S. Campbell, B. E.‐F. de Ávila, and J. Wang. 2019. “Wearable

Biosensors for Healthcare Monitoring.” Nature Biotechnology 37, no. 4:

4. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587‐019‐0045‐y.

Kim, J., and D. R. Fesenmaier. 2013. “Measuring Emotions in Real

Time: Implications for Tourism Design.” In Information and Commu-

nication Technologies in Tourism 2014, edited by Z. Xiang and I. Tus-

syadiah, 281–295. Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.

org/10.1007/978‐3‐319‐03973‐2_21.

Kollert, A., M. Rutzinger, M. Bremer, K. Kaufmann, and T. Bork‐Hüffer.

2021. “Mapping of 3d Eye‐Tracking in Urban Outdoor Environments.”

ISPRS Annals of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial In-

formation Sciences V‐4–2021: 201–208. https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs‐

annals‐V‐4‐2021‐201‐2021.

Kulkarni, M. B., N. H. Ayachit, and T. M. Aminabhavi. 2022. “Bio-

sensors and Microuidic Biosensors: From Fabrication to Application.”

Biosensors 12, no. 7: 7. https://doi.org/10.3390/bios12070543.

Kyriakou, K., B. Resch, G. Sagl, et al. 2019. “Detecting Moments of

Stress From Measurements of Wearable Physiological Sensors.” Sensors

19, no. 17: 3805. https://doi.org/10.3390/s19173805.

Laurier, E., and C. Philo. 2006. “Possible Geographies: A Passing

Encounter in a Cafe.” Area 38, no. 4: 353–363. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.

1475‐4762.2006.00712.x.

Li, G., and D. Wen. 2020. “Wearable Biochemical Sensors for Human

Health Monitoring: Sensing Materials and Manufacturing Technolo-

gies.” Journal of Materials Chemistry B 8, no. 16: 3423–3436. https://doi.

org/10.1039/C9TB02474C.

Li, S., N. Scott, and G. Walters. 2015. “Current and Potential Methods

for Measuring Emotion in Tourism Experiences: A Review.” Current

Issues in Tourism 18, no. 9: 805–827. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.

2014.975679.

Lin, Q., S. Song, I. D. Castro, et al. 2021. “Wearable Multiple Modality Bio‐

Signal Recording and Processing on Chip: A Review.” IEEE Sensors

Journal 21, no. 2: 1108–1123. https://doi.org/10.1109/JSEN.2020.3016115.

Lin, W., Q. Chen, M. Jiang, et al. 2020. “Sitting or Walking? Analyzing

the Neural Emotional Indicators of Urban Green Space Behavior With

Mobile EEG.” Journal of Urban Health 97, no. 2: 191–203. https://doi.

org/10.1007/s11524‐019‐00407‐8.

Liu, Q., Y. Liu, F. Wu, et al. 2018. “Highly Sensitive and Wearable In2O3

Nanoribbon Transistor Biosensors With Integrated On‐Chip Gate for

Glucose Monitoring in Body Fluids.” ACS Nano 12, no. 2: 1170–1178.

https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.7b06823.

Lorimer, H. 2005. “Cultural Geography: The Busyness of Being ‘More‐

Than‐Representational’.” Progress in Human Geography 29, no. 1: 83–94.

https://doi.org/10.1191/0309132505ph531pr.

Lorimer, J. 2010. “Moving Image Methodologies for More‐Than‐Human

Geographies.” Cultural Geographies 17, no. 2: 237–258. https://doi.org/

10.1177/1474474010363853.

Lowe, C. R. 2007. “Overview of Biosensor and Bioarray Technologies.”

In Handbook of Biosensors and Biochips, edited by R. S. Marks, D. C.

Cullen, I. Karube, C. R. Lowe, and H. H. Weetall. 1st ed., 1–16. Wein-

heim: Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470061565.hbb003.

Maio, G. 2018. “Fundamentals of an Ethics of Care.” In Care in

Healthcare, edited by F. Krause and J. Boldt, 51–63. Cham: Springer

International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐3‐319‐61291‐1_4.

Mavros, P., M. Z. Austwick, and A. H. Smith. 2016. “Geo‐EEG: Towards

the Use of EEG in the Study of Urban Behaviour.” Applied Spatial

Analysis and Policy 9, no. 2: 191–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12061‐

015‐9181‐z.

McMahan, T., I. Parberry, and T. D. Parsons. 2015. “Evaluating Player

Task Engagement and Arousal Using Electroencephalography.” Proce-

dia Manufacturing 3: 2303–2310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2015.

07.376.

Melchert, J., and J. Misera. 2022. “Geographical Perspectives to Mobile

Eye‐Tracking. A Critical Reection of the Study‐Specic Development

of a Mobile Eye‐Tracking Analysis Approach.” Master thesis [unpub-

lished], University of Innsbruck.

Merriman, P. 2014. “Rethinking Mobile Methods.” Mobilities 9, no. 2:

167–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/17450101.2013.784540.

Moles, K. 2019. “Mobile Methods.” In SAGE Research Methods Foun-

dations, edited by P. A. Atkinson, S. Delamont, R. A. Williams, A.

Cernat, and J. Sakshaug. Los Angelese: Sage. Open WorldCat.

Mück, J. E., B. Ünal, H. Butt, and A. K. Yetisen. 2019. “Market and

Patent Analyses of Wearables in Medicine.” Trends in Biotechnology 37,

no. 6: 563–566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2019.02.001.

Naresh, V., and N. Lee. 2021. “A Review on Biosensors and Recent

Development of Nanostructured Materials‐Enabled Biosensors.” Sensors

21, no. 4: 4. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21041109.

Nebeker, C., K. Murray, C. Holub, J. Haughton, and E. M. Arredondo.

2017. “Acceptance of Mobile Health in Communities Underrepresented

in Biomedical Research: Barriers and Ethical Considerations for Scien-

tists.” JMIR mHealth and uHealth 5, no. 6: e87. https://doi.org/10.2196/

mhealth.6494.

11 of 13

Nold, C. 2009. Emotional Cartography: Technologies of the Self. Space

Studios. http://www.emotionalcartography.net/EmotionalCarto

graphy.pdf.

Osborne, T., and P. I. Jones. 2017. “Biosensing and Geography: A Mixed

Methods Approach.” Applied Geography 87: 160–169. https://doi.org/10.

1016/j.apgeog.2017.08.006.

Osborne, T., P. Morgado, D. Paiva, and H. S. Versey. 2023. “Wearable

Biosensors: An Agenda for Digital Embodied Methods.” In A Research

Agenda for Digital Geographies, edited by T. Osborne and P. Jones, 83–

95. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/

9781802200607.00016.

Paiva, D., A. Gonçalves, D. Ferreira, T. Pedro, and I. B. Portugal. 2023.

“Communicating the Urban Experience Through Biosensing: A Partic-

ipatory Approach.” Professional Geographer 75, no. 6: 958–967. https://

doi.org/10.1080/00330124.2023.2194365.

Pantelopoulos, A., and N. G. Bourbakis. 2010. “A Survey on Wearable

Sensor‐Based Systems for Health Monitoring and Prognosis.” IEEE

Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and

Reviews) 40, no. 1: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMCC.2009.2032660.

Paül I Agustí, D., J. Rutllant, and J. Lasala Fortea. 2019. “Differences in

the Perception of Urban Space via Mental Maps and Heart Rate Vari-

ation (HRV).” Applied Geography 112: 102084. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

apgeog.2019.102084.

Pérez‐Edgar, K., L. A. MacNeill, and X. Fu. 2020. “Navigating Through

the Experienced Environment: Insights From Mobile Eye Tracking.”

Current Directions in Psychological Science 29, no. 3: 286–292. https://

doi.org/10.1177/0963721420915880.

Perumal, V., and U. Hashim. 2014. “Advances in Biosensors: Principle,

Architecture and Applications.” Journal of Applied Biomedicine 12, no.

1: 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jab.2013.02.001.

Pfaff, J. 2010a. “A Mobile Phone: Mobility, Materiality and Everyday

Swahili Trading Practices.” Cultural Geographies 17, no. 3: 341–357.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1474474010368606.

Pfaff, J. 2010b. “Mobile Phone Geographies.” Geography Compass 4, no.

10: 1433–1447. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749‐8198.2010.00388.x.

Pile, S. 1993. “Human Agency and Human Geography Revisited: A

Critique of ‘New Models’ of the Self.” Transactions of the Institute of

British Geographers 18, no. 1: 122–139. https://doi.org/10.2307/623072.

Pink, S. 2021. Doing Visual Ethnography. 4th ed. London: Sage.

Poplin, A. 2020. “Exploring Evocative Places and Their Characteristics.”

Cartographic Journal 57, no. 2: 130–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/

00087041.2019.1660502.

Prior, L., D. Manley, and C. E. Sabel. 2019. “Biosocial Health Geography:

New ‘exposomic’ Geographies of Health and Place.” Progress in Human

Geography 43, no. 3: 531–552. https://doi.org/10.1177/03091325187

72644.

Pykett, J. 2013. “Neurocapitalism and the New Neuros: Using Neuro-

economics, Behavioural Economics and Picoeconomics for Public Pol-

icy.” Journal of Economic Geography 13, no. 5: 845–869. https://doi.org/

10.1093/jeg/lbs039.

Pykett, J. 2018. “Geography and Neuroscience: Critical Engagements

With Geography's “Neural Turn”.” Transactions of the Institute of British

Geographers 43, no. 2: 154–169. https://doi.org/10.1111/tran.12213.

Pykett, J. 2022. “Spatialising Happiness Economics: Global Metrics,

Urban Politics, and Embodied Technologies.” Transactions of the Insti-

tute of British Geographers 47, no. 3: 635–650. https://doi.org/10.1111/

tran.12528.

Pykett, J., B. Chrisinger, K. Kyriakou, et al. 2020. “Developing a Citizen

Social Science Approach to Understand Urban Stress and Promote

Wellbeing in Urban Communities.” Palgrave Communications 6, no. 1:

1. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599‐020‐0460‐1.

Ray, T. R., J. Choi, A. J. Bandodkar, et al. 2019. “Bio‐Integrated Wear-

able Systems: A Comprehensive Review.” Chemical Reviews 119, no. 8:

5461–5533. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.8b00573.

Resch, B., A. Summa, G. Sagl, P. Zeile, and J.‐P. Exner. 2014. “Urban

Emotions—Geo‐Semantic Emotion Extraction From Technical Sensors,

Human Sensors and Crowdsourced Data.” In Progress in Location‐Based

Services 2014, edited by G. Gartner and H. Huang, 199–212. Cham:

Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐3‐319‐

11879‐6_14.

Rose, G. 2003. “On the Need to Ask How, Exactly, Is Geography “Visual”.”

Antipode 35, no. 2: 212–221. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467‐8330.00317.

Sharma, A., M. Badea, S. Tiwari, and J. L. Marty. 2021. “Wearable

Biosensors: An Alternative and Practical Approach in Healthcare and

Disease Monitoring.” Molecules 26, no. 3: 3. https://doi.org/10.3390/

molecules26030748.

Sheller, M., and J. Urry. 2006. “The New Mobilities Paradigm.” Envi-

ronment and Planning A 38, no. 2: 207–226. https://doi.org/10.1068/

a37268.

Skaramagkas, V., G. Giannakakis, E. Ktistakis, et al. 2021. “Review of

Eye Tracking Metrics Involved in Emotional and Cognitive Processes.”

IEEE Reviews in Biomedical Engineering 16: 260–277. https://doi.org/10.

1109/RBME.2021.3066072.

Smith, A. A., R. Li, and Z. T. H. Tse. 2023. “Reshaping Healthcare With

Wearable Biosensors.” Scientic Reports 13, no. 1: 1. https://doi.org/10.

1038/s41598‐022‐26951‐z.

Spiel, K., E. Brulé, C. Frauenberger, G. Bailley, and G. Fitzpatrick. 2020.

“In the Details: The Micro‐Ethics of Negotiations and In‐Situ Judge-

ments in Participatory Design With Marginalised Children.” CoDesign

16, no. 1: 45–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2020.1722174.

Spinney, J. 2009. “Cycling the City: Movement, Meaning and Method.”

Geography Compass 3, no. 2: 817–835. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749‐

8198.2008.00211.x.

Spinney, J. 2015. “Close Encounters? Mobile Methods, (Post)-

phenomenology and Affect.” Cultural Geographies 22, no. 2: 231–246.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1474474014558988.

Sun, X., X. Sun, Q. Wang, et al. 2022. “Biosensors Toward Behavior

Detection in Diagnosis of Alzheimer's Disease.” Frontiers in Bioengi-

neering and Biotechnology 10: 1031833. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.

2022.1031833.

Teo, T. W., and C. Y. Pua. 2022. “Transitions From Presence, Belonging

to Engaged Participation in an Inclusive Classroom: An Eye‐Tracking

Study.” Pedagogies: International Journal 18, no. 3: 1–24. https://doi.

org/10.1080/1554480X.2022.2065994.

Thornes, J. E. 2004. “The Visual Turn and Geography (Response to Rose

2003 Intervention).” Antipode 36, no. 5: 787–794. https://doi.org/10.

1111/j.1467‐8330.2004.00452.x.

Thrift, N. 1996. Spatial Formations. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446222362.

Thrift, N. J. 2008. Non‐representational Theory: Space, Politics, Affect.

New York, London: Routledge.

Tolia‐Kelly, D. P. 2012. “The Geographies of Cultural Geography II:

Visual Culture.” Progress in Human Geography 36, no. 1: 135–142.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132510393318.

Urry, J. 2007. Mobilities. Cambridge: Polity.

Valtakari, N. V., I. T. C. Hooge, C. Viktorsson, P. Nyström, T. Falck‐

Ytter, and R. S. Hessels. 2021. “Eye Tracking in Human Interaction:

Possibilities and Limitations.” Behavior Research Methods 53, no. 4:

1592–1608. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428‐020‐01517‐x.

Vannini, P., ed. 2015. Non‐Representational Methodologies: Re‐

envisioning Research. 1st ed. New York: Routledge.

12 of 13 Geography Compass, 2024

Ward Thompson, C., J. Roe, P. Aspinall, R. Mitchell, A. Clow, and D.

Miller. 2012. “More Green Space Is Linked to Less Stress in Deprived

Communities: Evidence From Salivary Cortisol Patterns.” Landscape

and Urban Planning 105, no. 3: 221–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

landurbplan.2011.12.015.

Waterton, E. 2018. “More‐Than‐Representational Landscapes.” In The

Routledge Companion to Landscape Studies, edited by P. Howard, I.

Thompson, E. Waterton, and M. Atha. 2nd ed., 91–101. New York:

Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315195063‐7.

Wilkinson, C. 2016. “Childhood, Mobile Technologies and Everyday

Experiences: Changing Technologies =Changing Childhoods?” Chil-

dren's Geographies 14, no. 3: 372–373. (Generic). https://doi.org/10.1080/

14733285.2015.1017552.

Williams, N. 2020. “Non‐Representational Theory.” In International

Encyclopedia of Human Geography, edited by A. Kobayashi, 421–427.

Oxford: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978‐0‐08‐102295‐5.10747‐4.

Winz, M., and O. Söderström. 2021. “How Environments Get to the

Skin: Biosensory Ethnography as a Method for Investigating the Rela-

tion Between Psychosis and the City.” BioSocieties 16, no. 2: 157–176.

https://doi.org/10.1057/s41292‐020‐00183‐8.

Winz, M., O. Söderström, A. Rizzotti‐Kaddouri, et al. 2022. “Stress and

Emotional Arousal in Urban Environments: A Biosocial Study With

Persons Having Experienced a First‐Episode of Psychosis and Persons at

Risk.” Health & Place 75: 102762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.

2022.102762.

Wu, J.‐Y., C. T.‐S. Ching, H.‐M. D. Wang, and L.‐D. Liao. 2022.

“Emerging Wearable Biosensor Technologies for Stress Monitoring and

Their Real‐World Applications.” Biosensors 12, no. 12: 1097. https://doi.

org/10.3390/bios12121097.

Yang, Y.‐Y., A. H.‐C. Hwang, C.‐T. Wu, and T.‐R. Huang. 2022. “Person‐

Identifying Brainprints Are Stably Embedded in EEG Mindprints.”

Scientic Reports 12, no. 1: 17031. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598‐022‐

21384‐0.

Ye, S., S. Feng, L. Huang, and S. Bian. 2020. “Recent Progress in

Wearable Biosensors: From Healthcare Monitoring to Sports Analytics.”

Biosensors 10, no. 12: 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/bios10120205.

Zeile, P., B. Resch, M. Loidl, A. Petutschnig, and L. Dörrzapf. 2016.

“Urban Emotions and Cycling Experience – Enriching Trafc Planning

for Cyclists With Human Sensor Data.” GI_Forum 4, no. 1: 204–216.

https://doi.org/10.1553/giscience2016_01_s204.

Zhang, B. 2018. “Augmented Reality Virtual Glasses Try‐On Technology

Based on iOS Platform.” EURASIP Journal on Image and Video Pro-

cessing 2018, no. 1: 132. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13640‐018‐0373‐8.

Zhang, F., M. Hu, W. Che, H. Lin, and C. Fang. 2018. “Framework for

Virtual Cognitive Experiment in Virtual Geographic Environments.”

ISPRS International Journal of Geo‐Information 7, no. 1: 36. https://doi.

org/10.3390/ijgi7010036.

Zhang, H., R. He, Y. Niu, et al. 2022. “Graphene‐Enabled Wearable

Sensors for Healthcare Monitoring.” Biosensors and Bioelectronics 197:

113777. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bios.2021.113777.

Zhang, J., M. Chen, Y. Peng, et al. 2023. “Wearable Biosensors for

Human Fatigue Diagnosis: A Review.” Bioengineering & Translational

Medicine 8, no. 1: e10318. https://doi.org/10.1002/btm2.10318.

Zheng, Y., C. Liu, N. Y. G. Lai, et al. 2023. “Current Development of

Biosensing Technologies Towards Diagnosis of Mental Diseases.”

Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology 11: 1190211. https://doi.

org/10.3389/fbioe.2023.1190211.

13 of 13

ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.

Mapping the ethical landscape of digital biomarkers: A scoping review

Article

Full-text available

May 2024

In the evolving landscape of digital medicine, digital biomarkers have emerged as a transformative source of health data, positioning them as an indispensable element for the future of the discipline. This necessitates a comprehensive exploration of the ethical complexities and challenges intrinsic to this cutting-edge technology. To address this imperative, we conducted a scoping review, seeking to distill the scientific literature exploring the ethical dimensions of the use of digital biomarkers. By closely scrutinizing the literature, this review aims to bring to light the underlying ethical issues associated with the development and integration of digital biomarkers into medical practice.

Current development of biosensing technologies towards diagnosis of mental diseases

Article

Full-text available

Jun 2023

The biosensor is an instrument that converts the concentration of biomarkers into electrical signals for detection. Biosensing technology is non-invasive, lightweight, automated, and biocompatible in nature. These features have significantly advanced medical diagnosis, particularly in the diagnosis of mental disorder in recent years. The traditional method of diagnosing mental disorders is time-intensive, expensive, and subject to individual interpretation. It involves a combination of the clinical experience by the psychiatrist and the physical symptoms and self-reported scales provided by the patient. Biosensors on the other hand can objectively and continually detect disease states by monitoring abnormal data in biomarkers. Hence, this paper reviews the application of biosensors in the detection of mental diseases, and the diagnostic methods are divided into five sub-themes of biosensors based on vision, EEG signal, EOG signal, and multi-signal. A prospective application in clinical diagnosis is also discussed.

Communicating the Urban Experience through Biosensing: A Participatory Approach

Article

Full-text available

Apr 2023

Advances in biosensing technologies have led to the commercialization of novel lightweight wearable devices, which have been praised by urban scholars for offering the possibility to quantify emotions in real-world settings, something that had proven to be very challenging until now. Although many studies mix biosensing with qualitative methods to provide a clearer picture of what physiological data might mean in terms of emotions, there has been little exploration of how people interpret their own biodata. Following calls for greater attention to participation in biosensing studies, this article explores the nuances of the interpretation of biodata by research participants. Drawing on the findings of a study in which participants were invited to reflect on and discuss their own biodata during and after a walk in a high street in Lisbon, we show how exposing participants to biodata creates moments of bounded interference that foster in-depth reflection about the urban experience. With this in mind, we discuss how bounded interference can be a generative driver for more detailed discussions about spatial experiences.

Reshaping healthcare with wearable biosensors

Article

Full-text available

Mar 2023

Wearable health sensors could monitor the wearer's health and surrounding environment in real-time. With the development of sensor and operating system hardware technology, the functions of wearable devices have been gradually enriched with more diversified forms and more accurate physiological indicators. These sensors are moving towards high precision, continuity, and comfort, making great contributions to improving personalized health care. At the same time, in the context of the rapid development of the Internet of Things, the ubiquitous regulatory capabilities have been released. Some sensor chips are equipped with data readout and signal conditioning circuits, and a wireless communication module for transmitting data to computer equipment. At the same time, for data analysis of wearable health sensors, most companies use artificial neural networks (ANN). In addition, artificial neural networks could help users effectively get relevant health feedback. Through the physiological response of the human body, various sensors worn could effectively transmit data to the control unit, which analyzes the data and provides feedback of the health value to the user through the computer. This is the working principle of wearable sensors for health. This article focuses on wearable biosensors used for healthcare monitoring in different situations, as well as the development, technology, business, ethics, and future of wearable sensors for health monitoring.

Biosocial borders: Affective debilitation and resilience among women living in a violently bordered favela

Article

Full-text available

Feb 2023

Within emerging fields of research focusing on neuro‐urbanism, neuro‐geographies, and biosociality, few studies have experimented with using these emerging methods to research socio‐spatial life in communities that suffer high levels of violence and other socio‐spatial injustices. Extending nonrepresentational accounts of the body, emotions, and affect, this paper discusses an experimental geography‐neuroscience collaboration working in a favela of Rio de Janeiro to explore the embodied urban emotions and affects of violently bordered urban communities. Extending an emphasis on nonrepresentational, corporeal spatial practices to a study of women living in Brazil's favelas, we use electrodermal activity (EDA) biosensors to propose a novel methodological and analytical approach that focuses on forms of affective debilitation and resilience. Theoretically, we draw on biopolitical theory and border theory to propose a method that avoids oppositions between biopolitical and necropolitical accounts of borders.The aim of the research, conducted in June 2016, is to understand levels of affective debilitation or resilience amongst women living in the Mare Complex of favelas in Rio de Janeiro. Using a wearable biosensor, we took measures of electrodermal activity of 8 women as they undertook one of their routine, everyday journeys within the favela. We also conducted an hour‐long qualitative interview with each participant. We find that for all our participants, navigating the favela's violent border spaces subjects their bodies to very high levels of affective and cognitive demand. Whilst some women responded to this with stress reactions that created acute levels of affective debilitation, others responded very strongly, showing exceptionally high levels of affective resilience. Our research highlights the affective labour required of women to co‐construct urban borders, and emphasizes their agency and forms of everyday resistance in shaping the favela's affective atmospheres.

Re-engaging psychology for (more) human geographies of the future

Article

Full-text available

Nov 2022

Recent work in several fields of psychology has advanced understanding of how humans imaginatively construct, simulate and (pre-)feel the future. These advances have not yet been substantively engaged in social and cultural geography. In this paper, we identify, review and begin to draw together scholarship in human geography and several subfields of psychology on the ways in which people imagine and navigate towards the future. The most influential existing work on the future in geography has concerned powerful institutional and discursive depictions of threatening times-to-come. In contrast, psychological and neuroscientific work on cognitive processes involved in prospection extends possibilities for a human geographical approach to the future considering how people relate to discursive imaginaries and spatial environments. Reinvigoration of the human geography-psychology nexus can further critical understanding of the spatialities through which futures are imaginatively formed and felt by individuals, and are thereby brought into the realm of political and social possibility.

Sensing walkability? Opportunities and limitations of electrodermal activity as an indicator of walkable urban environments

Article

Feb 2024

Chester Harvey

Behavioral Geography

Chapter

Mar 2017

Neil Argent

Behavioral geography encompasses a broad field of human geography that became influential during the 1960s and 1970s. It emerged in reaction to the “quantitative turn” associated with the spatial sciences paradigm of the 1950s and 1960s. A fundamental goal of behavioral geography is to understand how and why people perceive environments in the way they do, and how these perceptions influence actual spatial behavior. Behavioral geography, which was largely responsible for introducing behavioralism to human geography, is best thought of as an approach rather than as a separate subdiscipline, given the breadth of philosophical perspectives, research foci, and methodologies that it fostered. Behavioral approaches in human geography were applied to a range of topics, including natural hazards, urban and rural residents' cognition of their built and natural environments, and people's affective belonging to place. Although segments of the approach were criticized for their, inter alia, positivism, lack of scientific rigor, and failure to challenge the status quo of society, the behavioral approach to human geography facilitated a greater engagement with philosophical and epistemological issues, forged productive interactions and relationships with cognate disciplines, and helped lay the conceptual and methodological groundwork for human geographers to engage with contemporary social, environmental, and political issues of public policy relevance.

Wearable biosensors: an agenda for digital embodied methods

Chapter

May 2023

Best practices and current implementation of emerging smartphone-based (bio)sensors - Part 2: Development, validation, and social impact

Article

Feb 2023
TRAC-TREND ANAL CHEM

The amalgamation of computer-like capabilities and portability of modern smartphones has fuelled their implementation as detectors and interfaces in emerging smartphone-based (bio)sensors (SbSs) for e.g. healthcare, point-of-need, food safety, environmental science, and forensics systems. SbSs intrinsically carry great potential for consumer diagnostics, and future ‘citizen science’ approaches, which have far-reaching implications for the technological, legal, and ethical aspects associated with the research, development, and deployment of SbSs. In this review (part 2 of a pair of review papers), we evaluated the pertinent literature on issues concerning the development and validation of SbSs, and we address their potential social impact. Finally, insights gleaned are combined in a set of recommendations to guide future ethical, sustainable, and efficient research, development, and deployment of SbSs.

Biosensing and Biosensors—Terminologies, Technologies, Theories and Ethics

Abstract

Recommended publications

Investigating urban stress measurement methods

Communicating the Urban Experience through Biosensing: A Participatory Approach

Relatos de uma viajante: geoetnografia da cidade de Santiago utilizando biossensor

Wearable biosensors