.
`
`Steve Mann
`MIT Media Lab
`
`Wearable Computing:
`A First Step Toward
`Personal Imaging
`
`Miniaturization of components has enabled
`
`systems that are wearable and nearly invisible,
`
`so that individuals can move about and
`
`interact freely, supported by their personal
`
`information domain.
`
`Cybersquare
`
`C 0
`
`an you imagine hauling around a large, light-tight
`wooden trunk containing a co-worker or
`an assistant whom you take out only for
`occasional, brief interaction. For each ses-
`sion, you would have to open the box,
`wake up (boot) the assistant, and after-
`ward seal him back in the box. Human
`dynamics aside, wouldn’t that person
`seem like more of a burden than a help?
`In some ways, today’s multimedia porta-
`bles are just as burdensome.
`Let’s imagine a new approach to com-
`puting in which the apparatus is always
`ready for use because it is worn like cloth-
`ing. The computer screen, which also
`serves as a viewfinder, is visible at all times
`and performs multimodal computing (text
`and images).
`With the screen moved off the lap and
`up to the eyes, you can simultaneously talk
`to someone and take notes without break-
`ing eye contact. Miniaturized into an oth-
`erwise normal pair of eyeglasses, such an
`apparatus is unobtrusive and useful in
`business meetings and social situations.
`Clothing is with us nearly all the time
`and thus seems like the natural way to carry
`our computing devices. Once personal
`imaging is incorporated into our wardrobe
`
`018-9162/97/$10.00 (cid:211)
`
`1997 IEEE
`
`and used consistently, our computer system will share
`our first-person perspective and will begin to take on
`the role of an independent processor, much like a sec-
`ond brain—or a portable assistant that is no longer
`carted about in a box. As it “sees’’ the world from our
`perspective, the system will learn from us, even when
`we are not consciously using it.
`Such computer assistance is not as far in the future
`as it might seem. Researchers were experimenting in
`related areas well before the late seventies, when I first
`became interested in wearable computing devices.
`Much of our progress is due to the computer industry’s
`huge strides in miniaturization. My current wearable
`prototype,1 equipped with head-mounted display,
`cameras, and wireless communications, enables com-
`puter-assisted forms of interaction in ordinary situa-
`tions—for example, while walking, shopping, or
`meeting people—and it is hardly noticeable.
`
`DEVELOPING COMPUTERS TO WEAR
`In 1968 Ivan Sutherland described a head-mounted
`display with half-silvered mirrors that let the wearer
`see a virtual world superimposed on reality.2,3 His
`work, as well as subsequent work by others,4 entailed
`a serious limitation: Because the wearer was tethered
`to a workstation, generally powered from an ac out-
`let, the apparatus was confined to a lab or some other
`fixed location.
`My experiments in attaching a computer, radio
`
`February 1997
`
`25
`
`IPR2020-00910
`Garmin, et al. EX1025 Page 1
`
`

`

`.
`
`(a)
`
`Figure 1. (a) The unique capabilities of a wearable personal computer-imaging system
`and lighting kit let me create expressive images that transcend the boundaries of pho-
`tography, painting, and computer graphics. (b) The system consisted of a battery-
`powered computer with wireless communications capability, so that I was free to roam
`untethered.
`
`iRx
`
`Process 1
`
`Process n
`Process 2
`
`Visual filter
`
`iTx
`
`oRx
`
`oTx
`
`Camera
`
`Head-
`mounted
`display
`
`Mediated
`reality
`
`Figure 2. An experimental apparatus for wearable, tetherless, computer-mediated real-
`ity. The camera sends video to a remote supercomputing facility over a high-quality
`microwave communications link. The computing facility sends back the processed
`image over a UHF communications link. “Visual filter” refers to the process(es) that
`mediates the visual reality and that may insert virtual objects into the visual stream.
`
`26
`
`Computer
`
`(b)
`
`equipment, and other devices to myself culminated in
`a tetherless system that lets me roam about the city. I
`can receive e-mail and enjoy various other capabili-
`ties exceeding those available on a desktop multime-
`dia computer. For example, family members watching
`remotely can see exactly what I see and, while I am at
`the bank, remind me by e-mail to get extra cash. Or I
`can initiate communication, using RTTY (radiotele-
`type), to ask what else I should pick up on the way
`home.
`This new approach to computing arose from my
`interest in the visual arts—particularly still-life and
`landscape imaging in which multiple exposures of a
`static scene could be combined and illuminated by a
`variety of light sources. Figure 1a shows an image
`made using this original “light-painting’’ application.
`To explore such new concepts in imaging and light-
`ing, I designed and built the wearable personal imag-
`ing system shown in Figure 1b. At the time (around
`1980, while I was still in high school), battery-operated
`tetherless computing was a new modality, as the lap-
`top computer had not yet been invented. My inven-
`tion differed from present-day laptops and personal
`digital assistants in that I could keep an eye on the
`screen while walking around and doing other things.
`A CRT on the helmet presented both text and images,
`and a light similar to a miner’s lamp helped me find my
`way around in the dark. I carried an electronic flash
`lamp that let me capture images in total darkness. An
`array of push-button switches on the flash-lamp head
`controlled the computer, camera, and so forth.
`
`The incredible shrinking computer
`Even 10 years later, during my experiments in the
`early 1990s, the computational power required to per-
`form general-purpose manipulation of color video
`streams came in packages too unwieldy to be worn in
`comfortable clothing. I was forced to use special-
`
`IPR2020-00910
`Garmin, et al. EX1025 Page 2
`
`

`

`.
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`(d)
`
`Figure 3. Progressive miniaturization by the computer industry has enabled wearable devices to become less obtrusive over the past 16 years. (a) 1980
`prototype with a 1.5-inch CRT; (b) late 1980s multimedia computer with a 0.6-inch CRT; (c) a more recent commercially available display; (d) a current,
`nearly undetectable, prototype consisting of eyeglasses, a handheld control, and a computer worn in back under the shirt.
`
`purpose hardware with good video processing capa-
`bility remotely by establishing a full-duplex video
`communications channel between the clothing and
`the host computer or computers. I used a high-qual-
`ity communications link to send video from the cam-
`eras to the remote computer(s) and a lower quality
`communications link to carry the processed signal
`from the computer back to the head-mounted display.
`Figure 2 diagrams this apparatus, which let me explore
`applications that will become possible when minia-
`turization puts today’s supercomputer power into
`tomorrow’s clothing.
`When I brought my apparatus to MIT in 1991, I
`installed two antennas on the roof of the tallest build-
`ing in the city. Later I found that if I moved one of the
`antennas to another rooftop, the inbound/outbound
`channel separation improved dramatically. The appa-
`ratus provided good coverage on the university cam-
`pus, moderate coverage over a good part of the city,
`and some coverage in a nearby city.
`Advances in miniaturization helped to streamline
`the equipment over the years. In Figure 3a I am wear-
`ing a 1980 prototype of the experimental system. The
`1.5-inch CRT was unwieldy and required a well-
`fitted helmet to support its weight. (For viewing the
`CRT, I have used, in various embodiments of the head
`gear, a lens and mirror at a 45-degree angle, a partly
`silvered mirror, and reflections off eyeglasses.) Two
`antennas, operating in different frequency bands,
`allowed simultaneous transmission and reception of
`data, voice, or video. Alternative versions of the com-
`munications apparatus included a slightly less cum-
`bersome clothing-based antenna array (hanging
`behind me at the upper right in Figure 3a) comprising
`wires sewn directly into the clothing. Substituting this
`clothing-based array let me clear doorways and ceil-
`ings during indoor use.
`
`With the advent of consumer camcorders, miniature
`CRTs became available, making possible the late 1980s
`eyeglass-mounted multimedia computer shown in
`Figure 3b. Here I am using a 0.6-inch CRT facing
`down (angled back to stay close to the forehead). This
`apparatus was later transferred to optics salvaged from
`an early 1990s television set. Though still somewhat
`cumbersome, the unit could be worn comfortably for
`several hours at a time. An Internet connection through
`the small hat-based whip antenna used TCP/IP with
`AX25 (the standard packet protocol for ham radio
`operators).
`The prototype in Figure 3c incorporates a modern
`commercial display product made by Kopin, an
`American manufacturer of head-mounted displays,
`along with commercially available cellular communi-
`cations. With the advent of cellular and other com-
`mercial communications options, a radio license is no
`longer needed to experience “online living.” Unlike my
`earlier prototypes, this system was assembled from off-
`the-shelf components. Though it is much improved, I
`expect to do even better: The prototype shown in
`Figure 3d—still under development—is nearly unde-
`tectable.
`
`APPLICATIONS
`Just as computers have come to serve as organiza-
`tional and personal information repositories, computer
`clothing, when worn regularly, could become a “visual
`memory prosthetic” and perception enhancer.
`
`Edgertonian eyes
`Early on, I experimented with a variety of visual fil-
`ters5 as I walked around. Each of these filters provided
`a different visual reality. One filter applied a repeating
`freeze-frame effect to the WearCam (with the cameras’
`own shutters set to 1/10,000 second). This video sam-
`
`February 1997
`
`27
`
`IPR2020-00910
`Garmin, et al. EX1025 Page 3
`
`

`

`.
`
`Figure 4. Six frames of low-resolution video from a processed image sequence. My computer recognizes the cashier and
`superimposes a previously entered shopping list on her image. When I turn my head to the right, the list moves to the left on
`my screen, following the flow-field of the video imagery coming from my camera. Note that the tracking (initially triggered by
`automatic face recognition) continues even when the cashier’s face is completely outside my visual field, because the tracking
`is sustained by other objects in the room. Thus, the list of items I have purchased from this cashier appears to be attached to
`her. This functionality can provide a clear recollection of facts during a refund transaction.
`
`ple-and-hold technique let me see the unseeable: writ-
`ing on moving automobile tires and the blades on a
`spinning airplane propeller. Depending on the sam-
`pling rate of my apparatus, the blades would appear to
`rotate slowly backward or forward, much as objects
`do under Harold Edgerton’s stroboscopic lights.6
`Beyond just enabling me to see things I would oth-
`erwise have missed, the effect would sometimes cause
`me to remember certain things better. There is some-
`thing very visceral about having an image frozen in
`space in front of your eyes. I found, for example, that
`I would often remember faces better, because a frozen
`image tended to remain in my memory much longer
`than a moving one. Perhaps intelligent eyeglasses of
`the future will anticipate what is important to us and
`select the sampling rate accordingly to reveal salient
`details.
`
`Finding our way around
`We’ve all been lost at one time or another. Perhaps,
`at the end of a long day in a new city or a large shop-
`
`ping complex, you can’t find your car or subway stop.
`One way I guard against such lapses is by transmit-
`ting a sequence of images to my WWW page. Then if
`(when) I get lost, I browse my WWW page to find my
`way back. An advantage of having the image stream
`on the Web is that friends and relatives with wearable
`Web browsers can see where I have been and catch up
`with me. This constitutes a type of shared visual
`memory.
`Footwear offers yet another opportunity for help
`in orientation. Mark Weiser of Xerox PARC, com-
`menting on IBM computer scientist Tom Zimmer-
`man’s computerized shoes, predicts that someday
`customers walking into a store will pick up floor-plan
`data from their shoes that will guide them to the mer-
`chandise they’re shopping for.7
`Zimmerman was not the first to propose shoe-based
`computing. In the late 1970s, a group of researchers
`known as the Eudaemons were building shoe-based
`computers for use in physical modeling of chaotic phe-
`nomena8—or more specifically, for bettering their
`odds at roulette. One person would enter data (click-
`ing with the toes) while watching the ball; another
`person would receive the data and try to predict the
`octant the ball would land in.
`
`Homographic modeling
`Recently I reported on a wearable apparatus9 that
`can help us identify faces by comparing an incoming
`image to a collection of stored faces. Once the wearer
`confirms a match, the “video orbits” algorithm10 that
`I developed enables the system to insert a virtual
`image11 into the wearer’s field of view, creating the illu-
`sion that a person is wearing a name tag. As Figure 4
`shows, the name tag will stabilize on the person even
`though the image field moves. The homography of the
`plane is estimated and tracked throughout, so that
`even when the objects being recognized fall outside
`the camera’s field of view, tracking continues by the
`homography alone.
`
`Figure 5. Using a visual filter such as this in the personal
`visual assistant may help a person with very poor vision to
`read. The central portion of the visual field is hyperfoveated
`for a high degree of magnification while allowing good
`peripheral vision.
`
`Personal visual assistant for the visually challenged
`With its spatial filtering capability, a head-mounted
`apparatus can assist partially sighted individuals.12
`Worn over the eyes, it computationally augments,
`diminishes, or alters visual perception in day-to-day sit-
`
`28
`
`Computer
`
`IPR2020-00910
`Garmin, et al. EX1025 Page 4
`
`

`

`.
`
`Figure 6. My early
`1990s apparatus for
`wearable, tetherless,
`computer-mediated
`reality included a
`color stereo head-
`mounted display with
`two cameras. The
`intercamera distance
`and field of view
`approximately
`matched my interocu-
`lar distance and field
`of view with the appa-
`ratus removed. Com-
`munications
`equipment was worn
`around the waist.
`Antennas, transmit-
`ter, and so forth, were
`at the back of the
`head-mount to
`balance the weight of
`the cameras in front.
`
`uations in real time.5 For example, Figure 5 shows how
`a visual filter might assist in reading. The portable sys-
`tem, made from a battery-powered color stereo display
`having 480 lines of resolution, is shown in Figure 6.
`The wearer’s only visual stimulus comes from the com-
`puter screens, since in this case the glasses are totally
`opaque. I call this experience fully mediated reality.5
`
`SOCIAL ASPECTS
`The early prototypes were quite obtrusive and often
`made people ill at ease, but more recently the appa-
`ratus has been gaining social acceptance. I attribute
`this partly to miniaturization, which has allowed me
`to build much smaller units, and partly to dramatic
`changes in people’s attitudes toward personal elec-
`tronics. With the advent of cellular phones, pagers,
`and so forth, such devices may even be considered
`fashionable.
`When equipped with truly portable computing,
`including a wireless Internet connection and an input
`device like those pictured in Figure 7, I find that people
`I talk with aren’t even distracted by my looking at the
`screen. In fact, they cannot discern whether I am look-
`ing at my screen or at them, because the two are aligned
`on exactly the same axis. The problem of focal length
`can generally be managed by setting it so that the screen
`and anyone I’m talking with are in the same depth plane.
`With enough light present, images can be incorpo-
`rated into the note-taking process in a natural manner,
`without distracting the other person. Even in low
`light—for example, while talking with someone out-
`
`doors after dark—a small flash, shown in Figure 7a,
`can be used during a conversation without breaking
`eye contact. The only distraction is the light from the
`flash itself, which may startle people at first. (An
`infrared flash would be less obtrusive.)
`Some years after I developed the keyboard/control
`system in Figure 7a, a commercial product—the
`mouse shown in Figure 7b—appeared. Its numerous
`buttons could be used to type or to control various
`other functions. In the future, of course, we will not
`need keyboards and mice at all. A goal of personal
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`Figure 7. Hand-held keyboards, mice, and controls. (a) My early prototype (incorporating one microswitch for each finger and three possible
`microswitches for the thumb) was built into the handle of an electronic flash lamp and allowed simultaneous one-handed control of computer, camera,
`and flash lamp. (b) Modern off-the-shelf mouse/keyboard combination made by Handykey Corp. The mouse consists of a tilt sensor inside the housing.
`(c) Virtual mouse. Camera in eyeglasses tracks finger, which controls a cursor, allowing the user to look at a luxo lamp through the glasses and draw its
`outline on the computer screen.
`
`February 1997
`
`29
`
`IPR2020-00910
`Garmin, et al. EX1025 Page 5
`
`

`

`.
`
`When sitting
`on the
`subway, I
`set my
`glasses to a
`wine-dark
`opacity to
`indicate that
`I’m not in
`the mood for
`idle chat.
`
`imaging is to use the camera as the input device. A
`rough prototype of a “finger mouse,” shown in Figure
`7c, has already been developed, and it isn’t hard to
`envision a system for inputting data using hand ges-
`tures.
`
`Dark glasses mean leave me alone
`In the early eighties, my greatest impediment to
`social interaction while wearing the apparatus was its
`obtrusiveness. Although the bulky computational and
`electronics hardware only minimally hindered social
`interaction when carried in a backpack, my display
`continued to create a tremendous social barrier. I
`began experimenting with some of the social proto-
`cols likely to be adopted once the display technology
`became less obtrusive and use of the equipment
`became more common. For example, I found that the
`darkness of my eyeglasses could be used to indicate
`whether or not I’m in the mood for idle chat. When I
`am sitting on the subway, I set my glasses to a wine-
`dark opacity, though I can still see through them. This
`is intended to let others know that I do not wish to be
`disturbed.
`
`Seeing eye-to-eye
`People often disagree because they fail to see some-
`thing exactly the same way—from the same view-
`point. In the most literal sense, this needn’t always be
`a problem. Two people equipped with clothing-based
`multimedia computers can not only stay in touch,
`sending data, voice, and video to each other, but can
`also exchange perfectly accurate viewpoints. Each per-
`son can see exactly what the other person sees over-
`laid on a portion of his or her own screen.
`
`Safety net
`Suppose that instead of just two people we have a
`networked community of individuals wearing com-
`puter clothing. This could be either a homogeneous
`community, all wearing the same form of the appara-
`tus, or a heterogeneous community wearing several
`variations. People would most likely focus primarily
`on their own surroundings, but they could occasion-
`ally receive an image from someone sending an impor-
`tant signal. For example, someone anticipating danger
`might trigger a distress signal to others nearby over
`the Internet. Alternatively, the clothing itself could
`trigger the signal. For example, I have a heart rate
`monitor in my clothing and a footstep activity meter
`in my shoes. Heart rate divided by the rate of foot-
`steps could register on a “saliency index” that might
`warn of danger. If someone approaches you on the
`street, pulls out a gun, and asks for cash, most likely
`your heart rate would increase and your footsteps
`slow down, which is contrary to the usual patterns of
`physiological behavior. A community of individuals
`
`networked in this way could look out for each other
`much like a neighborhood watch.
`Such a networked community offers an alternative
`to the proliferation of government surveillance cam-
`eras throughout many cities, particularly in the UK.
`Even in the US, the city of Baltimore, Maryland, is
`experimenting with ubiquitous video surveillance to
`watch over citizens’ activities. Two hundred cameras
`are being installed in the downtown business district
`as an experiment in crime prevention. Such govern-
`ment surveillance is reminiscent of George Orwell’s
`1984, with cameras and microphones distributed
`throughout the environment and two-way television
`sets watching us as we watch them. Science fiction
`writer David Brin warns that cameras are coming one
`way or another and that privacy as we know it will
`disappear. He argues that the kind of privacy loss one
`experiences in a small town is less evil than that expe-
`rienced in an Orwellian society. Thus, citizens would
`be better off looking out for one another using cloth-
`ing-based Internet-connected computing. This would
`require fewer tax dollars and provide a future more
`like that described in Brin’s novel Earth, in which cit-
`izens wearing cameras are networked in the cyber-
`space equivalent of a small town. Wouldn’t safety nets
`be better than surveillance?
`Naturally, smart clothing must be owned, operated,
`and controlled by the individual wearers. A poten-
`tially sinister variation—smart uniforms—could entail
`totalitarian control beyond anything Orwell imag-
`ined.
`
`Dependence on computer clothing
`Some people fear that we’ll become dependent on
`wearable computing, but I think this fear is unjusti-
`fied. Wasn’t it once said that compilers, assemblers,
`and even pocket calculators would cause our brains to
`atrophy? Long ago I could do arithmetic quickly by
`hand, but now I would be a little slow in doing some-
`thing as simple as finding the square root of 2 with
`pencil and paper. I’d also find it hard to program in
`6502 machine code, as I did for my first wearable
`computer system, without the help of an assembler or
`a compiler. Freeing ourselves from mundane tasks like
`arithmetic or hand assembly of computer instructions
`lets us think at a higher level. Tools such as pocket cal-
`culators, assemblers, and compilers have greatly
`extended our capabilities, enabling us to develop a
`whole new set of higher level abilities.
`Indeed, we probably will develop a dependence on
`readily accessible computing, just as we have devel-
`oped a dependence on wash-and-wear clothing—and
`desktop computers, for that matter. The fact that some
`primitive societies can still survive quite well without
`clothing while we’ve probably lost our ability to sur-
`vive naked in the wilderness in all but the warmest of
`
`30
`
`Computer
`
`IPR2020-00910
`Garmin, et al. EX1025 Page 6
`
`

`

`.
`
`Rather than
`narrowing
`our focus,
`living within
`our own
`personal
`information
`domain will
`enlarge our
`scope.
`
`climates doesn’t support the argument that we should
`do without clothing.
`Someday, when we’ve become accustomed to cloth-
`ing-based computing, we will no doubt feel naked,
`confused, and lost without a computer screen hover-
`ing in front of our eyes to guide us. By that time, for-
`tunately, increased reliability will be an important part
`of the design. Just as we would not want our shirt but-
`tons to pop off or our trousers to fall down, we will
`demand that our computer clothing not go down
`either.
`
`Although past prototypes have been cumber-
`
`some, and even present prototypes remain
`somewhat obtrusive, miniaturization contin-
`ues to pack a greater level of functionality into a
`smaller space. The enabling apparatus will soon be
`invisible as it disappears into ordinary clothing and
`eyeglasses. Efforts have already been made to pro-
`duce wearable computers commercially. Such com-
`mercial interest is bound to add impetus to further
`miniaturization.
`Some of my rough prototypes are getting so small
`that eye movements are the only indication that the
`wearer may be online. The eye movements of some-
`one reading a virtual image appear somewhat
`unusual, even though the apparatus itself is almost
`invisible. Development and commercialization of
`these more natural-looking systems will overcome
`initial reluctance among potential users and gradu-
`ally create a broader user base, just as more power-
`ful and easier-to-use PCs made their way into offices
`and homes.
`Clothing-based computing with personal imaging
`will blur the boundaries between seeing and viewing
`and between remembering and recording. Rather than
`narrowing our focus, living within our own personal
`information domain will enlarge our scope through
`shared visual memory that enables us to “remember”
`something or someone we have never seen.
`With computers as close as the shirts on our backs,
`interaction will become more natural. This will
`improve our ability to do traditional computing tasks
`while standing or walking, letting future computing
`systems function much like a second brain. A
`computer that is constantly attentive to our environ-
`ment may develop situational awareness, perceptual
`intelligence, and an ability to see from the wearer’s
`perspective and thereby assist in day-to-day activi-
`ties.
`Of course, these far-reaching goals will require years
`of research. Nevertheless, we can expect entirely new
`modes of human-computer interaction to arise, along
`with a whole new set of technical, scientific, and social
`needs that will have to be addressed as we take our
`first steps toward personal imaging. v
`
`Acknowledgments
`I thank Thad Starner and Flavia Sparacino for help-
`ing me get the cursor-control software running with
`X Windows on the SGI Reality Engine for finger-
`tracking, and Joe Paradiso for suggesting I write this
`“experiential first-person account.” I also thank Roz
`Picard, Hiroshi Ishii, Neil Gershenfeld, Sandy
`Pentland, Ted Adelson, Jennifer Healey, and many
`others too numerous to mention here for many inter-
`esting and important discussions; Matt Reynolds,
`KB2ACE, for help in upgrading the outbound ATV
`system; and Steve Roberts, N4RVE, for many useful
`suggestions. Thanks to Larry Smarr of the University
`of Illinois for use of the NCSA supercomputing facil-
`ity, to Chris Barnhart for special-purpose processing
`hardware, and to Bran Ferren of Disney. HP Labs,
`ProComp, VirtualVision, Compaq, Kopin, Colorlink,
`Ed Gritz, Miyota, BelTronics, M/A-Com, and Virtual
`Research also deserve thanks for lending or donat-
`ing additional equipment that made my experiments
`possible.
`Hewlett-Packard Labs, Palo Alto, California, sup-
`ported the part of my research performed at MIT.
`
`References
`1. S. Mann, “Wearable Wireless Webcam,” personal
`WWW page, http://wearcam.org
`(http://n1nlf-
`1.media.mit.edu), 1994.
`2. R.A. Earnshaw, M.A. Gigante, and H. Jones, Virtual
`Reality Systems, Academic Press, San Diego, Calif., 1993.
`3. I. Sutherland, “A Head-Mounted Three Dimensional
`Display,” Proc. Fall Joint Computer Conf., IEEE CS
`Press, Los Alamitos, Calif., 1968, pp. 757-764.
`4. S. Feiner, B. MacIntyre, and D. Seligmann, “Knowledge-
`based Augmented Reality,” Comm. ACM, July 1993.
`5. S. Mann, Mediated Reality, Tech. Report TR 260, MIT
`Media Lab Perceptual Computing Section, Cambridge,
`Mass., 1994.
`6. H.E. Edgerton, Electronic Flash, Strobe, MIT Press,
`Cambridge, Mass., 1979.
`7. J. Pitta, “The Soul of the New Machine,” Los Angeles
`Times, Nov. 18, 1996, p. D1.
`8. T. Bass, The Eudaemonic Pie, Houghton Mifflin, Boston,
`1985.
`9. S. Mann, “Smart Clothing: ‘Wearable Multimedia and
`Personal Imaging’ to Restore the Balance Between Peo-
`ple and Their Intelligent Environments,” Proc. ACM
`Multimedia 96, ACM Press, New York, 1996.
`10. S. Mann and R.W. Picard, Video Orbits of the Projective
`Group: A Simple Approach to Featureless Estimation of
`Parameters, Tech Report TR 338, MIT Media Lab Per-
`ceptual Computing Section, Cambridge, Mass., 1995.
`11. T.S. Huang and A.N. Netravali, “Motion and Structure
`from Feature Correspondences: A Review,” Proc. IEEE,
`Feb. 1984.
`
`February 1997
`
`31
`
`IPR2020-00910
`Garmin, et al. EX1025 Page 7
`
`

`

`.
`
`12. S. Mann, Wearable, Tetherless Computer-Mediated
`Reality: Wearcam as a Wearable Face-Recognizer, and
`Other Applications for the Disabled, Tech. Report TR
`361, MIT Media Lab Perceptual Computing Section,
`Cambridge, Mass., 1996.
`
`Steve Mann cofounded the Wearable Computing Pro-
`ject at the MIT Media Lab, where he is completing his
`PhD in personal imaging. In addition to this work and
`his interest in “online living,” which grew out of a
`high school hobby, he has a related interest in ama-
`teur radio. In his research he has explored a way to
`characterize the response of objects to arbitrary light-
`ing, created a self-linearizing camera calibration pro-
`cedure (with photometric image-based modeling), and
`formulated the first true projective image mosaick-
`ing/compositing algorithm. He holds degrees in
`physics and electrical engineering from McMaster Uni-
`versity in Canada.
`
`Contact Mann at MIT Media Lab, Building E15-389,
`20 Ames St., Cambridge, MA 02139; steve@media.
`mit.edu.
`
`Reader Service Number 5
`
`Call for Feature Articles
`
`Article Topics
`We welcome articles and proposals for special issues
`on topics of general interest to computer profession-
`als. In particular, we are interested in articles about
`
`• Architecture
`
`• Best Practices
`
`• Internet
`
`• Software Engineering
`
`• Hardware/Software Codesign
`
`• Training and Education
`
`• Multimedia
`
`To propose a special issue or an article, send a query
`to computer@computer.org. To submit an article,
`send seven copies of the completed manuscript to
`Michelle Masseth at the IEEE Computer Society Pub-
`lications Office, 10662 Los Vaqueros Circle, PO Box
`3014, Los Alamitos, CA 90720-1264. For detailed
`author instructions, visit our Web site: http://
`computer.org/pubs/computer.htm or send a request for
`a Contributors’ Guide to computer@computer.org.
`
`Requirements
`Manuscripts submitted to Computer must not have
`been previously published or currently submitted for
`publication elsewhere. We regret that we cannot
`review manuscripts that are longer than 6,000 words
`(including figures and tables, which are counted as
`300 words/each). Please include complete contact
`information for every author, a 150-word abstract,
`and a list of keywords with each submission. For
`more information, contact the editors at
`computer@computer.org, (714) 821-8380.
`
`Innovative technology for computer professionals
`
`IPR2020-00910
`Garmin, et al. EX1025 Page 8
`
`