Reflections and Discussion

Children’s Interaction with the Light Instruments

The laboratories consistently demonstrated that the Light Instruments aroused curiosity, interest and a willingness to explore among the children. In both the individual and group sessions, children approached the instruments spontaneously, respecting their own pace and without requiring direct guidance from adults.

During the individual laboratories, it was observed that some children required a short period of adaptation before beginning to explore the objects. Following this initial moment, interaction developed naturally,

characterised by curiosity, contemplation and free exploration.

In the group laboratory, exploration became more dynamic and social. Children exchanged instruments, observed each other’s actions, vocalised, sang and spontaneously reproduced sound patterns, demonstrating a higher level of initiative and interaction with one another.

The observations suggest that the children’s main interest lay in the physical and sensory exploration of the objects, privileging movement, manipulation and the discovery of their different possibilities for use.

Relationship between Movement and Light

One of the main questions explored during this cycle of laboratories was how children established a relationship between their movements and the light response produced by the experimental costume.

In the individual laboratories, using one instrument at a time enabled a clearer association between each object and its corresponding light pattern. However, it was observed that children focused primarily on exploring the instrument itself, directing their attention towards the object they were manipulating rather than towards the light response produced on the performer’s costume.

In the group laboratory, the simultaneous use of several instruments made this visual relationship less evident. The activation of different light patterns at the same time made it more difficult to identify the correspondence between each instrument and its respective light response.

Some technical limitations were also identified, namely unintended activations caused by vibrations from nearby musical instruments, inconsistent light responses and a slight delay in LED activation. Despite these limitations, the observations suggest that the light response functions primarily as a complementary dimension of the artistic experience, and that it is not necessary for children to explicitly understand the relationship between movement and light for the experience to remain meaningful.

Development of the Light Instruments

This cycle of laboratories provided an important opportunity to identify improvements to be introduced into the Light Instruments. The children’s spontaneous exploration revealed aspects related to the robustness, safety, ergonomics and sensitivity of the prototypes. In some cases, children dismantled components, removed buttons and managed to access the battery compartment, highlighting the need to reinforce the protection of the different elements and improve the structural durability of the prototypes.

The observations also reinforced the idea that these objects do not

need to replicate traditional musical instruments. On the contrary, they appear to be more readily appropriated by children when they assume their own identity as objects for artistic exploration, valuing shape, texture, movement and sensory experience.

Further opportunities for improvement were identified regarding the size of some prototypes, the diversity of materials and textures, the ergonomics of the objects and the sensitivity of the sensors, allowing for a more consistent response to the different forms of manipulation observed during the laboratories.

Technological Integration

The laboratories also provided an opportunity to evaluate the performance of the different technological systems developed within Pilot 2.

Overall, the integration between the Light Instruments, the experimental costume and the remaining technological systems proved to be functional, making it possible to validate the artistic concept underlying this stage of the project.

However, a significant difference was observed between the automatic engagement indicators generated by the software and the observations made by the team. On several occasions, the technological systems indicated low levels of engagement, while children and families demonstrated high levels of attention, curiosity and involvement.

This discrepancy reinforced the importance of continuing to develop and calibrate the automatic monitoring systems, while recognising the value of participant observation as an essential complement to the interpretation of technological data.

Families’ and Team Reflections

Families actively contributed to the reflection on the experience, providing suggestions regarding the Light Instruments, the materials used and the artistic experience.

Among the main contributions was the suggestion to incorporate different textures, reinforce the robustness of the instruments and improve the ergonomics of the sleeves used for the physiological sensors. Questions were also raised about whether the use of the instruments should be demonstrated beforehand or whether a child-centred approach based on spontaneous exploration should be maintained.

The reflection meetings held with the artists, technologists and the remaining team members made it possible to integrate these observations into the project’s ongoing development. In addition to the technical improvements identified, the discussions reinforced the importance of maintaining an iterative approach, in which each cycle of

laboratories directly informs the subsequent artistic and technological development.

This process once again confirmed that the evolution of the Light Instruments results from the combination of participant observation, family feedback, artistic experience and technological development, while maintaining the Human-Centred approach as a fundamental element of Pilot 2.