Table 4.

Participants’ self-reported experiences with the tactile interaction of the wearable interface are presented

Themes	Quotations
Question 1: What was the most effective part of the interaction?
Touch sensing	“Having nuanced dynamic control (FSR sensors) with more fuzzy control of pitch/drone allows me to get into the sound/feel part of the system”
Tactile sensing	“I liked the buttons especially, the pulsating effect”
String interaction	“I loved the plucked part! I could feel the instrument reacting to me and I reacted to it”
String and touch sensing	“I really liked the intuitive nature of the controls, particularly with the strings and the palm and the pressure things”
Strings and touch sensing	“I enjoyed the range across gain, FSR vibrato sensitivity [… and] the quieter nuances […] Also, the gracefulness of the strings”
Question 2: What gestural/movement vocabulary did you engage in?
Touch sensing	“Having nuanced dynamic control (FSR sensors) with more fuzzy control of pitch/drone allows me to get into the sound/feel part of the system”
String interface	“Shaking the strings!”
String interface	“The physical string pulling, and plucking was very engaging. Great interaction”
Question 3: Describe your experience creating/controlling sound through body movements
String interface	“Bodyharp […] has a strong physical component to it due to the space its strings transverse. Quite graceful and also powerful”
String interface	“I liked the kind of restrictions the Bodyharp had. The long arm sweeps for long and plucking for short notes”

Note. Participants referred to the touch sensing as FSR, pressure, and touch sensors, they commented on the buttons and sliders, grouped under tactile sensing, and they described their experiences with the string interaction using plucking, stretching, string keywords.