Skinput
input technology
Skinput is an input technology that uses bio-acoustic sensing to localize finger taps on the skin. When augmented with a pico-projector, the device can provide a direct manipulation, graphical user interface on the body. The technology was developed by Chris Harrison, Desney Tan and Dan Morris, at Microsoft Research's Computational User Experiences Group. Skinput represents one way to decouple input from electronic devices with the aim of allowing devices to become smaller without simultaneously shrinking the surface area on which input can be performed. While other systems have attempted this with computer vision (such as SixthSense), Skinput employs acoustics, which take advantage of the human body's natural sound conductive properties (e.g., bone conduction). This allows the body to be annexed as an input surface without the need for the skin to be invasively instrumented with sensors, tracking markers, or other items.
Microsoft has not commented on the future of the projects, other than it is under active development as of 2010. In 2010, it was reported that this would not appear in commercial devices for at least 2 years.
Operation
Skinput has been publicly demonstrated as an armband which sits on the biceps. This prototype contained ten small cantilevered Piezo elements configured to be highly resonant, sensitive to frequencies between 25 and 78 Hz.
“Skinput” enters the record as input technology. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Skinput, input and technology can confirm, complicate or overturn.
Why this record matters
“Skinput” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Skinput, input and technology provides the most credible route into that argument.
The date and method of observation matter as much as the stated conclusion, especially where classification or consensus has changed. The source revision retrieved here is dated Aug 24, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q7535595. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2010.
A general summary may omit uncertainty, sample limits or methodological disagreement that is explicit in the technical record. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Check terminology, classification and the date of the cited evidence. Scientific names and technical consensus can change while older records retain historical value.
- Current terminology
- Classification context
- Finding cited technical literature
Primary datasets, specimen catalogues, standards bodies and the most recent peer-reviewed literature.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Skinput”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Skinput primary sources, Skinput archive and Skinput research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Skinput”?
- Which observation, specimen, dataset or publication supports the account?
- Has classification or technical consensus changed since the cited source?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Skinput” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.