 We have a little time for questions. I'm going to start with one question. I have like one course of cognitive neuroscience, and my recollections of it are wobbly. But I do remember reading Legofren Johnson and Metaphors We Live By, and it being pointed out to me in class over and over that it would seem, I'm not sure if we know this yet, but it would seem that abstract thought is in fact using the same parts of the brain and the same systems, partly of the brain, as physical motion. So these are also in some, probably on an evolutionary level, these are somehow connected. So the idea of grasping a thought and a thing do have a physical reality in our minds. Am I right about this so far? Yeah, I mean, Legofren Johnson, the core idea is that we understand complicated abstract stuff like love through physical metaphors. Like love is a journey, is one example. And then the language, like, look how far we have come together, our ways separate here, and so on. That's the thing, and yeah, we do that. And when I said before, when I was presenting you, I realized I did this before, because before isn't the past, right? So I think this is, then it seems that this is something that fundamentally might be quite cultural as well, but some bits of this are seem to be connected to our physical bodies. So okay, that's the baseline for what happens now, which is I'm going to ask one question and then you're going to ask one questions. So my question is, are the right people working on the problems together? Here we have somebody with a medical and physical background, we have an engineer and, like, I don't even know what this is called that you do now, interaction researcher. So are there contexts where the three of you would be solving the same problems? And if not, why not? We are working in teams. These kinds of systems aren't built by one person. This is why you need something like the bits. You need to come together and share the material, because you need understanding of the human body. You need cognitive understanding. You need understanding of the side and engineering. So no one is really building anything like this on their own. Do you feel that you have access in your daily jobs to everything you, to all the knowledge that you need? No. Well, what helps is maybe a prototype, because a prototype is something you can take to somebody who is an expert in the hand, for example, and, hey, what does it work like this and so on? So that's, I think a prototype is a great communication object between disciplines. It would be really interesting to take your little device into the fMRI camera with the person who is using it, if it would be possible, because of the magnetic fields and all that. Interesting. Okay, let's have some questions or reactions from the room. If your reaction is not a question, please keep it brief. We have all of, like, at least three minutes to do this, so you can't be all too Scandinavian about it. You really do have to spit it out. Is it possible that you have no questions at all? Then I'm going to say, when you were listening to each other, did you have any immediate reactions? Would you like to ask each other something? Sorry for putting you on the spot like this. No, but we connect so, so well. It's like, you need that understanding of the hand being in the stump in order to build something for it and where to connect and how to connect, then you need to understand what materials to use and so it connects so, so well. And of course, a forum like this is excellent to meet people and to hear about people who is working with the technologies that we don't have access to in the hospital. Of course, we work together with the Technical University in Lund and the Cognitive Department at Lund University, but also the way things work when you apply for fundings and things like that are not extremely flexible. Could be better. That was an incredibly polite way of saying that that if you do cross-disciplinary research, it needs to be incredibly fashionable and buzzword-filled to be funded. I think you should use the right words. That's a question of the day. Fantastic. There's a microphone as well. Hi, so for the three of you, how far away do you think that haptic devices and mobile phones are away from the everyday consumers? Do you see that big consumer companies are starting to heavily invest in this so that we'll have them in two, five, ten years? Haptic devices, if somebody is not familiar, that would be the sense. Like, you all have haptics already. You all have a vibrator in your phone. Yeah, it's shape-changing. We can feel textures, for example, and stuff like that. It's about sort of engineers and designers coming together realizing that you can change the vibration pattern on that and use that for some system in your phone. So I'd say technically, it would be possible tomorrow, but we have all these structures of people coming together and then business structures, of course. And so in research, like gesture phones and haptics, it's there. I mean, when it comes to prosthesis, sorry. It's a very small group. I mean, there are a lot of people that lose their hands and legs in the world, but it is a small group in the bigger picture. And it is very few, very big companies in the world that are sort of ruling the market. And we have to remember that in the markets where the need is the greatest, the money just is not there. They are not financially interesting to these groups, unfortunately. And also batteries in prosthesis. If you need electronics, we use a very simple technical solution. But if you need batteries, that's a problem because you can't carry in the lab. It's easy. You can have huge machines behind you. But the person that has to wear this, it must be easy, robust and simple. Fabian. Yeah, I was thinking that if you look at today's mobile phones, they all look the same and it's really hard for manufacturers to distinguish their device from the other device because they all look the same. Haptics would be one wow thing. This is totally different. At the same time, it's a leap of faith. If it doesn't work, it's a big investment. But that depends what model, what cognitive model you build into the system. We can allow users better to understand how the phone works and thereby understand better when it doesn't work. So if we build for technology being something that works properly all the time, then we build for the wrong expectations. We should build systems so that users are with us in the development and can work with us and help the phone to work better. There's a question in the back. It would be nice with smartphones where you can use the full capacity of your hand, not only the index finger. Then we end up in 50 years with huge index fingers. Nothing else. I think on this one, the shaking when you're frustrated, when you want to shake to undo is a very intelligent thing. Then unfortunately not all applications use shake to undo. But when you get frustrated, do you want to change your mind? Yes, please. I'm working it up with distributed teams. I think we all agree on that the physical meeting beats everything. Will Haptics solve this since if we could get a bit further, it could mean a lot for the environment. If we could for instance do handshakes with people in Tokyo. I'd say again we need to understand what we're working with and not try to mimic the human body all the time and mimic human meetings because technical tools and materials allow for something different. So we should search for what that cool different is rather than trying to mimic how we normally do it because we will fail all the time because technologies aren't as smart as the human body. So we should go another direction. I think that will be the last words. I shall now remind you that the last keynote session is starting in the theatre in just a little while so you should go there directly unless you have some kind of personal emergency to take care of, in which case be brief. Give a great big hand to Birgitta Noseen, Petra Sundström and Fabian Hemberg.