Overview
DigiPPPiP extends Partner Pen Play in Parallel (PPPiP) from a co-present paper practice into a reproducible framework for cyberphysical, remote, semisynchronous, asynchronous, accessible, and place-responsive dyadic drawing . The framework is positioned within collaborative-work studies of shared drawing surfaces , cyber-physical-social systems , mediated embodiment and presence , digital intimacy technologies , and cautious hyperscanning methodology .
The manuscript translates the project brief into a modular research artifact: 9 temporal-spatial modalities, 13 evidence dimensions, 6 planned outcome measures, and 39 conceptual figures are generated or registered by the project code rather than hand-maintained prose. The computational layer is explicitly illustrative, not empirical: the active-inference, inter-brain-synchrony, Forman-Ricci, narrative-information, source-quality, accessibility, and neuroergonomic outputs are deterministic conceptual models designed to make theoretical commitments inspectable. Formal equations are consolidated in so the main line can state evidence boundaries before presenting mathematical detail.
The argument is that DigiPPPiP should be treated as human-human relational technology. Its irreducible design kernel is modest: two partners, a shared mark field, perceptible traces of agency, a temporal relation among contributions, and consentful control over persistence. Digital infrastructure expands the substrate of shared mark-making without replacing the second-person, embodied, narrative, and affective conditions that make the practice relationally meaningful . The manuscript explicitly avoids claims that DigiPPPiP is clinically therapeutic, universally accessible, or causally validated by neural synchrony; those remain empirical questions for controlled studies. Cross-references use Pandoc labels, so sections, equations, figures, and tables remain automatically numbered across PDF and web render targets.
---
Associated artifacts
GitHub release: v1.0.0 (https://github.com/docxology/Digi-PPPiP/releases/tag/v1.0.0)
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21815704
Zenodo: https://zenodo.org/records/21815704
PDF SHA-256: f5ca95ce77c7c5367c0a0e68d5b4a640f0865b4c2b0827fa78ff1babbcbd986d
Overview source: Curated paper metadata.
Methods and contributions
Read the source for the full argument, qualifications, and evidence.
Findings and contributions
- The authors identify a modest irreducible design kernel: two partners, a shared mark field, perceptible agency traces, a temporal relation among contributions, and consentful persistence control.
- The stated contribution is reframing PPPiP as a reproducible, partner-centered research program, not the existence of digital co-drawing.
- The authors argue active inference does explanatory work for a study only if it maps interface events to observations, defines partner-relevant policies, and distinguishes reciprocal updating from shared-stimulus effects.
- The paper explicitly disclaims that DigiPPPiP is clinically therapeutic, universally accessible, or causally validated by neural synchrony, leaving these to controlled studies.
Methods
- Three-by-three temporal-spatial taxonomy of dyadic drawing — Organizes study design by 3 temporal modes and 3 spatial configurations into 9 modality cells, generated by project code (src/taxonomy.py).
- Code-generated research artifact (modalities, dimensions, figures) — The manuscript's 9 modalities, 13 evidence dimensions, 6 outcome measures, and 39 conceptual figures are generated or registered by project code.
- Illustrative deterministic conceptual models (active inference etc.) — Active-inference, inter-brain-synchrony, Forman-Ricci, and other outputs are deterministic toy models meant to make theory inspectable, not empirical.
- Event-logging and governance protocol specification — Specifies timestamped actor/action/channel event rows, separated from the visible canvas, with consent and governance requirements; the example trace is illustrative.
- Dementia-care worked case study as boundary test — A single dementia-care case is used to stress-test the framework's assumptions, explicitly not as evidence of efficacy.
Summary sources: Paper metadata and evidence · Extracted source text.
Document downloads
PDFs are hosted here; supporting sources may use pinned archives.
- Shrivastava_2026_Digipppip_f5ca95ce.pdf PDF · 10.89 MiB · extracted-text source
Citation
Citation metadata follows the unified bibliography.
Catalog details and resources
Related works
Ranked by recorded methods, topics, contributors and associated software, with contributor roles and domain-only matches labelled. Metadata overlap is not a citation or a scientific equivalence.