Advertisement

Lifelogging pp 213-233 | Cite as

Reflect Yourself!

Opportunities and Limits of Wearable Activity Recognition for Self-Tracking
  • Manuel Dietrich
  • Kristof van Laerhoven
Chapter

Abstract

In this paper we introduce an interdisciplinary investigation into technology of wearable activity recognition and its applications for self-tracking and lifelogging. Wearable activity recognition are computer systems capable of automatically detecting human actions. Using these devices for self-tracking provides the users with a new perspective on their actions. Thus people can reflect on their actions in a new way. We work on the topic of wearable activity recognition in an interdisciplinary way, both with a theoretical analytic direction and a concrete system design perspective. The theoretical part of this article is about understanding how people relate to their actions using an activity recognition lifelogging device. It is based on the philosophical theory of action. For the concrete design perspective of wearable activity recognition, we introduce two cases from our current design practice. We bridge the theoretical thoughts and the practical perspective by introducing the (critical) design theory. Based on that, opportunity and limits for self-tracking and self-reflection are the results of the interdisciplinary approach.

Keywords

Activity Recognition Design Theory Interaction Design Sensitive Design Philosophical Theory 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anscombe, G. E. M. (1957). Intention. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bardzell, J. (2011). Interaction criticism: An introduction to the practice. Interacting with Computers, 23(6), 604-621. doi: 10.1016/j.intcom.2011.07.001.
  3. Bardzell, J., Bardzell, S., & Stolterman, E. (2014). Reading critical designs: supporting reasoned interpretations of critical design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 2014 (pp. 1951-1960). New York: ACM. doi: 10.1145/2556288.2557137.
  4. Berlin, E., & Laerhoven, K. V. (2012). Detecting leisure activities with dense motif discovery. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Conference on Ubiquitous Computing, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 2012 (pp. 250-259). New York: ACM. doi: 10.1145/2370216.2370257.
  5. Borazio, M., & Laerhoven, K. V. (2012). Combining wearable and environmental sensing into an unobtrusive tool for long-term sleep studies. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM SIGHIT International Health Informatics Symposium, Miami, Florida, USA, 2012 (pp. 71-80). New York: ACM. doi: 10.1145/2110363.2110375.
  6. Davidson, D. (2004). Essays on actions and events. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Friedman, B., Kahn, P., Jr., Borning, A., & Huldtgren, A. (2013). Value Sensitive Design and Information Systems. In N. Doorn, D. Schuurbiers, I. van de Poel, & M. E. Gorman (Eds.), Early engagement and new technologies: Opening up the laboratory (pp. 55-95), Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-7844-3.
  8. Hubig, C. (2006). Die Kunst des Möglichen 1 Technikphilosophie als Reflexion der Medialität (Edition panta rei). Bielefeld: Transcript.Google Scholar
  9. Leist, A. (2007). Über Kontexte zu Handlungen. Deutsche Zeitschrift fuer Philosophie, 55(4), 521-544. doi: 10.1524/dzph.2007.55.4.521.
  10. Lenk, H. (1978). Handlung als Interpretationskonstrukt: Entwurf einer konstituentenund beschreibungstheoretischen Handlungsphilosophie. In H. Lenk (Ed.), Handlungserklärungen und philosophische Handlungsinterpretation (pp. 279-350). München: Fink.Google Scholar
  11. Löwgren, J., & Stolterman, E. (2007). Thoughtful interaction design a design perspective on information technology. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Rogers, Y. (2012). HCI Theory: Classical, Modern, and Contemporary. Synthesis Lectures on Human-Centered Informatics, 5(2), 1-129, doi: 10.2200/S00418ED1V01Y201205HCI014.
  13. Scholl, P. M., Kücükyildiz, N., & Laerhoven, K. V. (2013). When do you light a fire?: capturing tobacco use with situated, wearable sensors. In Proceedings of the 2013 ACM conference on Pervasive and ubiquitous computing (pp. 1295-1304). New York: ACM. doi: 10.1145/2494091.2497284.
  14. Seeger, C., Van Laerhoven, K., & Buchmann, A. (2014). MyHealthAssistant: An Event-driven Middleware for Multiple Medical Applications on a Smartphone-mediated Body Sensor Network. Biomedical and Health Informatics, 19(2), 752-760. doi: 10.1109/JBHI.2014.2326604.
  15. Suchman, L. A. (1987). Plans and situated actions: the problem of human-machine communication (pp. 1-41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Thalberg, I. (1985). Analytical Action Theory: Breakthroughs and Deadlocks. In G. Seebass, & R. Tuomela (Eds.), Social Action. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. doi: 10.1007/978-94-009-5263-8_1.
  17. von Wright, G. H. (1963). Norm and Action: A Logical Enquiry. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.DarmstadtDeutschland
  2. 2.FreiburgDeutschland

Personalised recommendations