Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 62 references

Mirai: A Wearable Proactive AI "Inner-Voice" for Contextual Nudging

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A wearable AI with a camera and cloned voice aims to nudge people toward their goals at the moment of decision.

desk verdict A coherent prototype that integrates known components into a new proactive voice loop, but the unvalidated context classifier gates the entire intervention and needs real evaluation before the central claim holds. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.02370 v1 pith:AOWQSUQP submitted 2025-02-04 cs.HC

Cathy Mengying Fang , Yasith Samaradivakara , Pattie Maes , Suranga Nanayakkara This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords proactiveagentscontext-awarenudgingvoicecloningself-voicewearableegocentricvisionbehaviorchange
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Mirai is a wearable system that combines an always-on camera, real-time speech processing, and voice cloning to deliver proactive, in-the-moment nudges in the user's own voice. It continuously analyzes the user's environment to anticipate what they are about to do, compares that against their stated goals, and when it detects a misalignment it speaks a short first-person reminder. The paper demonstrates the concept through three scenarios: choosing healthy food, staying focused at work, and speaking confidently in a difficult conversation. If the approach works as claimed, it would give people a just-in-time "inner voice" that helps close the gap between intention and action, a problem that existing goal-setting and mindfulness tools do not address at the critical moment.

What carries the argument

The system's load-bearing mechanism is the combination of a context classifier with a debouncer that decides when to speak. Frames from the wearable camera are filtered for sharpness and redundancy, described by a multimodal language model, and then classified by a second model as "yes" or "no" for whether the scene is relevant to the user's goal. The debouncer triggers a response only when the state changes to "yes" or every few time steps during a stable "yes" state, preventing both missed opportunities and excessive interruptions. The spoken response is generated by a prompt that instructs the model to role-play the user after they have already achieved their goal, and is delivered through a voice clone of the user, creating the "ideal self" effect.

What would settle it

Collect a labeled dataset of egocentric video from daily life, mark the moments that should trigger a nudge, and measure the classifier's precision and recall; if the classifier misses most decision points or fires on irrelevant scenes, the proactive behavior described in the paper will not occur. A second decisive test is a controlled field study comparing a group using the full self-voice system against a version that uses a generic voice or text-only notifications, tracking actual behavior change over weeks.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a proactive, context-aware AI that speaks in the user's own cloned voice can nudge behavior at the exact moment of decision, where the intention-behavior gap occurs. The paper argues that prior tools fail because they are reactive, lack situational awareness, and use generic feedback, whereas Mirai senses the environment from a first-person view, classifies whether the current scene is relevant to the user's goals, and triggers a short, first-person, emotionally expressive statement from an "ideal self" persona whenever a meaningful context change occurs. The scenarios are intended to show that this design can turn a momentary temptation into a reflective pause. The paper does not yet offer a user study; it presents the system architecture, prompt designs, and latency measurements, and calls for a longitudinal study in naturalistic settings.

Load-bearing premise

The binary context classifier must reliably decide whether a noisy first-person scene is relevant to the user's goal, but the paper reports no accuracy, precision, or recall numbers for it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If Mirai works as described, wearable proactive assistants could intervene at real decision points without requiring the user to open an app or initiate a conversation.
  • The self-voice delivery may increase attention, engagement, and recall relative to generic notification sounds or text alerts, making nudges more effective.
  • The architecture is generalizable: the same context-aware, goal-triggered, first-person response loop can be retargeted to any goal the user can state.
  • End-to-end latency under one second suggests the system can keep pace with natural decision-making rather than feeling like a delayed reminder.
  • The debouncer design offers a principled way to balance proactivity with non-intrusiveness in always-on assistive systems.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The system's practical value hinges on the reliability of the binary context classifier, which the paper does not evaluate; an obvious next step is to measure its precision and recall on labeled egocentric video before claiming the proactive loop works.
  • The always-on camera raises privacy and social-acceptability questions that the authors acknowledge; a testable extension would compare user acceptance and nudge effectiveness with alternate sensing modalities.
  • The "ideal self" voice could have unintended psychological effects over repeated exposure, such as internal conflict between current and ideal selves; a longitudinal study with self-identity measures would settle this.
  • Since the response generation is prompt-based, the system could be extended to adapt its nudging tone and frequency based on user feedback or past reactions, which the paper lists as future work.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents Mirai, a wearable proactive AI system that combines an always-on egocentric camera, real-time speech processing, and a cloned version of the user's voice to deliver contextual nudges. The authors describe a three-component architecture: a User Modeler that creates a self-clone from user goals and voice samples, a Context-Aware Agent that generates scene descriptions via GPT-4o and classifies them as goal-relevant or not, and a Proactive Speech-to-Speech Agent that produces short first-person nudges. The paper claims end-to-end latency under 1.0 second and illustrates the system through three narrative scenarios on diet, productivity, and communication. It also discusses limitations, privacy implications, and the need for future longitudinal evaluation.

Significance. If the system works as described, it would be a meaningful step toward just-in-time adaptive interventions that combine first-person visual context, LLM-based reasoning, and self-voice delivery. The paper's strengths are its detailed system description, including explicit prompts for scene description and classification, a mathematical formulation of the debouncer, and a component-wise latency table. These details make the pipeline reproducible enough for others to build on. However, the central claim that Mirai provides timely, contextually appropriate nudges is not empirically supported: the classifier that gates all proactive behavior has no reported accuracy data, the scenarios are scripted narratives rather than logged demonstrations, and no user study is presented. The significance therefore hinges on future validation rather than on evidence in the current manuscript.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2, Appendix A.3] The binary context classifier is the sole gate for all proactive interventions, yet the paper provides no accuracy, precision, recall, or confusion-matrix data for it. Because the system first generates a free-text scene description with GPT-4o and then classifies that description as yes/no/unsure in a separate step, errors can compound across the two stages. Given the debouncer in Appendix A.4, a sustained false positive state triggers a response at every third time step, and a false negative misses the decision point entirely. Without offline or in-situ evaluation of this classifier, the central claim of timely and appropriate nudging is unsupported. I would like to see a quantitative evaluation on a labeled egocentric video dataset, including per-category precision and recall and the effect of the debouncer's refresh rule.
  2. [Section 4] The three 'demonstrations' are written as first-person scripted narratives rather than as empirical evidence. They do not include system logs, classifier outputs, timestamps of when the nudge fired relative to the user's action, or any measure of user response. The video figure is referenced but no content is shown in the manuscript. As a result, these scenarios illustrate the intended interaction but cannot verify that Mirai anticipates intentions, fires at the right moment, or avoids unnecessary interruptions. I recommend replacing or supplementing the narratives with recorded traces from actual runs of the system, including the raw scene descriptions, classifier decisions, and audio outputs.
  3. [Section 3.4, Table 1, Appendix A.5] The latency claim is not adequately supported. The text says external factors such as network speed were excluded, but the system relies on Deepgram, OpenAI, and ElevenLabs through web sockets; these services are accessed over the network, so excluding network variability makes the 920 ms figure an idealized component sum rather than an end-to-end latency. The paper should report the distribution of end-to-end latencies over the 100 interactions, including network time, together with the measurement methodology. This matters because the 'in-the-moment' claim depends on the nudge arriving before the user completes the target action.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Author list] The second author's affiliation is missing a space: 'YASITH SAMARADIVAKARA,Augmented Human Lab' should read 'YASITH SAMARADIVAKARA, Augmented Human Lab'.
  2. [Section 5] The sentence 'This allows us to observe how individuals adaptive their goals over time' contains a typo; 'adaptive' should be 'adapt'.
  3. [Appendix A.1] The prompt text contains the typo 'initate' for 'initiate' in the sentence about new information from the system.
  4. [Appendix A.3] The end of the classifier prompt reads 'Specifically, we want to know: prompt' and appears incomplete; it should state what the model is to output (e.g., a yes/no/unsure label).
  5. [References] References [59] and [60] are the same paper (Zulfikar et al., Memoro); one should be removed or replaced with a distinct citation.
  6. [Section 3.4] The phrase 'shown in Appendix 1' should refer to Appendix A.5 or Table 1 to avoid ambiguity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the system's demonstrations are not derived from their own inputs; no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction.

full rationale

Mirai is a system implementation paper with illustrative scenarios, not a derivation of a claimed result from assumed inputs. Each pipeline stage is externally grounded: the scene description and classification use the external GPT-4o model with hand-written prompts (Appendices A.2, A.3), voice cloning uses the external ElevenLabs service, and the debouncer is an explicit hand-specified rule (Appendix A.4). No parameter is fitted to data and then reported as a prediction; the only quantitative result is a measured average latency (Appendix A.5). The self-citations, including the authors' own ESV paper [17] and PAL work [23-25], are used for design background and are not invoked to forbid alternatives or to justify the paper's central claim. The manuscript itself acknowledges that 'robustly detecting user intentions and determining appropriate intervention timing' remains a fundamental challenge (Section 5), which is consistent with a non-circular but empirically unvalidated system claim. There is no equation or construction in which an output is equivalent to an input by definition, so no circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The system has several hand-tuned thresholds but no fitted parameters. The main unverified assumptions are the accuracy of the LLM-based context classifier and the transferability of prior self-voice effects to a proactive always-on system.

free parameters (4)
  • Frame sharpness threshold = Laplacian variance < 25
    Hand-chosen threshold in Section 3.2 to filter blurry frames; no sensitivity analysis provided.
  • Frame similarity threshold = SSIM >= 0.95
    Hand-chosen threshold to deduplicate near-identical frames; no sensitivity analysis.
  • Frame batch size = 10 frames
    Chosen from cited 2-3 second action durations; no ablation.
  • Debouncer interval = R_t mod 3 = 0
    Hand-picked timing rule in Appendix A.4 to limit interruptions; no tuning data shown.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The intention-behavior gap is a real obstacle that can be addressed by in-the-moment interventions.
    Invoked in Introduction and Section 5 to motivate the system; not tested here.
  • domain assumption Egocentric video at 5 fps with 10-frame batches captures the 2-3 second scale of human actions.
    Section 3.2 relies on cited literature [4,19,28] for action duration; no validation in this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper GPT-4o scene descriptions and the binary classifier reliably identify goal-relevant contexts.
    Section 3.2 and Appendix A.3: the entire proactivity depends on this classifier, but its accuracy is not evaluated.
  • domain assumption Hearing one's own cloned voice increases attention and behavioral alignment, as found in prior studies.
    Section 2.3 and the system design [17,26]; this effect is imported from the literature, not re-tested.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mirai: A Wearable Proactive AI "Inner-Voice" for Contextual Nudging." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AOWQSUQP

@misc{pith2026250202370,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mirai: A Wearable Proactive AI "Inner-Voice" for Contextual Nudging},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AOWQSUQP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.02370}
}
read the original abstract

People often find it difficult to turn their intentions into real actions -- a challenge that affects both personal growth and mental well-being. While established methods like cognitive-behavioral therapy and mindfulness training help people become more aware of their behaviors and set clear goals, these approaches cannot provide immediate guidance when people fall into automatic reactions or habits. We introduce Mirai, a novel wearable AI system with an integrated camera, real-time speech processing, and personalized voice-cloning to provide proactive and contextual nudges for positive behavior change. Mirai continuously monitors and analyzes the user's environment to anticipate their intentions, generating contextually-appropriate responses delivered in the user's own cloned voice. We demonstrate the application of Mirai through three scenarios focusing on dietary choices, work productivity, and communication skills. We also discuss future work on improving the proactive agent via human feedback and the need for a longitudinal study in naturalistic settings.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.02370 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Mirai is a wearable AI system with an integrated camera, real-time speech processing, and personalized voice-cloning to provide [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Mirai System Architecture. • Judiciously unobtrusive: The system intervenes strategically while preserving user flow and focus. • Introspective: The system generates first-person responses to leverage the psychological impact of hearing one’s own voice. Our system integrates a wearable camera to capture visual inputs and Bluetooth headphones to record speech data. This multimodal approach allows the system to contex… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Mirai predicts the user’s intent based on their interaction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Mirai reminds the user to embody confidence during a challenging conversation about asking for a raise. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abowd and Elizabeth D

    Gregory D. Abowd and Elizabeth D. Mynatt. 2000. Charting past, present, and future research in ubiquitous computing. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 7, 1 (March 2000), 29–58. https://doi.org/10.1145/344949.344988

    work page arXiv 2000

  2. [2]

    J. B. et al. Alayrac. 2022. Flamingo: A Visual Language Model for Few-Shot Learning. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML). https://arxiv.org/abs/2204.14198

    arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    Riku Arakawa, Jill Fain Lehman, and Mayank Goel. 2024. PrISM-Q&A: Step-Aware Voice Assistant on a Smartwatch Enabled by Multimodal Procedure Tracking and Large Language Models. Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol. 8, 4, Article 180 (Nov. 2024), 26 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3699759

    doi:10.1145/3699759 2024

  4. [4]

    Banos, J

    O. Banos, J. M. Galvez, M. Damas, H. Pomares, and I. Rojas. 2014. Window size impact in human activity recognition. Sensors (Basel) 14, 4 (Apr 2014), 6474–6499. https://doi.org/10.3390/s140406474

    doi:10.3390/s140406474 2014

  5. [5]

    Aaron T Beck. 1970. Cognitive therapy: Nature and relation to behavior therapy. Behavior therapy 1, 2 (1970), 184–200

    work page 1970

  6. [6]

    Emily E Bernstein, Hilary Weingarden, Emma C Wolfe, Margaret D Hall, Ivar Snorrason, and Sabine Wilhelm. 2022. Human support in app-based cognitive behavioral therapies for emotional disorders: scoping review. Journal of medical Internet research 24, 4 (2022), e33307

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Roger Boldu, Denys JC Matthies, Haimo Zhang, and Suranga Nanayakkara. 2020. AiSee: an assistive wearable device to support visually impaired grocery shoppers. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies 4, 4 (2020), 1–25

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin...

    arXiv 2020

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    Sam WT Chan, Tamil Selvan Gunasekaran, Yun Suen Pai, Haimo Zhang, and Suranga Nanayakkara. 2021. KinVoices: Using voices of friends and family in voice interfaces. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CSCW2 (2021), 1–25

    2021

  2. [10]

    Ruei-Che Chang, Yuxuan Liu, and Anhong Guo. 2024. WorldScribe: Towards Context-Aware Live Visual Descriptions. InProceedings of the 37th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST ’24) . ACM, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1145/3654777.3676375

    2024

  3. [11]

    Patrick Chwalek, Sailin Zhong, David Ramsay, Nathan Perry, and Joe Paradiso. 2023. AirSpec: A smart glasses platform, tailored for research in the built environment. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 2023 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing & t...

    2023

  4. [12]

    Christopher Clarke, Jingnan Xu, Ye Zhu, Karan Dharamshi, Harry McGill, Stephen Black, and Christof Lutteroth. 2023. FakeForward: using deepfake technology for feedforward learning. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–17

    2023

  5. [13]

    Jean Costa, Malte F Jung, Mary Czerwinski, François Guimbretière, Trinh Le, and Tanzeem Choudhury. 2018. Regulating feelings during interpersonal conflicts by changing voice self-perception. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–13

    2018

  6. [14]

    Anind K. Dey. 2001. Understanding and using context. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 5, 1 (2001), 4–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s007790170019

    2001 doi

  7. [15]

    Janna K Dominick and Shana Cole. 2020. Goals as identities: Boosting perceptions of healthy-eater identity for easier goal pursuit. Motivation and Emotion 44, 3 (2020), 410–426

    2020

  8. [16]

    ElevenLabs. 2025. ElevenLabs Voice Cloning. https://elevenlabs.io/voice-cloning Accessed: 2025-01-23

    2025

  9. [17]

    Cathy Mengying Fang, Phoebe Chua, Samantha Chan, Joanne Leong, Andria Bao, and Pattie Maes. 2024. Leveraging AI-Generated Emotional Self-Voice to Nudge People towards their Ideal Selves. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.11531 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Norman AS Farb, Adam K Anderson, Julie A Irving, and Zindel V Segal. 2014. Mindfulness interventions and emotion regulation. Handbook of emotion regulation 2 (2014), 548–567. Manuscript submitted to ACM 10 Fang et al

    2014

  11. [19]

    Feldhütter, M

    I. Feldhütter, M. Schleidt, and I. Eibl-Eibesfeldt. 1990. Moving in the beat of seconds: Analysis of the time structure of human action. Ethology & Sociobiology 11, 6 (1990), 511–520. https://doi.org/10.1016/0162-3095(90)90024-Z

    1990 doi

  12. [20]

    Hans-Werner Gellersen, Albrecht Schmidt, and Michael Beigl. 2002. Multi-Sensor Context-Awareness in Mobile Devices and Smart Artifacts. Mobile Networks and Applications 7, 5 (October 2002), 341–351. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016587515822

    2002 doi

  13. [21]

    C. et al. Jia. 2021. Scaling Up Visual and Vision-Language Representation Learning With Noisy Text Supervision. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) . https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.05918

    2021 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Jon Kabat-Zinn. 2015. Mindfulness. Mindfulness 6, 6 (2015), 1481–1483

    2015

  15. [23]

    Mina Khan, Glenn Fernandes, Utkarsh Oggy Sarawgi, Prudhvi Rampey, and Pattie Maes. 2019. PAL: A Wearable Platform for Real-time, Personalized and Context-Aware Health and Cognition Support. ArXiv abs/1905.01352 (2019). https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:146120658

    2019 arXiv

  16. [24]

    M. Khan, G. Fernandes, A. Vaish, M. Manuja, P. Maes, and A. Stibe. 2021. Improving Context-Aware Habit-Support Interventions Using Egocentric Visual Contexts. In Persuasive Technology. PERSUASIVE 2021 (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 12684) , Raian Ali, Jean-Luc Lugrin...

    2021 doi

  17. [25]

    Mina Khan and Pattie Maes. 2021. PAL: Intelligence Augmentation using Egocentric Visual Context Detection. arXiv:2105.10735 [cs.CV] https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.10735

    2021 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Jieun Kim and Hayeon Song. 2024. My Voice as a Daily Reminder: Self-Voice Alarm for Daily Goal Achievement. InProceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–16

    2024

  19. [27]

    Taewan Kim, Seolyeong Bae, Hyun Ah Kim, Su-woo Lee, Hwajung Hong, Chanmo Yang, and Young-Ho Kim. 2024. MindfulDiary: Harnessing Large Language Model to Support Psychiatric Patients’ Journaling. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–20

    2024

  20. [28]

    Koppula and Ashutosh Saxena

    Hema S. Koppula and Ashutosh Saxena. 2013. Learning Spatio-Temporal Structure from RGB-D Videos for Human Activity Detection and Anticipation. In Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Machine Learning (Atlanta, GA, USA) (ICML’13). JMLR.org, III–792–III–800

    2013

  21. [29]

    Eric Kuhn, Brandon J Weiss, Katherine L Taylor, Julia E Hoffman, Kelly M Ramsey, Rachel Manber, Philip Gehrman, Jill J Crowley, Josef I Ruzek, and Mickey Trockel. 2016. CBT-I coach: a description and clinician perceptions of a mobile app for cognitive behavioral therapy for in...

    2016

  22. [30]

    Amanda Lazar, Christian Koehler, Theresa Jean Tanenbaum, and David H Nguyen. 2015. Why we use and abandon smart devices. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM international joint conference on pervasive and ubiquitous computing . 635–646

    2015

  23. [31]

    Rodriguez, and Jon E

    Jaewook Lee, Jun Wang, Elizabeth Brown, Liam Chu, Sebastian S. Rodriguez, and Jon E. Froehlich. 2024. GazePointAR: A Context-Aware Multimodal Voice Assistant for Pronoun Disambiguation in Wearable Augmented Reality. arXiv:2404.08213 [cs.HC] https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.08213

    2024

  24. [32]

    Joanne Sun Ling Leong. 2021. Investigating the use of synthetic media and real-time virtual camera filters for supporting communication and creativity . Ph. D. Dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology

    2021

  25. [33]

    Zhuoyang Li, Minhui Liang, Hai Trung Le, Ray Lc, and Yuhan Luo. 2023. Exploring Design Opportunities for Reflective Conversational Agents to Reduce Compulsive Smartphone Use. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Conversational User Interfaces . 1–6

    2023

  26. [34]

    Sruzan Lolla and Corina Sas. 2023. Evaluating Mobile Apps Targeting Personal Goals. In Extended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–7

    2023

  27. [35]

    Fiona H McKay, Annemarie Wright, Jane Shill, Hugh Stephens, and Mary Uccellini. 2019. Using health and well-being apps for behavior change: a systematic search and rating of apps. JMIR mHealth and uHealth 7, 7 (2019), e11926

    2019

  28. [36]

    Madison Milne-Ives, Ching Lam, Caroline De Cock, Michelle Helena Van Velthoven, Edward Meinert, et al. 2020. Mobile apps for health behavior change in physical activity, diet, drug and alcohol use, and mental health: systematic review. JMIR mHealth and uHealth 8, 3 (2020), e17046

    2020

  29. [37]

    Inbal Nahum-Shani, Shawna N Smith, Bonnie J Spring, Linda M Collins, Katie Witkiewitz, Ambuj Tewari, and Susan A Murphy. 2018. Just-in-time adaptive interventions (JITAIs) in mobile health: key components and design principles for ongoing health behavior support. Annals of Beh...

    2018

  30. [38]

    Subigya Nepal, Arvind Pillai, William Campbell, Talie Massachi, Eunsol Soul Choi, Xuhai Xu, Joanna Kuc, Jeremy F Huckins, Jason Holden, Colin Depp, et al. 2024. Contextual AI Journaling: Integrating LLM and Time Series Behavioral Sensing Technology to Promote Self-Reflection a...

    2024

  31. [39]

    Jakob Nielsen. 1994. Usability Engineering. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA

    1994

  32. [40]

    Jim Nilsson and Tomas Akenine-Möller. 2020. Understanding SSIM. arXiv:2006.13846 [eess.IV] https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.13846

    2020 arXiv

  33. [41]

    OpenAI. 2024. Hello GPT-4o. https://openai.com/index/hello-gpt-4o/ Accessed: 2025-01-21

    2024

  34. [42]

    OpenAI. 2025. OpenAI Platform Vision Guide. https://platform.openai.com/docs/guides/vision Accessed: 2025-01-21

    2025

  35. [43]

    Adiba Orzikulova, Han Xiao, Zhipeng Li, Yukang Yan, Yuntao Wang, Yuanchun Shi, Marzyeh Ghassemi, Sung-Ju Lee, Anind K Dey, and Xuhai Xu

  36. [44]

    Yair Poleg, Chetan Arora, and Shmuel Peleg. 2014. Temporal Segmentation of Egocentric Videos. In 2014 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 2537–2544. https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2014.325

    2014 doi

  37. [45]

    Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, Gretchen Krueger, and Ilya Sutskever. 2021. Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervision. arXiv:2103.000...

    2021 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Amy Leigh Rathbone, Laura Clarry, and Julie Prescott. 2017. Assessing the efficacy of mobile health apps using the basic principles of cognitive behavioral therapy: systematic review. Journal of medical Internet research 19, 11 (2017), e399

    2017

  39. [47]

    Annamina Rieder, U Yeliz Eseryel, Christiane Lehrer, and Reinhard Jung. 2021. Why users comply with Wearables: The role of contextual self-efficacy in behavioral change. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction 37, 3 (2021), 281–294

    2021

  40. [48]

    Ivan Rodin, Antonino Furnari, Dimitrios Mavroeidis, and Giovanni Maria Farinella. 2021. Predicting the future from first person (egocentric) vision: A survey. Comput. Vis. Image Underst. 211, C (Oct. 2021), 17 pages. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cviu.2021.103252

    2021

  41. [49]

    Daniel Salber, Anind K Dey, and Gregory D Abowd. 1999. The context toolkit: Aiding the development of context-enabled applications. InProceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems . 434–441

    1999

  42. [50]

    Bill Schilit, Norman Adams, and Roy Want. 1994. Context-aware computing applications. In Proceedings of the 1994 First Workshop on Mobile Computing Systems and Applications (WMCSA) . IEEE, 85–90. https://doi.org/10.1109/WMCSA.1994.16

    1994 doi

  43. [51]

    Paschal Sheeran and Thomas L Webb. 2016. The intention–behavior gap. Social and personality psychology compass 10, 9 (2016), 503–518

    2016

  44. [52]

    Inhwa Song, SoHyun Park, Sachin R Pendse, Jessica Lee Schleider, Munmun De Choudhury, and Young-Ho Kim. 2024. ExploreSelf: Fostering User-driven Exploration and Reflection on Personal Challenges with Adaptive Guidance by Large Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.09662 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    John D Teasdale, Zindel V Segal, J Mark G Williams, Valerie A Ridgeway, Judith M Soulsby, and Mark A Lau. 2000. Prevention of relapse/recurrence in major depression by mindfulness-based cognitive therapy. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology 68, 4 (2000), 615

    2000

  46. [54]

    Nađa Terzimehić, Renate Häuslschmid, Heinrich Hussmann, and MC Schraefel. 2019. A review & analysis of mindfulness research in HCI: Framing current lines of research and future opportunities. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems . 1–13

    2019

  47. [55]

    Kelly J Thomas Craig, Laura C Morgan, Ching-Hua Chen, Susan Michie, Nicole Fusco, Jane L Snowdon, Elisabeth Scheufele, Thomas Gagliardi, and Stewart Sill. 2021. Systematic review of context-aware digital behavior change interventions to improve health. Translational behavioral...

    2021

  48. [56]

    Florian Wahl, Martin Freund, and Oliver Amft. 2015. WISEglass: multi-purpose context-aware smart eyeglasses. Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Symposium on Wearable Computers (2015). https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:6033133

    2015

  49. [57]

    Peng Wang and Alan F. Smeaton. 2013. Using visual lifelogs to automatically characterize everyday activities. Inf. Sci. 230 (May 2013), 147–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2012.12.028

    2013 doi

  50. [58]

    Nick Yee and Jeremy Bailenson. 2007. The Proteus effect: The effect of transformed self-representation on behavior. Human communication research 33, 3 (2007), 271–290

    2007

  51. [59]

    Wazeer Deen Zulfikar, Samantha Chan, and Pattie Maes. 2024. Memoro: Using Large Language Models to Realize a Concise Interface for Real-Time Memory Augmentation. In Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI ’24). Asso...

    2024

  52. [60]

    Wazeer Deen Zulfikar, Samantha Chan, and Pattie Maes. 2024. Memoro: Using Large Language Models to Realize a Concise Interface for Real-Time Memory Augmentation. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–18

    2024

  53. [61]

    assistant

    Wazeer Deen Zulfikar, Cayden Pierce, and Pattie Maes. 2024. MeMic: Towards Social Acceptability of User-Only Speech Recording Wearables. In Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–9. Manuscript submitted to ACM 12 Fang et al. A SYSTEM...

    2024

  54. [2024]

    In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

    Time2Stop: Adaptive and Explainable Human-AI Loop for Smartphone Overuse Intervention. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–20

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.