A Review of Behavioral Closed-Loop Paradigm from Sensing to Intervention for Ingestion Health

Haodong Xu; Hongjing Piao; Jiajin Li; Jun Fang; Ka I Chan; Yanuo Zhou; Yuanchun Shi; Yuntao Wang; Zeyi Sun; Zhengnan Li

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 228 references

A Review of Behavioral Closed-Loop Paradigm from Sensing to Intervention for Ingestion Health

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Sensor-based eating interventions, this review argues, are best understood as a behavioral closed loop linking target behaviors, sensing, reasoning, and intervention.

desk verdict Useful design-space review with a real internal gap: the four-component closed-loop paradigm only delivers analysis for three. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.03185 v4 pith:LHQBORFK submitted 2025-05-06 cs.HC

Jun Fang , Yanuo Zhou , Ka I Chan , Jiajin Li , Zeyi Sun , Zhengnan Li , Zicong Fu , Hongjing Piao

show 3 more authors

Haodong Xu Yuanchun Shi Yuntao Wang

This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.HC

keywords ingestionhealthbehaviorinterventionbehavioralsensingperceptualcomputinginteractivesystemsclosed-loopcontext-awaresystematicreview

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

This paper tries to establish that the field of sensor-based eating interventions is usefully seen as a behavioral closed loop, a cycle in which sensing captures behavior, reasoning infers context, and intervention delivers feedback, after which the loop repeats. Reviewing 136 studies, it proposes a paradigm with four components—target behaviors, sensing modalities, reasoning, and intervention strategies—and a taxonomy splitting modalities into human-based and environment-based channels. The payoff would be a structured design space: designers can see which modality–behavior pairs are saturated, which are empty, and where to place new adaptive interventions. The review also argues that most systems sense richly but intervene through a narrow set of output channels, and that closing this gap is the main opportunity for future work.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the behavioral closed-loop paradigm itself: a cyclical architecture with four components—target behaviors, sensing modalities, reasoning, and intervention strategies—built on a separation of concerns between raw sensing, situation interpretation, and action, and on the idea that the cycle repeats over time. Its analytical engine is a pair of two-dimensional design matrices that cross-tabulate sensing and intervention modalities against behavioral targets, so that each cell is a modality–behavior pair and the empty cells are the review's discovered design gaps.

What would settle it

A comparable systematic search that adds medical and nutrition databases and broader behavior-change, ingestion, and eating terminology would test representativeness directly: if the added studies fill cells the review reports as empty, the gap analysis is an artifact of scope. A second, sharper test of the closed-loop claim is a randomized trial comparing a single-device loop (for example, a spoon that senses bite rate and delivers vibration feedback on the same instrument) against a separated system (wrist sensor plus phone notification) on meal-time energy intake and adherence.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that ingestion-health interventions, whether they use wearables, smart utensils, ambient sensors, or phone-based feedback, all fit a single closed-loop architecture: continuous sensing feeds a reasoning stage that infers the user's behavioral or physiological state, and that state triggers an intervention whose effect is then sensed again. Based on a systematic review of 136 studies, the authors organize this loop into four components and map sensing and intervention modalities along human-based and environment-based dimensions. The resulting design matrices show that current work clusters in a few well-covered cells, such as motion and visual sensing paired with text and graphical feedback for food choice and intake quantity, while whole regions, such as environment-based sensing for safe eating or physiological intervention channels, remain nearly empty. The review concludes that the loop is rarely complete in practice, and that making sensing and intervention share the same device or channel is a central design opportunity.

Load-bearing premise

The taxonomy's coverage and gap analysis assume that the 136 included studies fairly represent the literature on sensor-based ingestion interventions; if relevant studies were missed by the search strategy or by the exclusion of long-term clinical work, the reported patterns and empty cells could be incomplete or biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The two design matrices can serve as a generative tool for designers: saturated cells mark proven territory, while empty cells point to candidate spaces for new sensing or intervention combinations.
Most current systems sense through motion and visual channels but intervene through text and graphics, and the review recommends co-locating sensing and intervention in one device to improve loop continuity.
Environment-based sensing modalities (force, spectral, electrical, acoustic) are used less than human-based ones, leaving food-choice, safety, and hygiene targets comparatively unexplored.
Evaluation evidence is dominated by short-term lab studies using inconsistent outcome metrics, so the review calls for standardized, context-sensitive behavioral indicators to enable cross-study comparison.
The closed-loop paradigm is proposed as a generalizable blueprint beyond ingestion, with sleep, stress, and physical activity named as transfer domains.

Reading between the lines

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

If the paradigm's gap analysis is correct, the empty cells amount to a concrete research agenda; one striking candidate is pairing physiological sensing with physiological or deformable intervention channels for emotional eating, which the matrices show as almost untouched.
A testable next step would be to translate the four components into state variables for a personalization algorithm, letting the system decide what to sense, what to infer, and which channel to act through, turning the paradigm from a taxonomy into an implementation pattern.
Because the review deliberately excludes clinical ingestion contexts such as medication adherence and artificial feeding, any extension of the paradigm there would need fresh evidence rather than direct transfer from the reviewed studies.
A companion search that covers medical and nutrition literature and broader behavior-change terminology would directly test whether the reported design gaps are real features of the field or artifacts of the chosen search scope.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is a genuinely useful systematic review and design-space taxonomy for sensor-based ingestion health interventions. But the headline paradigm has four components; the delivered analysis has three. Reasoning is named in the paradigm and then never systematically analyzed. Section 5 explicitly narrows to sensing and intervention, and Tables 7 and 8 map only those to behaviors. So the 'closed-loop paradigm' is really a sensing-and-intervention design space plus a target-behavior taxonomy.

What's good: the PRISMA procedure is documented, the taxonomy of modalities (human vs environment based) is detailed, and the morphological matrices in Tables 7 and 8 are the kind of artifact practitioners can actually use to spot underexplored pairs. The discussion of gaps—lab vs real world, shallow use of behavior-change theory, modality misalignment between sensing and intervention—is honest and mostly accurate. The framing built on Context Toolkit, Personal Informatics, and DBCI is a reasonable synthesis, not a from-scratch paradigm, but it is clearly presented.

Soft spots: the reasoning gap is the main one and it is internal to the paper's own claims. 'Typically embedded within pipelines' is an assertion, not an analysis. If reasoning is a core component, the review should have at least a table classifying rule-based thresholds, statistical classifiers, deep learning, LLM inference, or manual self-report across the 136 studies. Also, the effectiveness claims in Section 6 stitch together heterogeneous outcomes without meta-analytic discipline; fine for a survey but not evidence of pooled effect. The database set (ACM, IEEE, Google Scholar) plus backward chaining is defensible for the HCI focus but not for a claim of full field coverage; the authors do acknowledge keyword limitations. The annotation spreadsheet is not released, so reproducibility is partial. None of this sinks the paper.

Who it's for: HCI/ubicomp researchers designing eating and drinking interventions, and reviewers wanting a map of the area. I'd bring it to the reading group and would likely cite it. It deserves a serious referee: with the reasoning gap fixed or the claims reframed, it is a solid IMWUT/UbiComp survey. I would recommend major revision rather than desk rejection.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript presents a systematic literature review of 136 studies on sensor-enabled ingestion health interventions, conducted following a PRISMA-guided search and screening process across ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, and Google Scholar with backward chaining. The authors propose a 'behavioral closed-loop paradigm' rooted in context-aware computing and HCI behavior-change frameworks, comprising four components: target behaviors, sensing modalities, reasoning, and intervention strategies. The review delivers (i) a taxonomy of target factors and behaviors (contextual factors vs. process behaviors), (ii) taxonomies of sensing and intervention modalities organized along human- and environment-based dimensions, (iii) design-space matrices mapping sensing and intervention modalities onto target behaviors (Tables 7 and 8), and (iv) a narrative synthesis of effectiveness and user acceptance across the included studies, together with design recommendations covering measurement validity, laboratory-to-real-world transfer, sensing-intervention integration, and HCI-medical alignment. The central claim is that this paradigm organizes and guides the design of adaptive, context-aware ingestion health interventions.

Significance. If the framework holds, it provides a structured design space that integrates sensing and intervention stages which prior reviews (e.g., Zhang et al., Pan et al., Bell et al.) treat in isolation, and the modality-behavior matrices plus the gap analysis are genuinely useful for the IMWUT community. The paper demonstrably documents its search and screening flow, grounds the paradigm in established external frameworks (Dey's context definition, Salber's Context Toolkit, Li et al.'s Personal Informatics Framework, Fairclough's closed-loop systems), and makes checkable, falsifiable design claims in Tables 7 and 8. The main weakness is that the delivered evidence supports only three of the four claimed components: the reasoning stage is asserted but never systematically analyzed, leaving a gap between the stated contribution and the presented taxonomy.

major comments (3)

[§5, first paragraph; §3.2; Abstract] The central claim that the proposed paradigm comprises four components—target behaviors, sensing, reasoning, and intervention strategies—is supported for only three of them. Section 5 explicitly narrows the analysis: 'our analysis centers on the sensing and intervention components,' with reasoning said to be 'typically embedded within pipelines.' No table, subsection, or figure classifies reasoning approaches (e.g., threshold-based rules, statistical classifiers, deep learning, LLM-based inference, or manual self-report interpretation) across the 136 studies, and the design-space matrices in Tables 7 and 8 map only sensing and intervention modalities onto target behaviors. The abstract and contribution statement claim the paradigm can 'organize and guide the design' of interventions across all four components, making this an internal gap rather than a declared scope choice. Notably, Section 7.2.2 criticizes prior work for the shallow use of behavior-change theory, yet the reasoning component here is similarly asserted rather than operationalized. I request either (a) a systematic analysis of how the included studies implement reasoning—e.g., a reasoning taxonomy and a third design-space matrix—or (b) an explicit reframing of the contribution as a three-component paradigm in which reasoning functions as a connective concept rather than an analyzed dimension.
[§6] Section 6 answers RQ3 ('How effective are current intervention paradigms?') by aggregating heterogeneous study outcomes into quantitative-sounding effectiveness statements—e.g., the 57.7% reduction in energy intake attributed to bite-rate feedback [104, 181], the 50% rate of glucose improvement [122], the 59.16% gain in children's food literacy [28], and the 75.5% reduction in childhood obesity prevalence [17]. These are single-study effect sizes drawn from studies with dissimilar designs, durations, populations, and outcome metrics; the section applies no risk-of-bias tool, specifies no synthesis method, and does not mark which numbers come from pilot studies or uncontrolled evaluations. Because the paper claims to follow PRISMA guidelines, the absence of critical appraisal substantially weakens RQ3's conclusions. I recommend either adding a risk-of-bias assessment and clearly attributing each effect size to its source study with sample size and design, or softening the summary statements to reflect the actual level of evidence.
[§2.2] The reliability of the review's classifications rests on a 57-column annotation table that is neither shared nor summarized in a way that allows readers to verify the counts driving the main claims (e.g., the 73.7% JIT share, the per-modality counts in Tables 3–5, and the design-matrix cells in Tables 7–8). The described two-author consensus process is reasonable, but no inter-rater agreement measure or disagreement audit is reported for a classification task that necessarily involves subjective judgment (e.g., assigning studies to 'symbolic' versus 'graphical' intervention modalities, or to specific target behaviors). I recommend releasing the coding instrument and per-paper classifications as supplementary material and, at minimum, reporting agreement statistics on a sample of papers.

minor comments (6)

[§6] The paper states that 106 papers are included in Section 6, but the subsection totals sum to 104 (20+15+7 behavioral, 11+19+13 educational, 2+4+2 social, 3+4+4 other). Please reconcile the count or clarify the overlap.
[§5.1.1.vi; Table 3] The 'Others' sensing category lists 21 papers described as relying 'entirely on manually collected self-reports' and as falling 'outside our sensing stages,' yet they appear in the sensing-modality taxonomy. Please clarify how these studies satisfy the inclusion criterion requiring sensors or perceptual computing, and consider moving them to a separate appendix.
[Table 7] The header row of Table 7 is visually ambiguous (the grouping of 'Human-based,' 'Environment-based,' 'Physiological,' and 'Electrical' columns is unclear), and several target rows rest on thin evidence (e.g., 'Environment' has a single reference [53]). Please reformat the header and add caption notes defining the mixed-level groupings.
[§2.1; §2.2; Appendix A] There are copyedit issues: 'IEEE Explore' should be 'IEEE Xplore' in Appendix A; Section 2.1 contains 'throughout in this paper'; Section 2.2 contains 'The final set of review paper set includes 136 papers'; and the reference list has inconsistent formatting (e.g., [8] includes an inline DOI while most entries do not).
[§8] The limitations paragraph acknowledges search-coverage and laboratory-study issues but does not mention the reasoning-analysis gap noted in my first major comment; adding this would more accurately scope the contribution.
[Figure 3; §3.1] Figure 3's caption should state whether counts refer to studies or to behavior targets, and the 73.7% JIT classification in Section 3.1 would benefit from a per-paper listing, perhaps in an appendix table.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the proposed paradigm is an explicitly grounded synthesis of external frameworks and a descriptive taxonomy of the reviewed corpus.

full rationale

This is a systematic literature review, not a predictive derivation: there are no fitted parameters, no quantities are predicted from a model, and no result is asserted to follow from a prior result by the same authors. The behavioral closed-loop paradigm is explicitly assembled from external frameworks: Dey's definition of context-aware computing, Salber's Context Toolkit, Li et al.'s Personal Informatics Framework, Hekler et al.'s DBCI framework, and Fairclough's closed-loop concept (Section 3.2). These sources are quoted and cited as prior external work rather than as the authors' own earlier results, and the paper states that the paradigm is 'grounded in' and 'inspired by' these frameworks rather than derived from them. The taxonomy in Chapters 4-5 is an annotation of the 136 included studies; the design matrices in Tables 7-8 summarize the annotated corpus, so the observed empty cells are descriptive gaps rather than predictions forced by construction. One internal inconsistency exists: the paper claims a four-component paradigm including reasoning, but Section 5 states 'our analysis centers on the sensing and intervention components' because reasoning is 'typically embedded within pipelines.' This is an incompleteness in operationalizing one component, not a circular reduction, because the framework's organizing value and the taxonomy's content do not depend on a reasoning taxonomy being derived from itself. No load-bearing self-citations were found, and no 'uniqueness' or 'forced choice' argument is imported from the authors' prior work. The acknowledged limitations (keyword coverage, laboratory-based studies) are stated with appropriate modesty and do not conceal circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted. The main assumptions concern the completeness of the literature search and the consistency of the manual coding, both of which the authors partially acknowledge.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption The three selected databases and the keyword strategy retrieve a representative sample of sensor-based ingestion health interventions.
Section 2.1 describes the search in ACM DL, IEEE Xplore, and Google Scholar; the authors acknowledge in Section 8 that relevant studies using different terminology may have been excluded.
domain assumption The subjective classification of papers into the taxonomy is consistent across annotators.
Section 2.2 states that two authors screened papers and refined the taxonomy collaboratively, but no inter-rater reliability metrics or release of the annotation spreadsheet are provided.
domain assumption The exclusion of clinical and therapeutic contexts (e.g., medication ingestion, artificial feeding) keeps the review scope coherent.
Section 2.2 lists exclusion criterion (6); this shapes the taxonomy but is a scoping choice.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Review of Behavioral Closed-Loop Paradigm from Sensing to Intervention for Ingestion Health." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LHQBORFK

@misc{pith2026250503185,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Review of Behavioral Closed-Loop Paradigm from Sensing to Intervention for Ingestion Health},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LHQBORFK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.03185}
}

read the original abstract

Ingestive behavior plays a critical role in health, yet many existing interventions remain limited to static guidance or manual self-tracking. With the increasing integration of sensors, context-aware computing, and perceptual computing, recent systems have begun to support closed-loop interventions that dynamically sense user behavior and provide feedback during or around ingestion episodes. In this survey, we review 136 studies that leverage sensor-enabled or interaction-mediated approaches to influence ingestive behavior. We propose a behavioral closed-loop paradigm rooted in context-aware computing and inspired by HCI behavior change frameworks, comprising four components: target behaviors, sensing modalities, reasoning and intervention strategies. A taxonomy of sensing and intervention modalities is presented, organized along human- and environment-based dimensions. Our analysis also examines evaluation methods and design trends across different modality-behavior pairings. This review reveals prevailing patterns and critical gaps, offering design insights for future adaptive and context-aware ingestion health interventions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.03185 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Paradigm of ingestion health from sensing to intervention CCS Concepts: • General and reference → Surveys and overviews. Additional Key Words and Phrases: ingestion health, behavior intervention, behavioral sensing, perceptual computing, interactive systems, closed-loop intervention ACM Reference Format: Jun Fang, Yanuo Zhou, Ka I Chan, Jiajin Li, Zeyi Sun, Zhengnan Li, Zicong Fu, Hongjing Piao, Haodong Xu, Yuanchun… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Flow chart of SLR process based on the PRISMA guidelines [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Total number of papers published overall (split to process behavior only, context factor only, and both included) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Cumulative publication count of ingestion health research (a) and publications pie (b). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Behavior closed-loop overview 4 Taxonomy of Target Factors and Behaviors Daily ingestive behavior interventions can play an important role in promoting healthier eating and drinking habits. Identifying the specific factors and behaviors targeted in prior research helps…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Taxonomy of target factors and behaviors with the number of studies involving each target. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

228 extracted references · 73 canonical work pages

[122]

Zilu Liang. 2024. Exploring the Impact of Wearable Continuous Glucose Monitoring on Glucose Regulation and Eating Behavior in Healthy Individuals: A Pilot Study. In Proceedings of the Behavior Transformation by IoT International Workshop . 7–12. Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol., Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: August 2025. ...

2024
[28]

See, Hear, Touch, Smell, and,... Eat!

Xueyan Cai, Kecheng Jin, Shang Shi, Shichao Huang, Ouying Huang, Xiaodong Wang, Jiahao Cheng, Weijia Lin, Jiayu Yao, Yuqi Hu, et al. 2024. " See, Hear, Touch, Smell, and,... Eat!": Helping Children Self-Improve Their Food Literacy and Eating Behavior through a Tangible Multi-Sensory Puzzle Game. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual ACM Interaction Design and...

2024
[17]

Leire Bastida, Gloria Cea, Ana Moya, Alba Gallego, Eugenio Gaeta, Sara Sillaurren, Paulo Barbosa, Sabrina Souto, Eujessika Rodrigues, Macarena Torrego-Ellacuría, et al. 2023. Promoting obesity prevention and healthy habits in childhood: the OCARIoT experience. IEEE Journal of Translational Engineering in Health and Medicine 11 (2023), 261–270

2023
[1]

P Abisha and P Rajalakshmy. 2017. Embedded implementation of a wearable food intake recognition system. In 2017 International Conference on Innovations in Electrical, Electronics, Instrumentation and Media Technology (ICEEIMT) . IEEE, 132–136

2017
[2]

Gregory D Abowd and Elizabeth D Mynatt. 2000. Charting past, present, and future research in ubiquitous computing.ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 7, 1 (2000), 29–58

2000
[3]

Achilleas Achilleos, Alexandros Yeratziotis, Christos Mettouris, Kyriakos Evripidou, Paraskevi Hadjinikolaou, and George A Papadopou- los. 2017. Health monitoring web platform for real-time expert-user interaction. In 2017 8th International Conference on Information, Intelligence, Systems & Applications (IISA) . IEEE, 1–6

2017
[4]

Daniel A Adler, Emily Tseng, Khatiya C Moon, John Q Young, John M Kane, Emanuel Moss, David C Mohr, and Tanzeem Choudhury
[5]

Shivani Agarwal, Mudita Uppal, Deepali Gupta, Sapna Juneja, and Rekha Kashyap. 2024. A User Preference-Based Food Recommender System using Artificial Intelligence. In 2024 2nd International Conference on Disruptive Technologies (ICDT) . IEEE, 519–523

2024

Show all 228 references

[6]

Nasrin Akter, Azizul Hakim, and Fahmida Afrin. 2021. FoodByte: An Android Based Mobile Health Application for Taking Dietary Decisions. In 2021 12th International Conference on Computing Communication and Networking Technologies (ICCCNT) . IEEE, 1–6

2021
[7]

Bobby Alexander, Kaan Karakas, Colleen Kohout, Hakan Sakarya, Nipun Singh, Justin Stachtiaris, Laura E Barnes, and Matthew S Gerber. 2017. A behavioral sensing system that promotes positive lifestyle changes and improves metabolic control among adults with type 2 diabetes. In ...

2017
[8]

Fatema Alkhulaifi and Charles Darkoh. 2022. Meal Timing, Meal Frequency and Metabolic Syndrome. Nutrients 14, 9 (2022). doi:10.3390/nu14091719

2022 doi
[9]

Mohamed Alloghani, Abir Hussain, Dhiya Al-Jumeily, Paul Fergus, Omar Abuelma’Atti, and Hani Hamden. 2016. A mobile health monitoring application for obesity management and control using the internet-of-things. In 2016 Sixth International Conference on Digital Information Proce...

2016
[10]

Liu, Shruti Sarin, Behnam Shahbazi, and Majid Sarrafzadeh

Nabil Alshurafa, Haik Kalantarian, Mohammad Pourhomayoun, Jason J. Liu, Shruti Sarin, Behnam Shahbazi, and Majid Sarrafzadeh
[11]

Asiful Arefeen, Niloo Jaribi, Bobak J Mortazavi, and Hassan Ghasemzadeh. 2022. Computational framework for sequential diet recommendation: Integrating linear optimization and clinical domain knowledge. In 2022 IEEE/ACM Conference on Connected Health: Applications, Systems and ...

2022
[12]

Asiful Arefeen, Saman Khamesian, Maria Adela Grando, Bithika Thompson, and Hassan Ghasemzadeh. 2024. GlyMan: Glycemic Management using Patient-Centric Counterfactuals. In 2024 IEEE EMBS International Conference on Biomedical and Health Informatics (BHI). IEEE, 1–5

2024
[13]

Arne Astrup, Faidon Magkos, Dennis M Bier, J Thomas Brenna, Marcia C de Oliveira Otto, James O Hill, Janet C King, Andrew Mente, Jose M Ordovas, Jeff S Volek, et al. 2020. Saturated fats and health: a reassessment and proposal for food-based recommendations: JACC state-of-the-...

2020
[14]

Hawazin Badawi, Mohamad Eid, and Abdulmotaleb El Saddik. 2012. Diet advisory system for children using biofeedback sensor. In 2012 IEEE International Symposium on Medical Measurements and Applications Proceedings . IEEE, 1–4

2012
[15]

Hawazin Badawi, Mohamad Eid, and Abdulmotaleb El Saddik. 2012. A real-time biofeedback health advisory system for children care. In 2012 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo Workshops . IEEE, 429–434

2012
[16]

Jessie Jaye R Balbin, Meo Vincent C Caya, Flordeliza L Valiente, Darren Lee Decena, Virgielyn Maguad, Erica Yvonne Rosas, and Neil Patrick Sana. 2020. Scientific Health Device for Real-time Monitoring of Percentage Body Fats, Body Mass Index, Ideal Body Weight and Stored Energ...

2020
[18]

Abdelkareem Bedri, Yuchen Liang, Sudershan Boovaraghavan, Geoff Kaufman, and Mayank Goel. 2022. Fitnibble: A field study to evaluate the utility and usability of automatic diet monitoring in food journaling using an eyeglasses-based wearable. In Proceedings of the 27th Interna...

2022
[19]

Brooke M Bell, Ridwan Alam, Nabil Alshurafa, Edison Thomaz, Abu S Mondol, Kayla de la Haye, John A Stankovic, John Lach, and Donna Spruijt-Metz. 2020. Automatic, wearable-based, in-field eating detection approaches for public health research: a scoping review. NPJ digital medi...

2020
[20]

Stephen C Benoit and Andrea L Tracy. 2008. Behavioral controls of food intake. Peptides 29, 1 (2008), 139–147

2008
[21]

Yin Bi, Mingsong Lv, Chen Song, Wenyao Xu, Nan Guan, and Wang Yi. 2016. AutoDietary: A Wearable Acoustic Sensor System for Food Intake Recognition in Daily Life. IEEE Sensors Journal 16 (2016), 806–816

2016
[22]

Siddarth Biyani, Saurabh Biswas, and Hangue Park. 2019. An intraoral closed-loop monitoring and stimulation system for treatment of swallowing problems. In 2019 9th International IEEE/EMBS Conference on Neural Engineering (NER) . IEEE, 1093–1096

2019
[23]

Maxence Bobin, Hamdi Amroun, Margarita Anastassova, Mehdi Boukallel, and Mehdi Ammi. 2018. Smart cup for festival alcohol consumption awareness. In 2018 IEEE 4th World Forum on Internet of Things (WF-IoT) . IEEE, 718–723

2018
[24]

Simone Boerema, Lex Van Velsen, and Hermie Hermens. 2019. An intervention study to assess potential effect and user experience of an mHealth intervention to reduce sedentary behaviour among older office workers. BMJ health & care informatics 26, 1 (2019), e100014

2019
[25]

Burke, Molly B

Lora E. Burke, Molly B. Conroy, Susan M. Sereika, Okan U. Elci, Mindi A. Styn, Sushama D. Acharya, Mary A. Sevick, Linda J. Ewing, and Karen Glanz. 2011. The Effect of Electronic Self-Monitoring on Weight Loss and Dietary Intake: A Randomized Behavioral Weight Loss Trial. Obes...

2011
[26]

Simon Butscher, Yunlong Wang, Katrin Ziesemer, Karoline Villinger, Deborah R Wahl, Laura M König, Gudrun Sproesser, Britta Renner, Harald T Schupp, and Harald Reiterer. 2016. Lightweight visual data analysis on mobile devices: Providing self-monitoring feedback. (2016)

2016
[27]

Janet E Cade, VJ Burley, DL Warm, RL Thompson, and BM Margetts. 2004. Food-frequency questionnaires: a review of their design, validation and utilisation. Nutrition research reviews 17, 1 (2004), 5–22

2004
[29]

Olga Carlson, Bronwen Martin, Kim S Stote, Erin Golden, Stuart Maudsley, Samer S Najjar, Luigi Ferrucci, Donald K Ingram, Dan L Longo, William V Rumpler, et al. 2007. Impact of reduced meal frequency without caloric restriction on glucose regulation in healthy, normal-weight m...

2007
[30]

Erin A Carroll, Mary Czerwinski, Asta Roseway, Ashish Kapoor, Paul Johns, Kael Rowan, and MC Schraefel. 2013. Food and mood: Just-in-time support for emotional eating. In 2013 Humaine association conference on affective computing and intelligent interaction . IEEE, 252–257

2013
[31]

Jacky Casas, Elena Mugellini, and Omar Abou Khaled. 2018. Food diary coaching chatbot. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM International Joint Conference and 2018 International Symposium on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing and Wearable Computers . 1676–1680. Proc. ACM Interact. M...

2018
[32]

Caroline Casey, Qiushi Huang, Sameera A Talegawkar, Allison C Sylvetsky, Jennifer M Sacheck, Loretta DiPietro, and Karina R Lora
[33]

William B Cavnar, John M Trenkle, et al. 1994. N-gram-based text categorization. In Proceedings of SDAIR-94, 3rd annual symposium on document analysis and information retrieval , Vol. 161175. Ann Arbor, Michigan, 14

1994
[34]

Jessica Chandler, Luke Sox, Kinsey Kellam, Lauren Feder, Lynne Nemeth, and Frank Treiber. 2019. Impact of a culturally tailored mHealth medication regimen self-management program upon blood pressure among hypertensive Hispanic adults. International journal of environmental res...

2019
[35]

Beenish M Chaudhry, Christopher Schaefbauer, Ben Jelen, Katie A Siek, and Kay Connelly. 2016. Evaluation of a food portion size estimation interface for a varying literacy population. InProceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 5645–5657

2016
[36]

Yang Chen, Katherine Fennedy, Anna Fogel, Shengdong Zhao, Chao Zhang, Lijuan Liu, and Chingchiuan Yen. 2022. SSpoon: a shape-changing spoon that optimizes bite size for eating rate regulation. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies ...

2022
[37]

Yang Chen and Ching Chiuan Yen. 2022. SLNOM: Exploring the sound of mastication as a behavioral change strategy for rapid eating regulation. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstracts . 1–6

2022
[38]

Meng-Chieh Chiu, Shih-Ping Chang, Yu-Chen Chang, Hao-Hua Chu, Cheryl Chia-Hui Chen, Fei-Hsiu Hsiao, and Ju-Chun Ko. 2009. Playful bottle: a mobile social persuasion system to motivate healthy water intake. In Proceedings of the 11th international conference on Ubiquitous compu...

2009
[39]

Woohyeok Choi, Sangkeun Park, Duyeon Kim, Youn-kyung Lim, and Uichin Lee. 2019. Multi-stage receptivity model for mobile just-in-time health intervention. Proceedings of the ACM on interactive, mobile, wearable and ubiquitous technologies 3, 2 (2019), 1–26

2019
[40]

Michael Chukwu. 2011. Personalized mobile monitor for assisted healthy-living. In2011 IEEE Consumer Communications and Networking Conference (CCNC). IEEE, 18–22

2011
[41]

Genevieve Coorey, David Peiris, Tim Usherwood, Lis Neubeck, John Mulley, and Julie Redfern. 2019. Persuasive design features within a consumer-focused eHealth intervention integrated with the electronic health record: A mixed methods study of effectiveness and acceptability. P...

2019
[42]

Felicia Cordeiro, Elizabeth Bales, Erin Cherry, and James Fogarty. 2015. Rethinking the mobile food journal: Exploring opportunities for lightweight photo-based capture. In Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems . 3207–3216

2015
[43]

Melissa C Daniels and Barry M Popkin. 2010. Impact of water intake on energy intake and weight status: a systematic review.Nutrition reviews 68, 9 (2010), 505–521

2010
[44]

Berardina Nadja De Carolis, Giuseppe Palestra, and Edoardo Oranger. 2024. Social Robots vs. Chatbots: Evaluating the Effect as a Persuasive Technology for Children in the Healthy Eating Domain. In Proceedings of the 2024 International Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces. 1–3

2024
[45]

John M De Castro. 2000. Eating behavior: lessons from the real world of humans. Nutrition 16, 10 (2000), 800–813

2000
[46]

Roelof AJ de Vries, Gijs HJ Keizers, Sterre R van Arum, Juliet AM Haarman, Randy Klaassen, Robby W van Delden, Bert-Jan F van Beijnum, and Janet HW van den Boer. 2020. Multimodal Interactive Dining with the Sensory Interactive Table: Two Use Cases. In Companion Publication of ...

2020
[47]

Anind K Dey. 2001. Understanding and using context. Personal and ubiquitous computing 5, 1 (2001), 4–7

2001
[48]

Mauro Dragoni, Tania Bailoni, Claudio Eccher, Marco Guerini, and Rosa Maimone. 2017. A semantic-enabled platform for supporting healthy lifestyles. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Applied Computing . 315–322

2017
[49]

Yusaku Eigen, Yuuki Nishiyama, Takuro Yonezawa, Tadashi Okoshi, and Jin Nakazawa. 2018. meal photo SNS with mutual healthiness evaluation for improving users’ eating habits. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM International Joint Conference and 2018 International Symposium on Perva...

2018
[50]

Daniel A Epstein, Felicia Cordeiro, James Fogarty, Gary Hsieh, and Sean A Munson. 2016. Crumbs: lightweight daily food challenges to promote engagement and mindfulness. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 5632–5644

2016
[51]

Helen Eyles, Rebecca McLean, Bruce Neal, Yannan Jiang, Robert N Doughty, Rachael McLean, and Cliona Ni Mhurchu. 2017. A salt-reduction smartphone app supports lower-salt food purchases for people with cardiovascular disease: findings from the SaltSwitch randomised controlled t...

2017
[52]

Stephen Fairclough. 2015. A closed-loop perspective on symbiotic human-computer interaction. InSymbiotic Interaction: 4th International Workshop, Symbiotic 2015, Berlin, Germany, October 7-8, 2015, Proceedings 4 . Springer, 57–67

2015
[53]

Sarah Faltaous, Simon Janzon, Roman Heger, Marvin Strauss, Pedram Golkar, Matteo Viefhaus, Marvin Prochazka, Uwe Gruenefeld, and Stefan Schneegass. 2021. Wisdom of the IoT crowd: Envisioning a smart home-based nutritional intake monitoring system. In Proceedings of Mensch und ...

2021
[54]

Muhammad Farooq, Megan A McCrory, and Edward Sazonov. 2017. Reduction of energy intake using just-in-time feedback from a wearable sensor system. Obesity 25, 4 (2017), 676–681. Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol., Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: Au...

2017
[55]

JR Fernandez, MD Murphy, PA Mahajan, and CM Fidopiastis. 2013. The virtual supermarket: Interactive educational tools for reducing diabetes risks. In 2013 International Conference on Virtual Rehabilitation (ICVR) . IEEE, 212–213

2013
[56]

Brian J Fogg. 2009. A behavior model for persuasive design. In Proceedings of the 4th international Conference on Persuasive Technology . 1–7

2009
[57]

Jutta Fortmann, Vanessa Cobus, Wilko Heuten, and Susanne Boll. 2014. WaterJewel: design and evaluation of a bracelet to promote a better drinking behaviour. In Proceedings of the 13th international conference on mobile and ubiquitous multimedia . 58–67

2014
[58]

Klaus Fuchs, Tobias Grundmann, Mirella Haldimann, and Elgar Fleisch. 2019. Impact of mixed reality food labels on product selection: insights from a user study using headset-mediated food labels at a vending machine. In Proceedings of the 5th international workshop on multimed...

2019
[59]

Shreeraj Gaikwad, Pratik Awatade, Yadnesh Sirdeshmukh, and Chandan Prasad. 2024. Precision Nutrition through Smart Wearable Technology Tailored Solutions for Personalized Health Enhancement. In2024 IEEE International Conference on Contemporary Computing and Communications (InC...

2024
[60]

Sangita Ganesh, Paul Marshall, Yvonne Rogers, and Kenton O’Hara. 2014. FoodWorks: tackling fussy eating by digitally augmenting children’s meals. In Proceedings of the 8th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Fun, Fast, Foundational . 147–156

2014
[61]

Ming Gao, Yike Chen, Yajie Liu, Jie Xiong, Jinsong Han, and Kui Ren. 2023. Cancelling speech signals for speech privacy protection against microphone eavesdropping. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking . 1–16

2023
[62]

Schwarz@ uniklinikum-dresden

Colin J Greaves, Kate E Sheppard, Charles Abraham, Wendy Hardeman, Michael Roden, Philip H Evans, Peter Schwarz, and IMAGE Study Group Peter. Schwarz@ uniklinikum-dresden. de. 2011. Systematic review of reviews of intervention components associated with increased effectiveness...

2011
[63]

Francisco Gutiérrez, Katrien Verbert, and Nyi Nyi Htun. 2018. PHARA: an augmented reality grocery store assistant. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services Adjunct . 339–345

2018
[64]

Leen Haerens, Ilse De Bourdeaudhuij, Lea Maes, Carine Vereecken, Johannes Brug, and Benedicte Deforche. 2007. The effects of a middle-school healthy eating intervention on adolescents’ fat and fruit intake and soft drinks consumption. Public Health Nutrition 10 (2007), 443–449

2007
[65]

Nava Haghighi, Matthew Jörke, Yousif Mohsen, Andrea Cuadra, and James A Landay. 2023. A Workshop-Based Method for Navigating Value Tensions in Collectively Speculated Worlds. InProceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference . 1676–1692

2023
[66]

Seo Yoon Han and Eun Ji Kang. 2017. ChilDish: the smart plate and cup for children. In Proceedings of the Companion of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction . 391–392

2017
[67]

Saad Harous, Mohamed Adel Serhani, Mohamed El Menshawy, and Abdelghani Benharref. 2017. Hybrid obesity monitoring model using sensors and community engagement. In 2017 13th International Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing Conference (IWCMC). IEEE, 888–893

2017
[68]

Daisuke Hayashi, Caitlyn Edwards, Jennifer A Emond, Diane Gilbert-Diamond, Melissa Butt, Andrea Rigby, and Travis D Masterson
[69]

Shan He, Siying Li, Anindya Nag, Shilun Feng, Tao Han, Subhas Chandra Mukhopadhyay, and Warwick Powel. 2020. A comprehensive review of the use of sensors for food intake detection. Sensors and Actuators A: Physical 315 (2020), 112318

2020
[70]

Eric B Hekler, Predrag Klasnja, Jon E Froehlich, and Matthew P Buman. 2013. Mind the theoretical gap: interpreting, using, and developing behavioral theory in HCI research. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 3307–3316

2013
[71]

Eric B Hekler, Susan Michie, Misha Pavel, Daniel E Rivera, Linda M Collins, Holly B Jimison, Claire Garnett, Skye Parral, and Donna Spruijt-Metz. 2016. Advancing models and theories for digital behavior change interventions. American journal of preventive medicine 51, 5 (2016)...

2016
[72]

Roel CJ Hermans, Sander Hermsen, Eric Robinson, Suzanne Higgs, Monica Mars, and Jeana H Frost. 2017. The effect of real-time vibrotactile feedback delivered through an augmented fork on eating rate, satiation, and food intake. Appetite 113 (2017), 7–13

2017
[73]

Haruka Hiraguchi, Paola Perone, Alexander Toet, Guido Camps, and Anne-Marie Brouwer. 2023. Technology to automatically record eating behavior in real life: A systematic review. Sensors 23, 18 (2023), 7757

2023
[74]

Isabel Holmbäck, Ulrika Ericson, Bo Gullberg, and Elisabet Wirfält. 2010. A high eating frequency is associated with an overall healthy lifestyle in middle-aged men and women and reduced likelihood of general and central obesity in men. British journal of nutrition 104, 7 (201...

2010
[75]

S Hori, K Hori, S Yoshimura, F Uehara, N Sato, Y Hasegawa, K Akazawa, and T Ono. 2023. Masticatory behavior change with a wearable chewing counter: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Dental Research 102, 1 (2023), 21–27

2023
[76]

Jen-Hao Hsiao and Henry Chang. 2010. SmartDiet: A personal diet consultant for healthy meal planning. In2010 IEEE 23rd International Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems (CBMS) . IEEE, 421–425

2010
[77]

Mark Hsiao, Ya-Fan Yeh, Pei-Yun Hsueh, and Selina Lee. 2011. Intelligent nutrition service for personalized dietary guidelines and lifestyle intervention. In 2011 International Joint Conference on Service Sciences . IEEE, 11–16. Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Tec...

2011
[78]

Ting-Chen Chloe Hsu, Pauline Whelan, Julie Gandrup, Christopher J Armitage, Lis Cordingley, and John McBeth. 2025. Personalized interventions for behaviour change: A scoping review of just-in-time adaptive interventions. British Journal of Health Psychology 30, 1 (2025), e12766

2025
[79]

Chin-Yuan Huang, Ming-Chin Yang, Chin-Yu Huang, Yu-Jui Chen, Meng-Lin Wu, and Kai-Wen Chen. 2018. A chatbot-supported smart wireless interactive healthcare system for weight control and health promotion. In 2018 IEEE international conference on industrial engineering and engin...

2018
[80]

Yu-Chiao Huang, Ching-Hu Lu, Tsung-Han Yang, Li-Chen Fu, and Ching-Yao Wang. 2010. Context-aware personal diet suggestion system. In Aging Friendly Technology for Health and Independence: 8th International Conference on Smart Homes and Health Telematics, ICOST 2010, Seoul, Kor...

2010
[81]

Claudia Hunot, Alison Fildes, Helen Croker, Clare H Llewellyn, Jane Wardle, and Rebecca J Beeken. 2016. Appetitive traits and relationships with BMI in adults: Development of the Adult Eating Behaviour Questionnaire. Appetite 105 (2016), 356–363

2016
[82]

Ioannis Ioakimidis, Modjtaba Zandian, Cecilia Bergh, and Per S¨"odersten. 2009. A method for the control of eating rate: a potential intervention in eating disorders. Behavior research methods 41, 3 (2009), 755–760

2009
[83]

Rahul Islam and Sang Won Bae. 2024. Facepsy: An open-source affective mobile sensing system-analyzing facial behavior and head gesture for depression detection in naturalistic settings. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 8, MHCI (2024), 1–32

2024
[84]

Alejandro Jaimes and Nicu Sebe. 2007. Multimodal human–computer interaction: A survey. Computer vision and image understanding 108, 1-2 (2007), 116–134

2007
[85]

Pascal Jansen, Mark Colley, and Enrico Rukzio. 2022. A design space for human sensor and actuator focused in-vehicle interaction based on a systematic literature review. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies 6, 2 (2022), 1–51

2022
[86]

David A Jaques, Gregoire Wuerzner, and Belen Ponte. 2021. Sodium intake as a cardiovascular risk factor: a narrative review. Nutrients 13, 9 (2021), 3177

2021
[87]

Yeong Rae Joi, Beom Taek Jeong, Jin Hwang Kim, Joongsin Park, Juhee Cho, Eunju Seong, Byung-Chull Bae, and Jun Dong Cho. 2016. Interactive and connected tableware for promoting children’s vegetable-eating and family interaction. In Proceedings of the The 15th International Con...

2016
[88]

Emil Jovanov, Edward Sazonov, and Carmen Poon. 2014. Sensors and systems for obesity care and research. In 2014 36th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society . IEEE, 3188–3191

2014
[89]

Gyuwon Jung, Andrzej Zarzycki, and Ji-Hyun Lee. 2017. Mom’s tray: real-time dietary monitoring system. In SIGGRAPH Asia 2017 Mobile Graphics & Interactive Applications . 1–5

2017
[90]

Imaging the Future Medicine

Insung Jung, Kyoungjin Lee, Seoungchan Park, Raewoong Park, Beom Park, and Gi-Nam Wang. 2007. Wellbeing life care agent based decision support system framework for metabolic syndrome disease in ubiquitous. In World Congress on Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering 2006: A...

2007
[91]

Azusa Kadomura, Cheng-Yuan Li, Yen-Chang Chen, Hao-Hua Chu, Koji Tsukada, and Itiro Siio. 2013. Sensing fork and persuasive game for improving eating behavior. In Proceedings of the 2013 ACM conference on Pervasive and ubiquitous computing adjunct publication . 71–74

2013
[92]

Azusa Kadomura, Cheng-Yuan Li, Koji Tsukada, Hao-Hua Chu, and Itiro Siio. 2014. Persuasive technology to improve eating behavior using a sensor-embedded fork. In Proceedings of the 2014 acm international joint conference on pervasive and ubiquitous computing . 319–329

2014
[93]

Azusa Kadomura, Koji Tsukada, and Itiro Siio. 2013. EducaTableware: computer-augmented tableware to enhance the eating experiences. In CHI’13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems . Association for Computing Machinery, 3071–3074

2013
[94]

Haik Kalantarian, Nabil Alshurafa, Mohammad Pourhomayoun, Shruti Sarin, Tuan Le, and Majid Sarrafzadeh. 2014. Spectrogram-based audio classification of nutrition intake. In 2014 IEEE Healthcare Innovation Conference (HIC) . IEEE, 161–164

2014
[95]

Haruka Kamachi, Sae Ohkubo, Anna Yokokubo, and Guillaume Lopez. 2023. Eating Habit Improvement System Using Dietary Sound.. In HEALTHINF. 346–353

2023
[96]

ul Kaner, H¨

G¨"ul Kaner, H¨"useyin Uğur Genç, Salih Berk Dinçer, Deniz Erdoğan, and Aykut Coşkun. 2018. GROW: a smart bottle that uses its surface as an ambient display to motivate daily water intake. In Extended Abstracts of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–6

2018
[97]

Jyoti Kanjalkar, Pramod Kanjalkar, Raj Khanke, Rushikesh Mane, Kunal Kharat, and Kanad Kolhe. 2024. An AI-Driven Framework for Personalized Diet Generation and Nutrition Suggestions Using Machine Learning, Computer Vision and NLP. In 2024 International Conference on Integrated...

2024
[98]

AbdelGhani Karkar, Tooba Salahuddin, Noor Almaadeed, Jihad Mohamad Aljaam, and Osama Halabi. 2018. A virtual reality nutrition awareness learning system for children. In 2018 IEEE Conference on e-Learning, e-Management and e-Services (IC3e) . IEEE, 97–102

2018
[99]

Shahzeer Karmali, Balpreet Brar, Xinzhe Shi, Arya M Sharma, Christopher De Gara, and Daniel W Birch. 2013. Weight recidivism post-bariatric surgery: a systematic review. Obesity surgery 23 (2013), 1922–1933

2013
[100]

Aditi Kesari and Julia Y Noel. 2022. Nutritional assessment. (2022). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK580496/ Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol., Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: August 2025. 34 • Fang, Zhou, et al

2022
[101]

Rohit Ashok Khot, Jung-Ying Yi, and Deepti Aggarwal. 2020. SWAN: Designing a companion spoon for mindful eating. In Proceedings of the fourteenth international conference on tangible, embedded, and embodied interaction . 743–756

2020
[102]

Joohee Kim and Byung-Chull Bae. 2018. An Animated Emoji Feedback System for Eating Rate Guidance. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM International Joint Conference and 2018 International Symposium on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing and Wearable Computers . 388–391

2018
[103]

Joohee Kim and Byung-Chull Bae. 2018. A smartwatch-based feedback system for eating rate guidance. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM International Joint Conference and 2018 International Symposium on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing and Wearable Computers . 384–387

2018
[104]

Joohee Kim, Kwang-Jae Lee, Mankyung Lee, Nahyeon Lee, Byung-Chull Bae, Genehee Lee, Juhee Cho, Young Mog Shim, and Jun-Dong Cho. 2016. Slowee: A smart eating-speed guide system with light and vibration feedback. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on H...

2016
[105]

Joohee Kim, Mankyung Lee, Kwang-Jae Lee, TaeYang Lee, Byung-Chull Bae, and Jun-Dong Cho. 2016. An eating speed guide system using a wristband and tabletop unit. InProceedings of the 2016 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing: Adjunct. 121–124

2016
[106]

Jaejeung Kim, Joonyoung Park, and Uichin Lee. 2016. EcoMeal: a smart tray for promoting healthy dietary habits. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 2165–2170

2016
[107]

Rebecca Kleinberger, Akito Oshiro Van Troyer, and Qian Janice Wang. 2023. Auditory seasoning filters: Altering food perception via augmented sonic feedback of chewing sounds. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–15

2023
[108]

Ju-Chun Ko, Yi-Ping Hung, and Hao-hua Chu. 2007. Mug-Tree: a Playful Mug to encourage healthy habit of drinking fluid regularly. the Late Breaking Results (LBR) session of Proc. UBICOMP (2007)

2007
[109]

Naoya Koizumi, Hidekazu Tanaka, Yuji Uema, and Masahiko Inami. 2011. Chewing jockey: augmented food texture by using sound based on the cross-modal effect. In Proceedings of the 8th international conference on advances in computer entertainment technology . 1–4

2011
[110]

Joachim F Kreutzer, Florian Kosch, Stefan Ramesberger, Samuel MF Reimer, and Tim C L ¨"uth. 2015. Base station concepts of an automatic fluid intake monitoring system. In 2015 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO) . IEEE, 126–131

2015
[111]

Nanditha Krishna, AS Surabhi, Ashrita Dikshit VA, Bhagyashree Iliger, and G Sreedevi. 2025. Nutrifit: Smart Food Tracking and Nutritional Guidance System Using Sensor-Based Monitoring. In 2025 3rd International Conference on Intelligent Data Communication Technologies and Inte...

2025
[112]

Devender Kumar, Steven Jeuris, Jakob E Bardram, and Nicola Dragoni. 2020. Mobile and wearable sensing frameworks for mHealth studies and applications: A systematic review. ACM Transactions on Computing for Healthcare 2, 1 (2020), 1–28

2020
[113]

Shruti P Kumbhare, Disha Joshi, Mitali Jain, and Rushikesh A Deshmukh. 2023. Low-cost Health Band with Smart Features using IoT. In 2023 7th International Conference on Intelligent Computing and Control Systems (ICICCS) . IEEE, 1575–1580

2023
[114]

Taein Kwon, Eunjeong Park, and Hyukjae Chang. 2016. Smart refrigerator for healthcare using food image classification. InProceedings of the 7th ACM International Conference on Bioinformatics, Computational Biology, and Health Informatics . 483–484

2016
[115]

Oscar D Lara and Miguel A Labrador. 2012. A survey on human activity recognition using wearable sensors. IEEE communications surveys & tutorials 15, 3 (2012), 1192–1209

2012
[116]

Junghyo Lee, Prajwal Paudyal, Ayan Banerjee, and Sandeep KS Gupta. 2019. A user-adaptive modeling for eating action identification from wristband time series. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (TiiS) 9, 4 (2019), 1–35

2019
[117]

Kwangyoung Lee, Hyewon Cho, Kobiljon Toshnazarov, Nematjon Narziev, So Young Rhim, Kyungsik Han, YoungTae Noh, and Hwajung Hong. 2020. Toward future-centric personal informatics: Expecting stressful events and preparing personalized interventions in stress management. In Proce...

2020
[118]

Imaging the Future Medicine

Sanghun Lee, Ho-Young Byung, Hubert Choe, Bo-Young Park, Rae-Woong Park, Peom Park, Hee-Jung Hwang, Byung-Moon Lee, Young-Ho Lee, and Un-Gu Kang. 2007. Lifestyle recommendation system using Framingham heart study based clinical decision support system (CDSS). In World Congress...

2007
[119]

Pascal Lessel, Maximilian Altmeyer, Frederic Kerber, Michael Barz, Cornelius Leidinger, and Antonio Kr¨"uger. 2016. Watercoaster: A device to encourage people in a playful fashion to reach their daily water intake level. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstr...

2016
[120]

Benjamin J Li and Jeremy N Bailenson. 2018. Exploring the influence of haptic and olfactory cues of a virtual donut on satiation and eating behavior. Presence 26, 03 (2018), 337–354

2018
[121]

Ian Li, Anind Dey, and Jodi Forlizzi. 2010. A stage-based model of personal informatics systems. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems . 557–566

2010
[123]

Xinyue Liu, Xipei Ren, Xinrui Ren, and Xiaoqing Sun. 2024. Hicclip: Sonification of Augmented Eating Sounds to Intervene Snacking Behaviors. In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference . 1372–1384

2024
[124]

M Barbara E Livingstone and L Kirsty Pourshahidi. 2014. Portion size and obesity. Advances in nutrition 5, 6 (2014), 829–834

2014
[125]

Jin-Ling Lo, Tung-yun Lin, Hao-hua Chu, Hsi-Chin Chou, Jen-hao Chen, Jane Yung-jen Hsu, and Polly Huang. 2007. Playful tray: adopting ubicomp and persuasive techniques into play-based occupational therapy for reducing poor eating behavior in young children. In International Co...

2007
[126]

Bernd Ludwig, Stefan Mandl, David Elsweiler, and Stefanie Mika. 2011. REFRESH: REcommendations and feedback for realising and stabilising health. In 2011 5th International Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare (PervasiveHealth) and Workshops. IEEE, 206–207

2011
[127]

Yuhan Luo, Young-Ho Kim, Bongshin Lee, Naeemul Hassan, and Eun Kyoung Choe. 2021. Foodscrap: Promoting rich data capture and reflective food journaling through speech input. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference . 606–618

2021
[128]

Jacqueline Louise Mair, Alicia Salamanca-Sanabria, Mareike Augsburger, Bea Franziska Frese, Stefanie Abend, Robert Jakob, Tobias Kowatsch, and Severin Haug. 2023. Effective behavior change techniques in digital health interventions for the prevention or management of noncommun...

2023
[129]

Jennifer Mankoff, Gary Hsieh, Ho Chak Hung, Sharon Lee, and Elizabeth Nitao. 2002. Using low-cost sensing to support nutritional awareness. In UbiComp 2002: Ubiquitous Computing: 4th International Conference Göteborg, Sweden, September 29–October 1, 2002 Proceedings 4. Springe...

2002
[130]

Christos Maramis, Christos Diou, Ioannis Ioakeimidis, Irini Lekka, Gabriela Dudnik, Monica Mars, Nikos Maglaveras, Cecilia Bergh, and Anastasios Delopoulos. 2014. Preventing obesity and eating disorders through behavioural modifications: The SPLENDID vision. In 2014 4th Intern...

2014
[131]

Hidenori Matsui, Takahiro Hashizume, and Koji Yatani. 2018. Al-light: An alcohol-sensing smart ice cube. Proceedings of the ACM on interactive, mobile, wearable and ubiquitous technologies 2, 3 (2018), 1–20

2018
[132]

Daiki Mayumi, Yugo Nakamura, Yuki Matsuda, Annalena Aicher, Keiichi Yasumoto, and Wolfgang Minker. 2023. Design of a Spoken Dialogue System to Provide Food Knowledge to Users while Eating. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on the Internet of Things. 154–157

2023
[133]

Jerry Mendel and Dongrui Wu. 2010. Perceptual computing: aiding people in making subjective judgments . John Wiley & Sons

2010
[134]

Engin Mendi, Ocal Ozyavuz, Emrah Pekesen, and Coskun Bayrak. 2013. Food intake monitoring system for mobile devices. In 5th IEEE International Workshop on Advances in Sensors and Interfaces IW ASI. IEEE, 31–33

2013
[135]

AE Mesas, M Muñoz-Pareja, E López-García, and F Rodríguez-Artalejo. 2012. Selected eating behaviours and excess body weight: a systematic review. Obesity Reviews 13, 2 (2012), 106–135

2012
[136]

Parvin Mirmiran, Zahra Bahadoran, and Zahra Gaeini. 2021. Common limitations and challenges of dietary clinical trials for translation into clinical practices. International journal of endocrinology and metabolism 19, 3 (2021), e108170

2021
[137]

Sneha Mishra, Ibrahim Ahmad Siddiqui, Ketan Sabale, and Ahmed Alkhayyat. 2024. A Hybrid LLM based Model for Calorie Tracker and Dietary Control. In 2024 International Conference on Intelligent Computing and Emerging Communication Technologies (ICEC) . IEEE, 1–5

2024
[138]

Robb Mitchell, Alexandra Papadimitriou, Youran You, and Laurens Boer. 2015. Really eating together: a kinetic table to synchronise social dining experiences. In Proceedings of the 6th Augmented Human International Conference . 173–174

2015
[139]

Vimal Mollyn, Karan Ahuja, Dhruv Verma, Chris Harrison, and Mayank Goel. 2022. SAMoSA: Sensing activities with motion and subsampled audio. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies 6, 3 (2022), 1–19

2022
[140]

Bobak J Mortazavi and Ricardo Gutierrez-Osuna. 2023. A review of digital innovations for diet monitoring and precision nutrition. Journal of diabetes science and technology 17, 1 (2023), 217–223

2023
[141]

Eric C Moses, Chris S Crawford, Edward Sazonov, Megan A McCrory, John Graham Thomas, and Janine A Higgins. 2023. Investigating the Design of Just-in-Time Adaptive Interventions (JITAIs) Messages Targeting Eating Behaviors. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Southeast Conference. 144–148

2023
[142]

Tamanna Motahar and Jason Wiese. 2022. A Review of Personal Informatics Research for People with Motor Disabilities. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies 6, 2 (2022), 1–31

2022
[143]

Paula Moynihan. 2016. Sugars and dental caries: evidence for setting a recommended threshold for intake. Advances in nutrition 7, 1 (2016), 149–156

2016
[144]

Roderick Murray-Smith, John H Williamson, and Sebastian Stein. 2024. Active Inference and Human–Computer Interaction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.14741 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[145]

Inbal Nahum-Shani, John J Dziak, and David W Wetter. 2022. MCMTC: a pragmatic framework for selecting an experimental design to inform the development of digital interventions. Frontiers in digital Health 4 (2022), 798025

2022
[146]

Inbal Nahum-Shani, Shawna N Smith, Bonnie J Spring, Linda M Collins, Katie Witkiewitz, Ambuj Tewari, and Susan A Murphy. 2016. Just-in-time adaptive interventions (JITAIs) in mobile health: key components and design principles for ongoing health behavior Proc. ACM Interact. Mo...

2016
[147]

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
[148]

Yugo Nakamura, Rei Nakaoka, Yuki Matsuda, and Keiichi Yasumoto. 2023. eat2pic: An eating-painting interactive system to nudge users into making healthier diet choices. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies 7, 1 (2023), 1–23

2023
[149]

Takuji Narumi, Shinya Nishizaka, Takashi Kajinami, Tomohiro Tanikawa, and Michitaka Hirose. 2011. Augmented reality flavors: gustatory display based on edible marker and cross-modal interaction. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 93–102

2011
[150]

Prema Nedungadi, Akshay Jayakumar, and Raghu Raman. 2018. Personalized health monitoring system for managing well-being in rural areas. Journal of medical systems 42 (2018), 1–11

2018
[151]

Subigya Nepal, Arvind Pillai, William Campbell, Talie Massachi, Michael V Heinz, Ashmita Kunwar, Eunsol Soul Choi, Xuhai Xu, Joanna Kuc, Jeremy F Huckins, et al . 2024. MindScape study: integrating LLM and behavioral sensing for personalized AI-driven journaling experiences. P...

2024
[152]

Patrick Mahlen O’Neil, Hal S Currey, Amy A Hirsch, Robert J Malcolm, James D Sexauer, F Elizabeth Riddle, and C Inga Taylor. 1979. Development and validation of the Eating Behavior Inventory. Journal of behavioral assessment 1 (1979), 123–132

1979
[153]

Matthew J Page, Joanne E McKenzie, Patrick M Bossuyt, Isabelle Boutron, Tammy C Hoffmann, Cynthia D Mulrow, Larissa Shamseer, Jennifer M Tetzlaff, Elie A Akl, Sue E Brennan, et al. 2021. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. bmj 372 (2021)

2021
[154]

Sibo Pan, Xipei Ren, Steven Vos, and Aarnout Brombacher. 2021. Digital tools to promote healthy eating for working-age individuals: a scoping review. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium of Chinese CHI . 1–8

2021
[155]

PB Pankajavalli, R Saikumar, and R Maheswaran. 2017. Hydration reminding smart bottle: IoT experimentation. In 2017 Innovations in Power and Advanced Computing Technologies (i-PACT). IEEE, 1–5

2017
[156]

Peom Park and Kyong Pil Min. 2007. Development of the wellbeing life support system in ubiquitous. In 2007 International Conference on Convergence Information Technology (ICCIT 2007) . IEEE, 1108–1115

2007
[157]

Mario O Parra, Luis A Castro, and Jesus Favela. 2023. Enhancing Well-being Through Food: A Conversational Agent for Mindful Eating and Cooking. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 2023 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing & the 2023 ACM Internatio...

2023
[158]

Trevor Pels, Christina Kao, and Saguna Goel. 2014. FatBelt: motivating behavior change through isomorphic feedback. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 27th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology . 123–124

2014
[159]

Vinay Poddar, Vanshaj Barnwal, and D Saisanthiya. 2024. Aqua-Trail: IOT Based Smart Water Bottle. In 2024 International Conference on Trends in Quantum Computing and Emerging Business Technologies . IEEE, 1–6

2024
[160]

Erika S Poole. 2013. HCI and mobile health interventions: how human–computer interaction can contribute to successful mobile health interventions. Translational behavioral medicine 3, 4 (2013), 402–405

2013
[161]

Barry M Popkin, Kristen E D’Anci, and Irwin H Rosenberg. 2010. Water, hydration, and health. Nutrition reviews 68, 8 (2010), 439–458

2010
[162]

Philips Kokoh Prasetyo, Palakorn Achananuparp, and Ee-Peng Lim. 2020. Foodbot: a goal-oriented just-in-time healthy eating interventions chatbot. In Proceedings of the 14th EAI International Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare . 436–439

2020
[163]

Xiang-Dong Qu and Ge Yu. 2014. Personal healthy living management system. In 2014 9th International Conference on Computer Science & Education. IEEE, 692–695

2014
[164]

Margaret Raber, Yue Liao, Anne Rara, Susan M Schembre, Kate J Krause, Larkin Strong, Carrie Daniel-MacDougall, and Karen Basen- Engquist. 2021. A systematic review of the use of dietary self-monitoring in behavioural weight loss interventions: delivery, intensity and effective...

2021
[165]

Petar Radanliev. 2025. Privacy, ethics, transparency, and accountability in AI systems for wearable devices. Frontiers in Digital Health 7 (2025), 1431246

2025
[166]

Amon Rapp and Arianna Boldi. 2023. Exploring the lived experience of behavior change technologies: Towards an existential model of behavior change for HCI. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 30, 6 (2023), 1–50

2023
[167]

Christian Rask-Madsen and C Ronald Kahn. 2012. Tissue–specific insulin signaling, metabolic syndrome, and cardiovascular disease. Arteriosclerosis, thrombosis, and vascular biology 32, 9 (2012), 2052–2059

2012
[168]

Rahulkrishnan Ravindran, Radhika Ravindran, and T Anjali. 2022. Hydrationcheck: An iot based smart water bottle. In 2022 13th International Conference on Computing Communication and Networking Technologies (ICCCNT) . IEEE, 1–5

2022
[169]

Andrew Reynolds, Jim Mann, John Cummings, Nicola Winter, Evelyn Mete, and Lisa Te Morenga. 2019. Carbohydrate quality and human health: a series of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The Lancet 393, 10170 (2019), 434–445. Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol...

2019
[170]

Saeyoung Rho, Injung Lee, Hankyung Kim, Jonghyuk Jung, Hyungi Kim, Bong Gwan Jun, and Youn-kyung Lim. 2017. Futureself: what happens when we forecast self-trackers? Future health statuses?. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems . 637–648

2017
[171]

Hannes Ritschel, Andreas Seiderer, Kathrin Janowski, Ilhan Aslan, and Elisabeth André. 2018. Drink-o-mender: An adaptive robotic drink adviser. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Multisensory Approaches to Human-Food Interaction . 1–8

2018
[172]

Eric Robinson, Eva Almiron-Roig, Femke Rutters, Cees De Graaf, Ciarán G Forde, Catrin Tudur Smith, Sarah J Nolan, and Susan A Jebb
[173]

Nicole L Robinson, Jennifer Connolly, Leanne Hides, and David J Kavanagh. 2020. Social robots as treatment agents: Pilot randomized controlled trial to deliver a behavior change intervention. Internet Interventions 21 (2020), 100320

2020
[174]

Nicole L Robinson, Jennifer Connolly, Gavin Suddery, Madeliene Turner, and David J Kavanagh. 2021. A humanoid social robot to provide personalized feedback for health promotion in diet, physical activity, alcohol and cigarette use: a health clinic trial. In2021 30th IEEE inter...

2021
[175]

Tobias Röddiger, Christopher Clarke, Paula Breitling, Tim Schneegans, Haibin Zhao, Hans Gellersen, and Michael Beigl. 2022. Sensing with earables: A systematic literature review and taxonomy of phenomena. Proceedings of the ACM on interactive, mobile, wearable and ubiquitous t...

2022
[176]

Barbara J Rolls, Erin L Morris, and Liane S Roe. 2002. Portion size of food affects energy intake in normal-weight and overweight men and women. The American journal of clinical nutrition 76, 6 (2002), 1207–1213

2002
[177]

Koustuv Saha, Ted Grover, Stephen M Mattingly, Vedant Das Swain, Pranshu Gupta, Gonzalo J Martinez, Pablo Robles-Granda, Gloria Mark, Aaron Striegel, and Munmun De Choudhury. 2021. Person-centered predictions of psychological constructs with social media contextualized by mult...

2021
[178]

Daniel Salber, Anind K Dey, and Gregory D Abowd. 1999. The context toolkit: Aiding the development of context-enabled applications. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 434–441

1999
[179]

Gerard Salton, Anita Wong, and Chung-Shu Yang. 1975. A vector space model for automatic indexing. Commun. ACM 18, 11 (1975), 613–620

1975
[180]

Hillol Sarker, Moushumi Sharmin, Amin Ahsan Ali, Md Mahbubur Rahman, Rummana Bari, Syed Monowar Hossain, and Santosh Kumar. 2014. Assessing the availability of users to engage in just-in-time intervention in the natural environment. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM international...

2014
[181]

Scisco, Eric R

Jenna L. Scisco, Eric R. Muth, Yujie Dong, and Adam W. Hoover. 2011. Slowing Bite-Rate Reduces Energy Intake: An Application of the Bite Counter Device. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 111 (2011), 1231–1235

2011
[182]

Jee-Seon Shim, Kyungwon Oh, and Hyeon Chang Kim. 2014. Dietary assessment methods in epidemiologic studies. Epidemiology and health 36 (2014), e2014009

2014
[183]

Divyansh Singhal, Sasi Snigdha Yadavalli, Nupur Patil, Siddharth Chauhan, and Madhav Rao. 2024. Multifunctional Smart Spoon for Parkinson’s: Stability Enhancement and Diagnostic Tools. In 2024 9th International Conference on Computer Science and Engineering (UBMK). IEEE, 608–612

2024
[184]

Andy Skinner, Zoi Toumpakari, Christopher Stone, and Laura Johnson. 2020. Future directions for integrative objective assessment of eating using wearable sensing technology. Frontiers in nutrition 7 (2020), 80

2020
[185]

Arnold Slyper. 2021. Oral processing, satiation and obesity: overview and hypotheses. Diabetes, Metabolic Syndrome and Obesity (2021), 3399–3415

2021
[186]

Albert J Stunkard and Samuel Messick. 1985. The three-factor eating questionnaire to measure dietary restraint, disinhibition and hunger. Journal of psychosomatic research 29, 1 (1985), 71–83

1985
[187]

Yuto Sugita, Keiichi Zempo, Yasumasa Ando, Yuya Kakutani, Koichi Mizutani, and Naoto Wakatsuki. 2018. Diet gamification toward chewing amount control via head mounted display. In SIGGRAPH Asia 2018 Posters . Association for Computing Machinery, 1–2

2018
[188]

ur¨"uten, Chuhan Shi, and Xiaojuan Ma. 2020

Zhida Sun, Sitong Wang, Wenjie Yang, Onur Y¨"ur¨"uten, Chuhan Shi, and Xiaojuan Ma. 2020. "" A Postcard from Your Food Journey in the Past"" Promoting Self-Reflection on Social Food Posting. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference . 1819–1832

2020
[189]

Michelle Takemoto, Todd M Manini, Dori E Rosenberg, Amanda Lazar, Zvinka Z Zlatar, Sai Krupa Das, and Jacqueline Kerr. 2018. Diet and activity assessments and interventions using technology in older adults. American journal of preventive medicine 55, 4 (2018), e105–e115

2018
[190]

Lie Ming Tang, Judy Kay, Farahnaz Yekeh, and Bob Kummerfeld. 2015. Introducing SAL, simple, situated, ambient loggers, for personal goals. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing and Proceedings of the 2015 AC...

2015
[191]

Yunus Terzioğlu, Keith Rebello, and Timothy Bickmore. 2023. Influencing Health-Related Decision Making and Therapeutic Alliance with Robot Mobility and Deixis. In 2023 32nd IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN) . Proc. ACM Interact...

2023
[192]

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
[193]

Frances E Thompson and Amy F Subar. 2017. Dietary assessment methodology. Nutrition in the Prevention and Treatment of Disease (2017), 5–48

2017
[194]

Benjarat Tirasirichai, Peeraya Thanomboon, Pimpaknat Soontorntham, Worapan Kusakunniran, and Mark Robinson. 2018. Bloom Balance: Calorie Balancing Application With Scientific Validation. In 2018 15th International Joint Conference on Computer Science and Software Engineering (...

2018
[195]

Robin Tommy, Aswahty S Krishna, et al. 2017. Interactive water bottle application on a smart phone to enhance user water consumption. In 2017 International Conference on Current Trends in Computer, Electrical, Electronics and Communication (CTCEEC) . IEEE, 1072–1073

2017
[196]

Andreas Triantafyllidis, Anastasios Alexiadis, Dimosthenis Elmas, Konstantinos Votis, and Dimitrios Tzovaras. 2019. A social robot- based platform for prevention of childhood obesity. In 2019 IEEE 19th International Conference on Bioinformatics and Bioengineering (BIBE). IEEE, 914–917

2019
[197]

Gabrielle M Turner-McGrievy, Alycia Boutté, Anthony Crimarco, Sara Wilcox, Brent E Hutto, Adam Hoover, and Eric R Muth. 2017. Byte by bite: Use of a mobile Bite Counter and weekly behavioral challenges to promote weight loss. Smart Health 3 (2017), 20–26

2017
[198]

Saskia Van Dantzig, Murtaza Bulut, Martijn Krans, Anouk Van Der Lans, and Boris De Ruyter. 2018. Enhancing physical activity through context-aware coaching. In Proceedings of the 12th EAI international conference on pervasive computing Technologies for Healthcare . 187–190

2018
[199]

Sallis, Heleen Spittaels, and Johannes Brug

Corneel Vandelanotte, Ilse De Bourdeaudhuij, James F. Sallis, Heleen Spittaels, and Johannes Brug. 2005. Efficacy of sequential or simultaneous interactive computer-tailored interventions for increasing physical activity and decreasing fat intake.Annals of Behavioral Medicine ...

2005
[200]

S Sajithra Varun, Manasa An, S Meghana, and V Nirmala. 2023. Smart Interactive Water Bottle. In 2023 7th International Conference on Design Innovation for 3 Cs Compute Communicate Control (ICDI3C) . IEEE, 47–49

2023
[201]

Mabel Vazquez, Elitania Jimenez, Juan Ivan Nieto, Juan de Dios Sanchez, Armando Garcia, and Juan Pablo Torres. 2015. Development of a mobile health architecture to prevent childhood obesity. IEEE Latin America Transactions 13, 5 (2015), 1520–1527

2015
[202]

Ekaterina Volkova, Nicole Li, Elizabeth Dunford, Helen Eyles, Michelle Crino, Jo Michie, Cliona Ni Mhurchu, et al. 2016. “Smart” RCTs: development of a smartphone app for fully automated nutrition-labeling intervention trials. JMIR mHealth and uHealth 4, 1 (2016), e5219

2016
[203]

Georg Waltner, Michael Schwarz, Stefan Ladstätter, Anna Weber, Patrick Luley, Horst Bischof, Meinrad Lindschinger, Irene Schmid, and Lucas Paletta. 2015. MANGO-mobile augmented reality with functional eating guidance and food awareness. In New Trends in Image Analysis and Proc...

2015
[204]

Hui Wang and Yu Zhang. 2021. Research on the design of chopsticks for dining reminders based on HSI color space recognition. In 2021 4th International Conference on Data Science and Information Technology . 317–322

2021
[205]

Leanne Wang, Margaret Allman-Farinelli, Jiue-An Yang, Jennifer C Taylor, Luke Gemming, Eric Hekler, and Anna Rangan. 2022. Enhancing nutrition care through real-time, sensor-based capture of eating occasions: a scoping review. Frontiers in Nutrition 9 (2022), 852984

2022
[206]

Xiaoyu Wang, Hannah van Iterson, S Sandra Bae, and Rong-Hao Liang. 2025. Reflecting on Solo Dining Behavior with Annotated Data Physicalization. In Proceedings of the Nineteenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction . 1–8

2025
[207]

Yanxin Wei, Khairun Nisa’ Minhad, Nur Asmiza Selamat, Sawal Hamid Md Ali, Mohammad Arif Sobhan Bhuiyan, Kelvin Jian Aun Ooi, and Siti Balqis Samdin. 2022. A review of chewing detection for automated dietary monitoring. Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers 45, 4 (2022)...

2022
[208]

Mark Weiser. 1991. The Computer for the 21 st Century. Scientific american 265, 3 (1991), 94–105

1991
[209]

Angga Edwin Wijanarko, Maman Abdurohman, and Aji Gautama Putrada. 2019. A Fuzzy Logic Based Internet of Things (IoT) for Smart Water Bottle. In 2019 5th International Conference on Computing Engineering and Design (ICCED) . IEEE, 1–6

2019
[210]

Yahan Xie, Hanhui Yang, Jing Huang, Jing Wang, Hanxuan Li, and Yijie Guo. 2023. CHIBO: A Pneumatic Robot that Provides Real-time Intervention for Parent-child Feeding Behavior. InCompanion of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. 725–729

2023
[211]

Lucy Yardley, Bonnie J Spring, Heleen Riper, Leanne G Morrison, David H Crane, Kristina Curtis, Gina C Merchant, Felix Naughton, and Ann Blandford. 2016. Understanding and promoting effective engagement with digital behavior change interventions. American journal of preventive...

2016
[212]

Xu Ye, Guanling Chen, Yang Gao, Honghao Wang, and Yu Cao. 2016. Assisting food journaling with automatic eating detection. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems . 3255–3262. Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquito...

2016
[213]

Mert Yıldız and Aykut Coşkun. 2019. Wwall: A Public Water Dispenser System to Motivate Regular Water Intake in the Office Environment. In Companion Publication of the 2019 on Designing Interactive Systems Conference 2019 Companion . 347–352

2019
[214]

Junko Yoshida, Eri Eguchi, Kenjiro Nagaoka, Tatsuo Ito, and Keiki Ogino. 2018. Association of night eating habits with metabolic syndrome and its components: a longitudinal study. BMC public health 18 (2018), 1–12

2018
[215]

Thanay Kumar YR, Sudhanva S Joshi, AT Sujan, Ujwal Karanth KV, Asha Rani KP, and S Gowrishankar. 2024. NutriSpy: Investigate Your Food’s Health Quotient. In 2024 IEEE North Karnataka Subsection Flagship International Conference (NKCon) . IEEE, 1–6

2024
[216]

Rodrigo Zenun Franco. 2017. Online recommender system for personalized nutrition advice. In Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM Conference on Recommender Systems . 411–415

2017
[217]

Yixuan Zhang and Andrea G Parker. 2020. Eat4Thought: a design of food journaling. In Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–8

2020
[218]

Zuoyi Zhang, Teng Han, John Swystun, Yumiko Sakamoto, and Pourang Irani. 2020. Design to eat smart: A design framework for pervasive interventions of eating habits. In Proceedings of the 14th EAI International Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare. 108–121

2020
[219]

Zuoyi Zhang, Junhyeok Kim, Yumiko Sakamoto, Teng Han, and Pourang Irani. 2019. Applying a pneumatic interface to intervene with rapid eating behaviour. In Improving Usability, Safety and Patient Outcomes with Health Information Technology . IOS Press, 513–519

2019
[220]

Yijun Zhao, Changchao Yu, Jintao Nie, Mengmeng Dong, Yingying Sang, Fangtian Ying, and Guanyun Wang. 2021. FunEat: an interactive tableware for improving eating habits in children. In Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–5

2021
[221]

Junxiang Zheng, Bing Jiang, Saurabh Biswas, Su Young Lee, Erin Ealba Bumann, Teresa E Lever, Jeonghee Kim, and Hangue Park. 2025. Alteration of Mastication Force via Intraoral Closed-loop Electrical Stimulation. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering (2025)

2025
[222]

Ying Zhou, Yingqiao Chen, Leijing Zhou, and Shijian Luo. 2021. MossWater: A Living Media Interface for Encouraging Office Workers’ Daily Water Intake. In Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–6

2021
[223]

Fritz Zwicky. 1967. The morphological approach to discovery, invention, research and construction. In New methods of thought and procedure: contributions to the symposium on methodologies . Springer, 273–297. Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol., Vol. 1, No. 1...

1967
[2014]

The American journal of clinical nutrition 100, 1 (2014), 123–151

A systematic review and meta-analysis examining the effect of eating rate on energy intake and hunger. The American journal of clinical nutrition 100, 1 (2014), 123–151

2014
[2015]

IEEE Sensors Journal 15 (2015), 3909–3916

Recognition of Nutrition Intake Using Time-Frequency Decomposition in a Wearable Necklace Using a Piezoelectric Sensor. IEEE Sensors Journal 15 (2015), 3909–3916. Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol., Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: August 2025. 30 ...

2015
[2021]

Preventive medicine reports 24 (2021), 101630

Added sugars, saturated fat, and sodium intake from snacks among US adolescents by eating location. Preventive medicine reports 24 (2021), 101630

2021
[2022]

Burnout and the quantified workplace: tensions around personal sensing interventions for stress in resident physicians.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-computer Interaction 6, CSCW2 (2022), 1–48

2022
[2023]

Nutrients 15, 22 (2023), 4809

What is food noise? A conceptual model of food cue reactivity. Nutrients 15, 22 (2023), 4809

2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [122]

Zilu Liang. 2024. Exploring the Impact of Wearable Continuous Glucose Monitoring on Glucose Regulation and Eating Behavior in Healthy Individuals: A Pilot Study. In Proceedings of the Behavior Transformation by IoT International Workshop . 7–12. Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol., Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: August 2025. ...

2024

[2] [28]

See, Hear, Touch, Smell, and,... Eat!

Xueyan Cai, Kecheng Jin, Shang Shi, Shichao Huang, Ouying Huang, Xiaodong Wang, Jiahao Cheng, Weijia Lin, Jiayu Yao, Yuqi Hu, et al. 2024. " See, Hear, Touch, Smell, and,... Eat!": Helping Children Self-Improve Their Food Literacy and Eating Behavior through a Tangible Multi-Sensory Puzzle Game. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual ACM Interaction Design and...

2024

[3] [17]

Leire Bastida, Gloria Cea, Ana Moya, Alba Gallego, Eugenio Gaeta, Sara Sillaurren, Paulo Barbosa, Sabrina Souto, Eujessika Rodrigues, Macarena Torrego-Ellacuría, et al. 2023. Promoting obesity prevention and healthy habits in childhood: the OCARIoT experience. IEEE Journal of Translational Engineering in Health and Medicine 11 (2023), 261–270

2023

[4] [1]

P Abisha and P Rajalakshmy. 2017. Embedded implementation of a wearable food intake recognition system. In 2017 International Conference on Innovations in Electrical, Electronics, Instrumentation and Media Technology (ICEEIMT) . IEEE, 132–136

2017

[5] [2]

Gregory D Abowd and Elizabeth D Mynatt. 2000. Charting past, present, and future research in ubiquitous computing.ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 7, 1 (2000), 29–58

2000

[6] [3]

Achilleas Achilleos, Alexandros Yeratziotis, Christos Mettouris, Kyriakos Evripidou, Paraskevi Hadjinikolaou, and George A Papadopou- los. 2017. Health monitoring web platform for real-time expert-user interaction. In 2017 8th International Conference on Information, Intelligence, Systems & Applications (IISA) . IEEE, 1–6

2017

[7] [4]

Daniel A Adler, Emily Tseng, Khatiya C Moon, John Q Young, John M Kane, Emanuel Moss, David C Mohr, and Tanzeem Choudhury

[8] [5]

Shivani Agarwal, Mudita Uppal, Deepali Gupta, Sapna Juneja, and Rekha Kashyap. 2024. A User Preference-Based Food Recommender System using Artificial Intelligence. In 2024 2nd International Conference on Disruptive Technologies (ICDT) . IEEE, 519–523

2024