Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 66 references

MakeSense: An IoT Testbed for Social Research of Indoor Activities

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read MakeSense is an IoT testbed that claims to enable social researchers to study indoor activities in real homes and offices through quick, flexible, secure, real-time sensor monitoring.

desk verdict MakeSense is a real, installable end-to-end IoT testbed with two genuine deployments, but the paper's claim that sensor data enables social research is backed only by visual inspection and informal diary comparison, not by quantitative validation. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03380 v1 pith:Z5DKDLTM submitted 2019-08-09 cs.HC

Jie Jiang , Riccardo Pozza , Nigel Gilbert , Klaus Moessner This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords InternetofThingstestbedsocialresearchhomeactivitiesofficeenvironmentactivitymonitoringprivacy-preservingsensing
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

MakeSense is an IoT testbed designed to let social researchers study indoor activities in real homes and offices rather than in laboratory settings. The paper argues that the testbed can be deployed quickly and flexibly, integrates both custom-built and commercial sensors, and provides secure, pseudonymized, real-time data collection and visualization. Two case studies—monitoring 20 households and deploying 100 sensor devices in an office—are offered as demonstrations that the infrastructure works in the wild. The value of the claim is that it promises to add a continuous, non-intrusive layer of observation to social research methods such as surveys and time-use diaries.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the IoTEgg, a self-manufactured sensor suite that measures temperature, humidity, ambient light, proximity, and noise, and also acts as a gateway for Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) and WiFi devices such as wristbands and electricity monitors. It runs a ported LWM2M client using CoAP and DTLS, allowing remote configuration, firmware updates over the air, and secure data transmission to a cloud backend. The cloud side relies on RabbitMQ for message brokering, Elasticsearch and Kibana for real-time visualization, PostgreSQL and MongoDB for historical storage, and Docker images to automate server setup. This combination of a flexible edge device and a standardized, scriptable server stack is what carries the claims of quick setup, extensibility, and real-time monitoring.

What would settle it

In one of the monitored households, take a week of sensor data alongside the time-use diary, have an independent coder label cooking and laundry intervals from the diary, and measure whether simple thresholds on temperature, humidity, electricity, and proximity detect those intervals substantially better than chance; if they do not, the testbed's value for social research is not established even though the infrastructure works.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that MakeSense provides a complete, end-to-end IoT infrastructure—from sensor hardware to cloud storage to live dashboards—that social researchers can use for real-world experiments on indoor activities. The system combines a self-manufactured sensor device, the IoTEgg, with commercial off-the-shelf wristbands and energy monitors, and manages them through the Lightweight M2M (LWM2M) protocol over WiFi, with AES encryption and pseudonymization applied to all data. In the home deployment the researchers inferred activities such as cooking, laundry, and presence by visually aligning sensor traces with time-use diaries; in the office deployment the testbed supported real-time environment-quality monitoring with feedback to occupants. The authors state the testbed enables quick setup, flexibility in deployment, integration of a range of IoT devices, resilience, and scalability.

Load-bearing premise

The claim depends on the assumption that changes in temperature, humidity, light, noise, proximity, wristband signal strength, and electricity use reliably track the indoor activities being studied; the paper offers visual alignment with time-use diaries rather than quantitative accuracy measures as support.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A social research team can move from no infrastructure to a running multi-sensor study in under an hour of server setup plus roughly ten minutes of connectivity setup per household.
  • Researchers can watch sensor data live in Kibana dashboards and cross-check it against time-use diaries while the study is still running, rather than only after the fact.
  • The office case shows the same infrastructure can support situation-aware interventions, such as email or buzzer alerts when comfort conditions drift outside a user's preferences.
  • Because data are encrypted and pseudonymized and no cameras or microphones are used, recruitment for in-the-wild studies may be easier and less intrusive for participants.
  • The same testbed is intended to extend to other indoor settings, including nursing homes, schools, restaurants, and shopping malls.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Whether the sensor streams actually support the intended social-science conclusions is not settled by this paper; a natural next step is to quantify how well sensor-derived activity labels agree with diary or observational ground truth in the same households.
  • The combination of wristband signal strength and appliance-level electricity data could, in principle, be used to infer co-presence and the sequencing of household routines, extending the paper's visual-alignment approach into more structured behavioral analysis.
  • The office feedback loop suggests a broader role for the testbed as an intervention platform, not just an observation platform; researchers could use the same actuators and notifications to test how environment changes affect behavior.
  • If the visual-alignment method were replaced with a validated activity-recognition model, the testbed could generate automatically labeled longitudinal activity data, which would substantially increase its value for social research.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents MakeSense, an IoT testbed for social research on indoor activities, built around a self-manufactured IoTEgg sensor hub (temperature, humidity, light, noise, proximity, dust) that also relays BLE wristband RSSI and commercial energy-monitor data to cloud backends via LWM2M/CoAP. The testbed includes encrypted transmission, pseudonymisation, Docker-based server deployment, and Kibana-based visualisation. Two case studies are described: HomeSense, with sensor suites installed in 20 households, and an office deployment of 100 IoTEggs on desks, the latter also supporting a situation-aware feedback application. The central claim is that MakeSense enables real-world large-scale social research through quick setup, flexibility, integration of diverse devices, resilience, and scalability. The evaluation is qualitative: sensor data are visually compared with time-use diaries in the home study, and the office occupancy threshold is stated as chosen empirically without a formal accuracy assessment.

Significance. If the central claim is established, MakeSense would be a genuinely useful contribution: it provides an end-to-end, open-source, non-intrusive infrastructure that lowers the technical barrier for social researchers, with plausible design choices (WiFi/BLE, LWM2M, message queues, Docker) and credible deployment scale (20 homes, 100 desks). The paper explicitly addresses privacy via encryption and pseudonymisation, and the authors make deployment scripts available. The strength of the contribution, however, rests on a premise that the paper does not yet substantiate: that the collected sensor signals reliably track the human activities of interest. The two case studies demonstrate that the system can be installed and can produce real-time plots, but they do not quantify the relationship between sensor data and ground-truth activities. Because that relationship is the load-bearing element for the 'enables social research' claim, the paper needs additional validation, which could plausibly be performed by re-analysing the already-collected deployment data.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.1.2 (Figures 8 and 9)] The claim that MakeSense enables social research on indoor activities hinges on the validity of inferring activities from sensor signals, but Section 4.1.2 supports this only by visual alignment between sensor plots and time-use diaries. The authors state that kitchen use is visible in ranging, wristband RSSI, and noise; that humidity changes 'may be caused by' food preparation; and that laundry correlates with washing-machine electricity. No precision, recall, correlation coefficient, Cohen's kappa, or classification accuracy is reported for any activity. This is a missing-support issue rather than a disagreement with consensus, and it is directly addressable: the HomeSense data already include time-use diaries, so the authors could report, for example, event-detection performance for cooking, laundry, and TV watching against the diary ground truth, or at minimum a quantitative correlation between sensor-derived events and diary entries.
  2. [Section 4.2.2 (office monitoring) and Section 3.2.2 (RSSI localisation)] The office case study depends on a proximity-based occupancy detector with a threshold of 75 cm that is described only as 'chosen empirically' (Section 4.2.2), and the wristband RSSI-based localisation (Section 3.2.2) is presented as a 'rough localization method' with no accuracy evaluation. Since the feedback application actuates a buzzer and sends email notifications when occupancy is detected, false positives and false negatives directly affect user trust and the validity of any social-research conclusions. The paper should report at least a small labelled evaluation of occupancy detection against ground truth (e.g., known presence/absence periods) and, if RSSI localisation is claimed as a feature, a characterisation of its spatial error or reliability.
  3. [Sections 1, 3, and 5 (resilience and scalability claims)] The abstract and introduction claim that MakeSense provides 'resilience, and scalability,' and Section 3 describes redundant storage and message-queue decoupling, but no quantitative evidence is provided for either property. There are no data-loss rates, no uptime statistics, no latency measurements, and no stress test with a large number of concurrent devices. The 20-home, 100-IoTEgg deployments are respectable demonstrations, but they do not by themselves establish scalability or resilience under failure conditions. The authors report (Section 6.7, 6.8) that watchdogs and automatic re-spawning were needed to address crashes and service lags, which suggests that such data exist and could be summarised; reporting measured packet-loss/downtime figures would turn these claims from design aspirations into evaluated properties.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 5 (Step 2.2)] The 'quick setup' claim in the abstract and introduction is partially qualified by Step 2.2, which recommends a 24-hour quality test before field deployment; the paper should clarify in the introduction that 'minutes' refers to field installation after a recommended pre-deployment quality-assurance period, to avoid overstating the setup effort.
  2. [Figure 8] The caption and text indicate that wristband signal strength, brightness, and dust density are 're-scaled using Kibana's scripted fields,' but the scaling (e.g., min/max values or normalisation method) is not described, making the visual alignment hard for readers to interpret quantitatively.
  3. [Throughout] There are several typographical and formatting issues, including 'Philips HomeLab' versus 'Philiphs HomeLab' in the text and references, the incomplete reference entry for MongoDB ('open-source depdocument-oriented database program'), and inconsistent use of 'data is' versus 'data are'; these should be corrected during revision.
  4. [Section 3.1] The paper says data are 'encrypted with AES 128 bit before transmission' but also mentions DTLS with pre-shared keys; the relationship between DTLS (which already provides encryption) and the additional AES-128 step should be clarified to avoid confusion about the security architecture.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: MakeSense is a systems paper whose claims are supported by architecture and deployment experience, not by a fitted parameter or a self-citation chain.

full rationale

MakeSense is a systems/testbed paper. The claimed contribution is an infrastructure (IoTEgg hardware, LWM2M/CoAP communication, cloud storage, and Kibana visualization) plus two demonstration deployments. There is no equation-level derivation in which an output is defined as its input, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The 75 cm occupancy threshold in Section 4.2.2 is explicitly a system setting ('chosen empirically') used to trigger comfort feedback, not a predicted scientific result. The Section 4.1.2 inference that sensor signals correspond to cooking, laundry, and presence is supported only by visual alignment with 10-minute time-use diaries and is hedged with language such as 'may be caused by'; this is a missing quantitative validation concern, not circularity, because the sensor-to-activity mapping is not derived from the testbed's claimed features. The reference to the HomeSense project [65] is a deployment in which the authors used their own testbed, but the load-bearing engineering claims (quick setup, non-intrusiveness, encryption, scalability, flexibility) are supported by architectural description and field experience rather than by citing a uniqueness theorem or prior result that already assumes the conclusion. No specific reduction of the kind required by the circularity rules can be exhibited, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the availability of existing WiFi/power infrastructure, on sensor calibration being trustworthy, and on the custom IoTEgg hardware working. The only tunable parameter in the reported deployments is the 75 cm proximity threshold. No other free parameters or fitted quantities appear, reflecting that this is a systems paper rather than a quantitative scientific study.

free parameters (1)
  • Occupancy proximity threshold = 75 cm
    Chosen empirically in Section 4.2.2 to determine desk occupancy from the IoTEgg proximity sensor. No optimization or error analysis is provided.
assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption Household and office environments have adequate WiFi coverage and power sockets for the IoTEggs.
    Section 3.3 and 4.1.1 rely on WiFi and mains power being available in most deployment locations; deployments had to be planned around connectivity.
  • domain assumption Sensor modules' manufacturer calibrations are accurate outside the lab.
    Section 3.2.1 uses the manufacturer's calibration table for the Sharp ranging sensor and assumes the MEMS microphone output converts accurately to dB SPL; no independent calibration is reported.
invented entities (1)
  • IoTEgg sensor hub
    purpose: Self-manufactured sensor suite and gateway for temperature, humidity, light, noise, proximity, and BLE/WiFi relay.
    The IoTEgg is a new hardware device designed for MakeSense; its sensing accuracy and long-term reliability are not independently validated, and the paper itself reports malfunctions that required watchdogs and logging at Section 6.7.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MakeSense: An IoT Testbed for Social Research of Indoor Activities." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Z5DKDLTM

@misc{pith2026190803380,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MakeSense: An IoT Testbed for Social Research of Indoor Activities},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Z5DKDLTM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03380}
}
read the original abstract

There has been increasing interest in deploying IoT devices to study human behaviour in locations such as homes and offices. Such devices can be deployed in a laboratory or `in the wild' in natural environments. The latter allows one to collect behavioural data that is not contaminated by the artificiality of a laboratory experiment. Using IoT devices in ordinary environments also brings the benefits of reduced cost, as compared with lab experiments, and less disturbance to the participants' daily routines which in turn helps with recruiting them into the research. However, in this case, it is essential to have an IoT infrastructure that can be easily and swiftly installed and from which real-time data can be securely and straightforwardly collected. In this paper, we present MakeSense, an IoT testbed that enables real-world experimentation for large scale social research on indoor activities through real-time monitoring and/or situation-aware applications. The testbed features quick setup, flexibility in deployment, the integration of a range of IoT devices, resilience, and scalability. We also present two case studies to demonstrate the use of the testbed, one in homes and one in offices.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.03380 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. MakeSense Network Layout. MakeSense features both commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) IoT devices, i.e. energy monitors and BLE wristbands, and self-manufactured IoT devices, i.e., the IoTEggs (see Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 for more details). These IoT devices can be directly connected to WiFi access points or benefit from the capability of the IoTEggs’ WiFi modules to operate in both station and access point modes, as w… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. MakeSense Software Architecture [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. IoTEgg consisting of a suite of sensor modules [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Examples of Commercial Sensor Suites [53] which is mainly used by people to track their levels of exercise, e.g., how many steps a person has achieved per day which can be converted to calories. However, as for many other commercial products, there are no open APIs ava…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: OMA LWM2M Server Objects in MakeSense. Some of the advantages of this design are that (1) users of MakeSense could easily design M2M applications themselves to collect data in various data formats and time intervals or act upon the IoTEgg actuators in real-time, (2) up…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Kibana Dashboard. 4 Show cases 4.1 Home Monitoring A recent application of MakeSense was in the HomeSense project [65] which aimed at studying how digital sensors can be used by social researchers and facilitate their understanding of home life, i.e., what do people do…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Example of Sensor Suites Installation at Home. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Visualisation of the data collected from the IoT devices (IoTEgg and Energy monitors). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Visualisation of the time use diary. 4.2 Office Monitoring Office environments can be monitored to ensure that the indoor environment quality and productivity standards are met [12]. Thermal comfort, ambient light levels, noise levels and indoor air quality and ventila…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: 5GIC IoTEgg Desk Deployment [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: 5GIC Multimodal Sensing Office Monitoring Live Data. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 65 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Internet of things: A survey on enabling technologies, protocols, and applications

    Ala Al-Fuqaha, Mohsen Guizani, Mehdi Mohammadi, Mohammed Aledhari, and Moussa Ayyash. Internet of things: A survey on enabling technologies, protocols, and applications. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutorials , 17(4):2347–2376, Fourthquarter 2015

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    Context aware computing for the internet of things: A survey

    Charith Perera, Arkady Zaslavsky, Peter Christen, and Dimitrios Georgakopoulos. Context aware computing for the internet of things: A survey. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutorials, 16(1):414–454, First 2014

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    Deep learning for sensor-based activity recognition: A survey

    Jindong Wang, Yiqiang Chen, Shuji Hao, Xiaohui Peng, and Lisha Hu. Deep learning for sensor-based activity recognition: A survey. Pattern Recognit. Lett., pages 1–9, 2018

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Contemporary Family Issues

    Leah Ruppanner. Contemporary Family Issues. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 2015

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    House, Home and Society

    Rowland Atkinson and Keith Jacobs. House, Home and Society . Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2016

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Gattshall, Jo Ann Shoup, Julie A

    Michelle L. Gattshall, Jo Ann Shoup, Julie A. Marshall, Lori A. Crane, and Paul A. Estabrooks. Validation of a survey instrument to assess home environments for physical activity and healthy eating in overweight children. Int. J. Behav. Nutr . Phys. Act., 5(1):1–13, January 2008

    work page 2008

  7. [7]

    Williams, Catherine Coveney, and Robert Meadows

    Simon J. Williams, Catherine Coveney, and Robert Meadows. ‘m-apping’ sleep? trends and transformations in the digital age. Sociol. Health Illn., 37(7):1039–1054, September 2015

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    Analysing hands-on-tech care work in telecare installations

    Daniel López Gómez and Tomás Sánchez-Criado. Analysing hands-on-tech care work in telecare installations. frictional encounters with gerontechnological designs. In D. Prendergast and C. Garattini, editors, Aging and the Digital Life Course, chapter 9, pages 179–197. Berghahn Books, Oxford, UK, 07 2015

    work page 2015

Show all 66 references
  1. [9]

    Ageing with telecare: care or coercion in austerity? Sociol

    Maggie Mort, Celia Roberts, and Blanca Callén. Ageing with telecare: care or coercion in austerity? Sociol. Health Illn., 35(6):799–812, July 2013

    2013

  2. [10]

    Change in spousal human capital and housework: A longitudinal analysis

    Oriel Sullivan and Jonathan Gershuny. Change in spousal human capital and housework: A longitudinal analysis. Eur . Sociol. Rev., 32(6):864–880, December 2016

    2016

  3. [11]

    Schiano, and Eric Paulos

    James Pierce, Diane J. Schiano, and Eric Paulos. Home, habits, and energy: Examining domestic interactions and energy consumption. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , CHI’10, pages 1985–1994, New York, NY , USA, 2010. ACM

    1985

  4. [12]

    Occupant productivity and office indoor environment quality: A review of the literature

    Yousef Al Horr, Mohammed Arif, Amit Kaushik, Ahmed Mazroei, Martha Katafygiotou, and Esam Elsarrag. Occupant productivity and office indoor environment quality: A review of the literature. Build. Environ., 105:369– 389, August 2016

    2016

  5. [13]

    Making paradigms meaningful in mixed methods research

    Peggy Shannon-Baker. Making paradigms meaningful in mixed methods research. J. Mix. Methods Res. , 10(4):319–334, October 2016. 18

    2016

  6. [14]

    Recognition of dietary activity events using on-body sensors

    Oliver Amft and Gerhard Tröster. Recognition of dietary activity events using on-body sensors. Artif. Intell. Med., 42(2):121–136, February 2008. Wearable Computing and Artificial Intelligence for Healthcare Applications

    2008

  7. [15]

    Simon Sherratt

    Jin Wang, Zhongqi Zhang, Bin Li, Sungyoung Lee, and R. Simon Sherratt. An enhanced fall detection system for elderly person monitoring using consumer home networks. IEEE Trans. Consum. Electron., 60(1):23–29, February 2014

    2014

  8. [16]

    S-seer: Selective perception in a multimodal office activity recognition system

    Nuria Oliver and Eric Horvitz. S-seer: Selective perception in a multimodal office activity recognition system. In Samy Bengio and Hervé Bourlard, editors, Machine Learning for Multimodal Interaction , pages 122–135, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2005. Springer

    2005

  9. [17]

    de Ruyter, E

    B. de Ruyter, E. Aarts, P. Markopoulos, and W. Ijsselsteijn. Ambient intelligence research in homelab: Engineering the user experience. In Werner Weber, Jan M. Rabaey, and Emile Aarts, editors, Ambient Intelligence, pages 49–61. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2005

    2005

  10. [18]

    Intille, Kent Larson, Emmanuel Munguia Tapia, Jennifer S

    Stephen S. Intille, Kent Larson, Emmanuel Munguia Tapia, Jennifer S. Beaudin, Pallavi Kaushik, Jason Nawyn, and Randy Rockinson. Using a live-in laboratory for ubiquitous computing research. In Kenneth P. Fishkin, Bernt Schiele, Paddy Nixon, and Aaron Quigley, editors, Pervasi...

  11. [19]

    Cook, Aaron S

    Diane J. Cook, Aaron S. Crandall, Brian L. Thomas, and Narayanan C. Krishnan. Casas: A smart home in a box. Computer, 46:62–69, July 2013

    2013

  12. [20]

    Kröse, T

    B. Kröse, T. Van Kasteren, C. Gibson, and T. Van Den Dool. Care: Context awareness in residences for elderly - in proceedings of the conference of the international society for gerontechnology, 2008

    2008

  13. [21]

    Bridging e-health and the internet of things: The sphere project

    Ni Zhu, Tom Diethe, Massimo Camplani, Lili Tao, Alison Burrows, Niall Twomey, Dritan Kaleshi, Majid Mirmehdi, Peter Flach, and Ian Craddock. Bridging e-health and the internet of things: The sphere project. IEEE Intell. Syst., 30(4):39–46, July 2015

    2015

  14. [22]

    How to choose an experimentation platform for wireless sensor networks? a survey on static and mobile wireless sensor network experimentation facilities

    Anne-Sophie Tonneau, Nathalie Mitton, and Julien Vandaele. How to choose an experimentation platform for wireless sensor networks? a survey on static and mobile wireless sensor network experimentation facilities. Ad Hoc Networks, 30:115 – 127, 2015

    2015

  15. [23]

    Santana, Veronica Gutierrez, Rajiv Ramdhany, Alex Gluhak, Srdjan Krco, Evangelos Theodoridis, and Dennis Pfisterer

    Luis Sanchez, Luis Muñoz, Jose Antonio Galache, Pablo Sotres, Juan R. Santana, Veronica Gutierrez, Rajiv Ramdhany, Alex Gluhak, Srdjan Krco, Evangelos Theodoridis, and Dennis Pfisterer. Smartsantander: Iot experimentation over a smart city testbed. Computer Networks, 61:217 – 2...

    2014

  16. [24]

    Dos and Don’ts in Mobile Phone Sensing Middleware: Learning from a Large-Scale Experiment

    Valerie Issarny, Vivien Mallet, Kinh Nguyen, Pierre-Guillaume Raverdy, Fadwa Rebhi, and Raphael Ven- tura. Dos and Don’ts in Mobile Phone Sensing Middleware: Learning from a Large-Scale Experiment. In ACM/IFIP/USENIX Middleware 2016, Proceedings of the 2016 International Middl...

    2016

  17. [25]

    Federation of internet of things testbeds for the realization of a semantically-enabled multi-domain data marketplace

    Luis Sánchez, Jorge Lanza, Juan Ramón Santana, Rachit Agarwal, Pierre Guillaume Raverdy, Tarek Elsaleh, Yasmin Fathy, SeungMyeong Jeong, Aris Dadoukis, Thanasis Korakis, Stratos Keranidis, Philip O’Brien, Jerry Horgan, Antonio Sacchetti, Giuseppe Mastandrea, Alexandros Fragkia...

    2018

  18. [26]

    Support innovative iot applications in the smart city domain, 2019

    FINE. Support innovative iot applications in the smart city domain, 2019

    2019

  19. [27]

    M. Nati, A. Gluhak, H. Abangar, and W. Headley. Smartcampus: A user-centric testbed for internet of things experimentation. In 2013 16th International Symposium on Wireless Personal Multimedia Communications (WPMC), pages 1–6, 2013

    2013

  20. [28]

    The gator tech smart house: a programmable pervasive space

    Sumi Helal, William Mann, Hicham El-Zabadani, Jeffrey King, Youssef Kaddoura, and Erwin Jansen. The gator tech smart house: a programmable pervasive space. Computer, 38(3):50–60, March 2005

    2005

  21. [29]

    The human speechome project

    Deb Roy, Rupal Patel, Philip DeCamp, Rony Kubat, Michael Fleischman, Brandon Roy, Nikolaos Mavridis, Stefanie Tellex, Alexia Salata, Jethran Guinness, Michael Levit, and Peter Gorniak. The human speechome project. In Paul V ogt, Yuuya Sugita, Elio Tuci, and Chrystopher Nehaniv...

    2006

  22. [30]

    Ambient intelligence in assisted living: Enable elderly people to handle future interfaces

    Thomas Kleinberger, Martin Becker, Eric Ras, Andreas Holzinger, and Paul Müller. Ambient intelligence in assisted living: Enable elderly people to handle future interfaces. In Constantine Stephanidis, editor, Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction. Ambient Interaction ...

    2007

  23. [31]

    Kientz, Shwetak N

    Julie A. Kientz, Shwetak N. Patel, Brian Jones, Ed Price, Elizabeth D. Mynatt, and Gregory D. Abowd. The georgia tech aware home. In CHI ’08 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems , CHI EA ’08, pages 3675–3680, New York, NY , USA, 2008. ACM. 19

    2008

  24. [32]

    A smart home application to eldercare: Current status and lessons learned

    Marjorie Skubic, Gregory Alexander, Mihail Popescu, Marilyn Rantz, and James Keller. A smart home application to eldercare: Current status and lessons learned. Technol. Health Care, 17(3):183–201, August 2009

    2009

  25. [33]

    De Morais, Maria Menezes, Celeste Gabrielli, João Bentes, Anita Sant’Anna, Jonathan Synnott, and Chris Nugent

    Jens Lundström, Wagner O. De Morais, Maria Menezes, Celeste Gabrielli, João Bentes, Anita Sant’Anna, Jonathan Synnott, and Chris Nugent. Halmstad intelligent home - capabilities and opportunities. In Mobyen Uddin Ahmed, Shahina Begum, and Wasim Raad, editors, Internet of Thing...

  26. [34]

    Espinilla, L

    M. Espinilla, L. Marínez, J. Medina, and C. Nugent. The experience of developing the ujami smart lab. IEEE Access, 6:34631–34642, 2018

    2018

  27. [35]

    Synthetic sensors: Towards general-purpose sensing

    Gierad Laput, Yang Zhang, and Chris Harrison. Synthetic sensors: Towards general-purpose sensing. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , CHI ’17, pages 3986–3999, New York, NY , USA, 2017. ACM

    2017

  28. [36]

    Open mobile alliance lightweight m2m protocol, 2018

    OMA LWM2M. Open mobile alliance lightweight m2m protocol, 2018

    2018

  29. [37]

    The constrained application protocol, 2018

    CoAP. The constrained application protocol, 2018

    2018

  30. [38]

    Postgresql open source object-relational database, 2018

    PostgreSQL. Postgresql open source object-relational database, 2018

    2018

  31. [39]

    Mongodb, open-source depdocument-oriented database program, 2018

    MongoDB. Mongodb, open-source depdocument-oriented database program, 2018

    2018

  32. [40]

    Elasticsearch distributed, restful search and analytics engine, 2018

    ElasticSearch. Elasticsearch distributed, restful search and analytics engine, 2018

    2018

  33. [41]

    Kibana data visualisation engine, 2018

    Kibana. Kibana data visualisation engine, 2018

    2018

  34. [42]

    Centralize, transform & stash your data, 2018

    Logstash. Centralize, transform & stash your data, 2018

    2018

  35. [43]

    Ipso smart objects - iot semantic interoperability workshop, 2016

    Jaime Jimenez, Michael Koster, and Hannes Tschofenig. Ipso smart objects - iot semantic interoperability workshop, 2016

    2016

  36. [44]

    Arch-pro mbed enabled development board, 2018

    Seeeduino. Arch-pro mbed enabled development board, 2018

    2018

  37. [45]

    Sparkfun humidity and temperature sensor breakout board, 2018

    HTU21D. Sparkfun humidity and temperature sensor breakout board, 2018

    2018

  38. [46]

    Sparkfun rgb and gesture sensor breakout board, 2018

    APDS-9960. Sparkfun rgb and gesture sensor breakout board, 2018

    2018

  39. [47]

    Sharp analog distance sensor (10-150cm), 2018

    GP2Y0A60SZLF. Sharp analog distance sensor (10-150cm), 2018

    2018

  40. [48]

    Sparkfun mems microphone breakout board, 2018

    INMP401. Sparkfun mems microphone breakout board, 2018

    2018

  41. [49]

    Sensortag, 2018

    Texas Instruments. Sensortag, 2018

    2018

  42. [50]

    Smoking activity recognition using a single wrist imu and deep learning light

    Edwin Valarezo Añazco, Patricio Rivera Lopez, Sangmin Lee, Kyungmin Byun, and Tae-Seong Kim. Smoking activity recognition using a single wrist imu and deep learning light. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Digital Signal Processing, ICDSP 2018, pages 48–51,...

    2018

  43. [51]

    Villar, Camelia Chira, Víctor M

    Samad Barri Khojasteh, José R. Villar, Camelia Chira, Víctor M. González, and Enrique de la Cal. Improving fall detection using an on-wrist wearable accelerometer. Sensors, 18(5):1–28, April 2018

    2018

  44. [52]

    Gait, wrist, and sensors: Detecting freezing of gait in parkinson’s disease from wrist movement

    Sinziana Mazilu, Ulf Blanke, and Gerhard Tröster. Gait, wrist, and sensors: Detecting freezing of gait in parkinson’s disease from wrist movement. In IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communication Workshops, PerCom Workshops 2015, pages 579–584, Washing...

    2015

  45. [53]

    Mi band wristband, 2018

    Xiaomi. Mi band wristband, 2018

    2018

  46. [54]

    Energy monitor, 2018

    CurrentCost. Energy monitor, 2018

    2018

  47. [55]

    The uk-dale dataset, domestic appliance-level electricity demand and whole-house demand from five uk homes

    Jack Kelly and William Knottenbelt. The uk-dale dataset, domestic appliance-level electricity demand and whole-house demand from five uk homes. Sci. Data, 2:1–14, March 2015

    2015

  48. [56]

    Fit for everybody, 2019

    Fitbit. Fit for everybody, 2019

    2019

  49. [57]

    Garmin wearables, 2019

    Garmin. Garmin wearables, 2019

    2019

  50. [58]

    Open-hardware raspberry pi-based energy monitor, 2019

    EmonPi. Open-hardware raspberry pi-based energy monitor, 2019

    2019

  51. [59]

    Intelligently managing the home’s energy, 2019

    Neurio. Intelligently managing the home’s energy, 2019

    2019

  52. [60]

    Air pollution can’t hide, 2019

    Kaiterra. Air pollution can’t hide, 2019

    2019

  53. [61]

    Eclipse.org c library for lwm2m, 2018

    Wakaama. Eclipse.org c library for lwm2m, 2018

    2018

  54. [62]

    Eclipse.org java library for lwm2m, 2018

    Leshan. Eclipse.org java library for lwm2m, 2018

    2018

  55. [63]

    Securely build, share and run any application, anywhere, 2018

    Docker. Securely build, share and run any application, anywhere, 2018

    2018

  56. [64]

    Elastic x-pack extended features package, 2018

    X-Pack. Elastic x-pack extended features package, 2018

    2018

  57. [65]

    Digital sensors in social research, 2018

    HomeSense. Digital sensors in social research, 2018. 20

    2018

  58. [2016]

    Springer International Publishing

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.