LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Wilson, Gemma; Jones, Derek; Schofield, Patricia; Martin, Denis J. (2016)
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: older adult, life-logging, usability, Sensecam, acceptance, qualitative, X900, Wearable camera, Original Research, L900
Abstract\ud Objective: Upcoming technology is changing the way that we are able to collect data looking into activity, social participation\ud and health behaviours. Wearable cameras are one form of technology that allows us to automatically record a collection of\ud passive images, building a visual diary of the user’s day. Whilst acknowledging the usefulness of wearable cameras in\ud research, it is also important to understand individuals’ experiences whilst using them. The aim of this study was to explore\ud the acceptance, experience and usability of a wearable camera (Microsoft_ Sensecam) to record the day-to-day activity and\ud social participation of older people.\ud Methods: A total of 18 older adults, who had worn the wearable camera for seven days, took part in semi-structured\ud interviews.\ud Results: Four themes emerged from the findings: ‘Intrusiveness’; ‘Importance of others’; ‘Remembering the wearable\ud camera’; and ‘Ease of use’.\ud Conclusions: Individuals’ expectations and experiences of using the wearable camera differed considerably. Participants\ud believed that the wearable camera would be intrusive, difficult to use and would evoke public reaction; however, these\ud worries were not borne out in experience. Individuals typically forgot about the presence of the wearable camera during\ud use, remembering it only sporadically. One drawback to its use is that some participants were cautious of using the camera\ud when around others, which impacted the amount of time the camera was worn, and, therefore, the nature of the data\ud recorded. Design issues of the Sensecam were also a problem for the older adults in the study and affected their interaction\ud with the technology.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1. Bolger N, Davis A and Rafaeli E. Diary methods: capturing life as it is lived. Ann Rev Psychol 2003; 54: 579 616.
    • 2. Reis HT. Domains of experience: investigating relationship processes from three perspectives. In: Erber R and Gilmour R (eds) Theoretical frameworks for personal relationships. New Jersey USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc, 1994, pp.87 110.
    • 3. McGlyyn EA, Damberg CL, Kerr EA, et al. Health Information Systems: Design Issues and Analytic Applications. Santa Monica USA: RAND, 1998.
    • 4. Cyarto EV, Myers AM and Tudor-Locke C. Pedometer accuracy in nursing home and community-dwelling older adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2004; 36: 205 209.
    • 5. Storti KL, Pettee KK, Brach JS, et al. Gait speed and step-count monitor accuracy in community-dwelling older adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2008; 40: 59.
    • 6. Kerr J, Marshall SJ, Godbole S, et al. Using the SenseCam to improve classifications of sedentary behavior in freeliving settings. Am J Prev Med 2013; 44: 290 296.
    • 7. Doherty A, Hodges S, King A, et al. Wearable cameras in health. Am J Prev Med 2013; 44: 320 323.
    • 8. Caprani N, Gurrin C and O'Connor NE. I like to log: a questionnaire study towards accessible lifelogging for older users. In: Proceedings of the 12th international ACM SIG ACCESS conference on computers and accessibility, Orlando FL, USA, 25-27 October 2010, pp.263- 264. New York: ASME.
    • 9. Lupton D. Quantifying the body: monitoring and measuring health in the age of mHealth technologies. Crit Public Health 2013; 23: 393 403.
    • 10. Bell G and Gemmell J. Total recall: how the e-memory revolution will change everything. New York USA: Dutton, 2009.
    • 11. Doherty A, Kelly P and Foster C. Wearable cameras: identifying healthy transportation choices. IEEE Pervas Comput 2013; 12: 44 47.
    • 12. Berry E, Kapur N, Williams L, et al. The use of a wearable camera, SenseCam, as a pictorial diary to improve autobiographical memory in a patient with limbic encephalitis: a preliminary report. Neuropsychol Rehabil 2007; 17: 582 601.
    • 13. Berry E, Hampshire A, Rowe J, et al. The neural basis of effective memory therapy in a patient with limbic encephalitis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2009; 80: 1202 1205.
    • 14. Sellen AJ, Fogg A, Aitken M, et al. Do life-logging technologies support memory for the past?: an experimental study using Sensecam. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, San Jose, CA USA, 28 April-3 May 2007, pp.81-90. New York: ACM.
    • 15. Kelly P, Doherty AR, Hamilton A, et al. Evaluating the feasibility of measuring travel to school using a wearable camera. Am J Prev Med 2012; 43: 546 550.
    • 16. O'Loughlin G, Cullen SJ, McGoldrick A, et al. Using a wearable camera to increase the accuracy of dietary analysis. Am J Prev Med 2013; 44: 297 301.
    • 17. Adair JG. The Hawthorne effect: a reconsideration of the methodological artifact. J Appl Psychol 1984; 69: 334.
    • 18. Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, et al. User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly 2003; 27: 425 478.
    • 19. Csikszentmihalyi M. Beyond boredom and anxiety. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1975.
    • 20. Chan M, Este` ve D, Fourniols J-Y, et al. Smart wearable systems: current status and future challenges. Artif Intell Med 2012; 56: 137 156.
    • 21. Joyce K and Loe M. A sociological approach to ageing, technology and health. Sociol Health Illn 2010; 32: 171 180.
    • 22. Selwyn N. The information aged: a qualitative study of older adults' use of information and communications technology. J Aging Stud 2004; 18: 369 384.
    • 23. Rogers WA, Mayhorn CB and Fisk AD. Technology in everyday life for older adults. In: Burdick DC and Kwon S (eds) Gerotechnology: Research and practice in technology and aging. New York USA: Springer Publishing Company Inc, 2004, pp.3-17.
    • 24. Chen K and Chan A. A review of technology acceptance by older adults. Gerontechnology 2011; 10: 1 12.
    • 25. Demiris G, Finkelstein SM and Speedie SM. Considerations for the design of a Web-based clinical monitoring and educational system for elderly patients. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2001; 8: 468 472.
    • 26. Rogers WA and Mynatt ED. How can technology contribute to the quality of life of older adults. The Technology of Humanity: Can Technology Contribute to the Quality of Life 2003: 22 30.
    • 27. Bhaskar R. Feyerabend and Bachelard: two philosophies of science. New Left Review 1975; 94: 31-56.
    • 28. Denzin NK and Lincoln YS. The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks CA, USA: SAGE, 2011.
    • 29. Caelli K, Ray L and Mill J. 'Clear as mud': toward greater clarity in generic qualitative research. Int J Qual Methods 2003; 2: 1 13.
    • 30. Percy WH, Kostere K and Kostere S. Generic qualitative research in psychology. Qual Rep 2015; 20: 76.
    • 31. Jackson SA and Marsh HW. Development and validation of a scale to measure optimal experience: the Flow State Scale. J Sport Exerc Psychol 1996; 18: 17 35.
    • 32. Hodges S, Williams L, Berry E, et al. SenseCam: a retrospective memory aid. In: Dourish P and Friday A (eds) Proceedings of the 8th international conference of ubiquitous computing (UbiComp 2006), Orange County CA, USA, 17-21 September. Berlin: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2006, pp.177 193.
    • 33. Doherty A, Moulin CJ and Smeaton AF. Automatically assisting human memory: a SenseCam browser. Memory 2011; 19: 785 795.
    • 34. Braun V and Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 2006; 3: 77 101.
    • 35. Kelly P, Marshall SJ, Badland H, et al. An ethical framework for automated, wearable cameras in health behavior research. Am J Prev Med 2013; 44: 314 319.
    • 36. Gemperle F, Kasabach C, Stivoric J, et al. Design for wearability. In: Digest of papers. Second International Symposium on Wearable Computers, Pittsburgh Pennsylvania, USA, 19-20 October 1998, pp.116-122. The University of California CA, USA: IEEE Computer Society Press.
    • 37. Knight JF, Baber C, Schwirtz A, et al. The comfort assessment of wearable computers. ISWC 2002; 2: 65 74.
    • 38. Caprani N, O'Connor NE and Gurrin C. Experiencing SenseCam: a case study interview exploring seven years living with a wearable camera. In: Proceedings of the 4th international SenseCam & pervasive imaging conference, San Diego CA, USA, 18-19 November 2013, pp.52 59. New York: ACM.
    • 39. Nebeker C, Linares-Orozco R and Crist K. A multi-case study of research using mobile imaging, sensing and tracking technologies to objectively measure behavior: ethical issues and insights to guide responsible research practice. J Res Adm 2015; 46: 20.
    • 40. Brown B, Reeves S and Sherwood S. Into the wild: challenges and opportunities for field trial methods. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Vancouver, Canada, 7-12 May 2011, pp.1657 1666. New York: ACM.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article