2017
DOI: 10.1145/3130902
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

EarBit

Abstract: Chronic and widespread diseases such as obesity, diabetes, and hypercholesterolemia require patients to monitor their food intake, and food journaling is currently the most common method for doing so. However, food journaling is subject to self-bias and recall errors, and is poorly adhered to by patients. In this paper, we propose an alternative by introducing EarBit, a wearable system that detects eating moments. We evaluate the performance of inertial, optical, and acoustic sensing modalities and focus on in… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
32
1

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 158 publications
(34 citation statements)
references
References 42 publications
1
32
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The authors determined intake from bites using arm motion, while the present investigation was based on chewing. Bedri et al [11] evaluated eating event detection using a metric called delay, measuring the time from the beginning of an eating event until it was recognised. The average delay reported was 65.4 s. In contrast to the investigation of Bedri et al [11], we also evaluated the timing error at the end of eating events.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The authors determined intake from bites using arm motion, while the present investigation was based on chewing. Bedri et al [11] evaluated eating event detection using a metric called delay, measuring the time from the beginning of an eating event until it was recognised. The average delay reported was 65.4 s. In contrast to the investigation of Bedri et al [11], we also evaluated the timing error at the end of eating events.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Bedri et al [11] evaluated eating event detection using a metric called delay, measuring the time from the beginning of an eating event until it was recognised. The average delay reported was 65.4 s. In contrast to the investigation of Bedri et al [11], we also evaluated the timing error at the end of eating events. Our bottom-up algorithm yielded average start/end timing errors of 2.4 s and 4.3 s.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The SVM model is evaluated using the accuracy of classification. Accuracy of classification (A) is given by (5).…”
Section: G Svm Classifiermentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This is because gathering and recording of data by the patients place undue burden on them, and the data may not be objective. Current devices to measure the number of chews include a camera that records mouth movements [2]; tooth-embedded sensors [3], EMG [4], and piezoelectric strain gauge sensors [5] attached to the skin surface; microphones that detect chewing noises [69]; and accelerometers that recognize the movement of skin caused by chewing [10, 11]. However, these devices were not developed specifically for dietary support of postgastrectomy patients, and each tool has drawbacks when applied to such patients.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%