2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.jand.2015.11.004
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluation of a Smart Fork to Decelerate Eating Rate

Abstract: Link to publication on Research at Birmingham portal General rightsUnless a licence is specified above, all rights (including copyright and moral rights) in this document are retained by the authors and/or the copyright holders. The express permission of the copyright holder must be obtained for any use of this material other than for purposes permitted by law.• Users may freely distribute the URL that is used to identify this publication.• Users may download and/or print one copy of the publication from the U… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
22
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
3
3
1
1

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 28 publications
(24 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
1
22
0
Order By: Relevance
“…RUNNING HEAD: Effect of feedback on eating rate, satiation, and food intake 5 gentle vibration in the handle of the fork. Although previous research indicates that the fork is perceived as a comfortable, accurate, and effective method to decelerate eating rate (Hermsen, Frost, Robinson, Higgs, Mars, & Hermans, 2016), it is still unclear whether vibrotactile feedback affects users' subsequent eating behavior. To examine this question, we conducted an experiment in which the real-time vibrotactile feedback of the fork was manipulated (i.e., vibrotactile feedback versus no feedback).…”
Section: Accepted Manuscriptmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…RUNNING HEAD: Effect of feedback on eating rate, satiation, and food intake 5 gentle vibration in the handle of the fork. Although previous research indicates that the fork is perceived as a comfortable, accurate, and effective method to decelerate eating rate (Hermsen, Frost, Robinson, Higgs, Mars, & Hermans, 2016), it is still unclear whether vibrotactile feedback affects users' subsequent eating behavior. To examine this question, we conducted an experiment in which the real-time vibrotactile feedback of the fork was manipulated (i.e., vibrotactile feedback versus no feedback).…”
Section: Accepted Manuscriptmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although the annotation of human experts can be really accurate, the annotation procedure is time-consuming and prone to introduce errors due to the repetitive nature of the task. Thus, the need for the automation of the procedure has often been emphasized by experts in the field [1] [6] in order to overcome these problems and speed up the bite detection procedure. In the past several methodologies have been proposed to achieve that, with their majority being based on weight, inertial, motion and visual sensors that facilitate the recognition of bite instances [7].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As for other devices that can positively intervene in human eating habits, Hermsen et al (2016) carried out an experiment involving a smart fork (i.e., a fork-shaped device augmented with sensors and actuators). The fork can provide real-time haptic and visual feedback to the user (Kadomura et al, 2013), for example, producing alerts if the user eats too quickly.…”
Section: Dedicated Sensing Devicesmentioning
confidence: 99%