Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33141093›Full record

ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2020

Embodiment of Wearable Technology: Qualitative Longitudinal Study.

Elizabeth C Nelson, Anneke M Sools, Miriam M R Vollenbroek-Hutten, Tibert Verhagen, Matthijs L Noordzij

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Elizabeth C Nelson *Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-7422-1015
Anneke M SoolsDepartment of Psychology, Health and Technology, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-8484-7476
Miriam M R Vollenbroek-HuttenFaculty of Electrical Engineering, Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-8730-1487
Tibert VerhagenCenter for Market Insights, Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-1042-7887
Matthijs L NoordzijDepartment of Psychology, Health and Technology, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5013-9225

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCurrent technology innovations, such as wearables, have caused surprising reactions and feelings of deep connection to devices. Some researchers are calling mobile and wearable technologies cognitive prostheses, which are intrinsically connected to individuals as if they are part of the body, similar to a physical prosthesis. Additionally, while several studies have been performed on the phenomenology of receiving and wearing a physical prosthesis, it is unknown whether similar subjective experiences arise with technology.

objectiveIn one of the first qualitative studies to track wearables in a longitudinal investigation, we explore whether a wearable can be embodied similar to a physical prosthesis. We hoped to gain insights and compare the phases of embodiment (ie, initial adjustment to the prosthesis) and the psychological responses (ie, accept the prosthesis as part of their body) between wearables and limb prostheses. This approach allowed us to find out whether this pattern was part of a cyclical (ie, period of different usage intensity) or asymptotic (ie, abandonment of the technology) pattern.

methodsWe adapted a limb prosthesis methodological framework to be applied to wearables and conducted semistructured interviews over a span of several months to assess if, how, and to what extent individuals come to embody wearables similar to prosthetic devices. Twelve individuals wore fitness trackers for 9 months, during which time interviews were conducted in the following three phases: after 3 months, after 6 months, and at the end of the study after 9 months. A deductive thematic analysis based on Murray's work was combined with an inductive approach in which new themes were discovered.

resultsOverall, the individuals experienced technology embodiment similar to limb embodiment in terms of adjustment, wearability, awareness, and body extension. Furthermore, we discovered two additional themes of engagement/reengagement and comparison to another device or person. Interestingly, many participants experienced a rarely reported phenomenon in longitudinal studies where the feedback from the device was counterintuitive to their own beliefs. This created a blurring of self-perception and a dilemma of "whom" to believe, the machine or one's self.

conclusionsThere are many similarities between the embodiment of a limb prosthesis and a wearable. The large overlap between limb and wearable embodiment would suggest that insights from physical prostheses can be applied to wearables and vice versa. This is especially interesting as we are seeing the traditionally "dumb" body prosthesis becoming smarter and thus a natural merging of technology and body. Future longitudinal studies could focus on the dilemma people might experience of whether to believe the information of the device over their own thoughts and feelings. These studies might take into account constructs, such as technology reliance, autonomy, and levels of self-awareness.

Indexed as

Fitness TrackersWearable Electronic DevicesHumansLongitudinal StudiesQualitative Researchbody extensioncognitive prosthesisembodied self-discrepancyimplantable devicesimplantable wearablelongitudinal qualitative designphenomenologysmart prosthesistechnology addictiontechnology dependencewearability

Identifiers

PMID33141093
PMCPMC7671844

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.