Author(s):
Abstract:
People increasingly use various technologies that enable them to ease their everyday lives in different areas. Not only wearable devices are gaining ground, but also sensor-based ambient devices and systems are increasingly perceived as beneficial in supporting users. Especially older and/or frail persons can benefit from the so-called lifelogging technologies assisting the users in different activities and supporting their mobility and autonomy. This paper empirically investigates users’ technology acceptance and privacy perceptions related to sensor-based applications implemented in private environments (i.e., passive infrared sensors for presence detection, humidity and temperature sensors for ambient monitoring, magnetic sensors for user-furniture interaction). For this purpose, we designed an online survey entitled “Acceptance and privacy perceptions of sensor-based lifelogging technologies” and collected data from N = 312 German adults. In terms of user acceptance, statistical analyses revealed that participants strongly agree on the benefits of such sensor-based ambient technologies, also perceiving these as useful and easy to use. Nevertheless, their intention to use the sensor-based applications was still rather limited. The evaluation of privacy perceptions showed that participants highly value their privacy and hence require a high degree of protection for their personal data. The potential users assessed the collection of data especially in the most intimate spaces of domestic environments, such as bathrooms and bedrooms, as critical. On the other hand, participants were also willing to provide complete data transparency in case of an acute risk to their health. Our results suggest that users’ perceptions of personal privacy largely affect the acceptance and successful adoption of sensor-based lifelogging in home environments.
Documentation:
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269642
References:
Selke S. Lifelogging: Digital self-tracking and Lifelogging-between disruptive technology and cultural transformation. Springer; 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-13137-1
2. Rashidi P, Mihailidis A. A Survey on Ambient-Assisted Living Tools for Older Adults. IEEE J Biomed Health Inform. 2013; 17(3): 579–590. pmid:24592460
3. Blackman S, Matlo C, Bobrovitskiy C, Waldoch A, Fang ML, Jackson P, et al. Ambient assisted living technologies for aging well: A scoping review. Int J Intell Syst. 2014; 25(1): 55–69.
4. Poli A, Cosoli G, Scalise L, Spinsante S. Impact of wearable measurement properties and data quality on ADLs classification accuracy. IEEE Sens. J. 2020; 21(13): 14221–14231.
5. Rashidi P, Cook DJ. Keeping the resident in the loop: Adapting the smart home to the user. IEEE Trans Sys Man Cybern A: Sys Hum. 2009; 39(5): 949–959.
6. Mubashir M, Shao L, Seed L. A survey on fall detection: Principles and approaches. Neurocomputing. 2013; 100: 144–152.
7. Spinsante S, Poli A, Mongay Batalla J, Krawiec P, Dobre C, Bǎjenaru L, et al. Clinically-validated technologies for assisted living. J Ambient Intell Humaniz Comput. 2021 Aug: 1–22.
8. Hayes TL, Abendroth F, Adami A, Pavel M, Zitzelberger TA, Kaye JA. Unobtrusive assessment of activity patterns associated with mild cognitive impairment. Alzheimers Dement. 2008; 4(6): 395–405. pmid:19012864
9. Suzuki T, Murase S, Tanaka T, Okazawa T. New approach for the early detection of dementia by recording in-house activities. Telemed E-Health. 2006; 13(1): 41–44. pmid:17309353
10. Vimalkumar M, Sharma SK, Singh JB, Dwivedi YK. ‘Okay google, what about my privacy?’: User’s privacy perceptions and acceptance of voice based digital assistants. Comput Hum Behav. 2021; 120: 106763.
11. Wilkowska W, Offermann-van Heek J, Colonna L, Ziefle M. Two faces of privacy: Legal and human-centered perspectives of lifelogging applications in home environments. In: Gao Q, Zhou J, editors. Human aspects of IT for the aged population. Healthy and active aging. Lecture notes in computer science (vol. 12208). Springer; 2020: pp. 545–564. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030–50249–2_39
12. Mihaildis A, Colonna L. A methodological approach to privacy by design within the context of lifelogging technologies. Rutgers Computer & Tech. LJ; 2020; 46: 1.
13. Gurrin C, Albatal R, Joho H, Ishii K. A Privacy by Design Approach to Lifelogging. In: O’Hara K, Nguyen M-HC, Haynes P, editors. Digital Enlightenment Yearbook 2014: Social Networks and Social Machines, Surveillance and Empowerment. IOS Press.; 2014: pp. 49–73. https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-450-3-49
14. Biniok P, Hülsmann I. 21st Century Men and the Digital Amalgamation of Life. In: Selke S, editor. Lifelogging: Digital self-tracking and Lifelogging—Between disruptive technology and cultural transformation. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden; 2016. (pp. 81–108). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-13137-1_5
15. Climent-Pérez P, Spinsante S, Mihailidis A, Florez-Revuelta F. A review on video-based active and assisted living technologies for automated lifelogging. Expert Syst Appl. 2020; 139: 1–19.
16. Mainetti L, Patrono L, Secco A, Sergi I. An IoT-aware AAL System to Capture Behavioral Changes of Elderly People. J Commun Softw Syst. 2017; 13(2): 68–76.
17. Gurrin C, Smeaton AF, Doherty AR. LifeLogging: Personal Big Data. Found Trends Inf Ret. 2014; 8(1): 1–125.
18. Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly. 1989; 13: 319–340.
19. Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly. 2003; 425–478.
20. Venkatesh V, Thong JY, Xu X. Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly. 2012; 36(1): 157–178.
21. Turner M, Kitchenham B, Brereton P, Charters S, Budgen D. Does the technology acceptance model predict actual use? A systematic literature review. Inf Softw Technol. 2010; 52(5): 463–479.
22. Venkatesh V, Davis FD. A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies. Manag Sci. 2000; 46(2): 186–204.
23. Peek ST, Wouters EJ, Van Hoof J, Luijk KG, Boeije HR, Vrijhoef HJ. Factors influencing acceptance of technology for aging in place: a systematic review. Int J Med Inform. 2014; 83(4): 235–248. pmid:24529817
24. Haesner M, O’Sullivan JL, Gövercin M, Steinhagen-Thiessen E. Requirements of older adults for a daily use of an internet-based cognitive training platform. Inform Health Soc Care. 2015; 40(2): 139–153. pmid:24725153
25. Sharon T. Self-tracking for health and the quantified self: Re-articulating autonomy, solidarity, and authenticity in an age of personalized healthcare. Philos Technol. 2017; 30(1): 93–121.
26. Van Hoof J, Kort HS, Rutten PG, Duijnstee MSH. Ageing-in-place with the use of ambient intelligence technology: Perspectives of older users. Int J Med Inform. 2011; 80(5): 310–331. pmid:21439898
27. Biermann H, Himmel S, Offermann-van Heek J, Ziefle M. User-specific concepts of aging–A qualitative approach on AAL- acceptance regarding ultrasonic whistles. In: Zhou J, Salvendy G, editors. Human aspects of IT for the aged population. Applications in health, assistance, and entertainment. Lecture notes in computer science (vol. 10927). Springer; 2018. pp. 231–249. https://doi.org/10.1007/978–3-319-92037-5_18
28. Lorenzen-Huber L, Boutain M, Camp LJ, Shankar K, Connelly KH. Privacy, technology, and aging: A proposed framework. Ageing Int. 2011; 36(2): 232–252.
29. Jaschinski C, Allouch SB. Listening to the ones who care: exploring the perceptions of informal caregivers towards ambient assisted living applications. J Ambient Intell Humaniz Comput. 2019; 10(2): 761–778.
30. Sun H, De Florio V, Gui N, Blondia C. The missing ones: Key ingredients towards effective ambient assisted living systems. J Ambient Intell Smart Environ. 2010; 2(2): 109–120.
31. Steele R, Lo A, Secombe C, Wong YK. Elderly persons’ perception and acceptance of using wireless sensor networks to assist healthcare. Int J Med Inform. 2009; 78(12): 788–801. pmid:19717335
32. Lidynia C, Schomakers EM, Ziefle M. What are you waiting for?–Perceived barriers to the adoption of fitness-applications and wearables. In: Ahram T, editor. Advances in intelligent systems and computing: Vol. 795. Advances in human factors in wearable technologies and game design. Springer; 2018: pp. 41–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94619-1_5
33. Himmel S, Ziefle M. Smart home medical technologies: users’ requirements for conditional acceptance. i-com. 2016; 15(1): 39–50.
34. Offermann-van Heek J, Schomakers EM, Ziefle M. Bare necessities? How the need for care modulates the acceptance of ambient assisted living technologies. Int J Med Inform. 2019; 127: 147–156. pmid:31128827
35. Gelonch O, Ribera M, Codern-Bové N, Ramos S, Quintana M, Chico G, et al. Acceptability of a lifelogging wearable camera in older adults with mild cognitive impairment: a mixed-method study. BMC Geriatr. 2019; 19: 110. pmid:30991948
36. Goddard M. The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): European regulation that has a global impact. Int J Mark Res. 2017; 59(6): 703–705.
37. Padilla-López J, Chaaraoui A, Gu F, Flórez-Revuelta F. Visual privacy by context: Proposal and evaluation of a level-based visualisation scheme. Sensors. 2015; 15(6): 12959–12982. pmid:26053746
38. Wilkowska W, Offermann-van Heek J, Florez-Revuelta F, Ziefle M. Video Cameras for Lifelogging at Home: Preferred Visualization Modes, Acceptance, and Privacy Perceptions among German and Turkish Participants. Int J Hum–Comput Interact. 2021; 37 (15): 1436–1454.
39. Schomakers E-M, Ziefle M. Privacy Perceptions in Ambient Assisted Living. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies for Ageing Well and E-Health (ICT4AWE 2019). Scitepress: pp. 205–212. https://doi.org/10.5220/0007719802050212
40. Jaschinski C, Allouch SB, Peters O, van Dijk J. The Influence of Privacy on the Acceptance of Technologies for Assisted Living. In: Gao Q, Zhou J, editors. Human Aspects of IT for the Aged Population. Healthy and Active Aging. HCII 2020. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (vol 12208). Springer, Cham; 2010: pp. 463–473 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50249-2_33
41. Shen N, Bernier T, Sequeira L, Strauss J, Silver MP, Carter-Langford A, et al. Understanding the patient privacy perspective on health information exchange: a systematic review. Int J Med Inform. 2019; 125: 1–12. pmid:30914173
42. Park YJ, Shin DD. Contextualizing privacy on health-related use of information technology, Comput Hum Behav. 2020; 105: 106204.
43. Hilty LM, Behrendt S, Binswanger M, Bruinink A, Erdmann L, Fröhlich J, et al. Das Vorsorgeprinzip in der Informationsgesellschaft: Auswirkungen des Pervasive Computing auf Gesundheit und Umwelt [The Precautionary Principle in the Information Society: Effects of Pervasive Computing on Health and the Environment]. TA-Swiss, Zentrum für Technologiefolgen-Abschätzung, Bern; 2003 Jan. ISBN: 3-908174-06-6
44. Czaja SJ, Charness N, Fisk AD, Hertzog C, Nair SN, Rogers WA, et al. Factors predicting the use of technology: findings from the Center for Research and Education on Aging and Technology Enhancement (create). Psychol Aging. 2006; 21(2): 333–352. pmid:16768579
45. Lee C, Coughlin JF. PERSPECTIVE: Older adults’ adoption of technology: an integrated approach to identifying determinants and barriers. J Prod Innov Manag. 2015; 32(5): 747–759.
46. Brown SA, Venkatesh V. Model of adoption of technology in households: A baseline model test and extension incorporating household life cycle. MIS Quarterly. 2005; 29(3): 399–426.