Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Jul 1.
Published in final edited form as: Proc ACM Interact Mob Wearable Ubiquitous Technol. 2020 Jun;4(2):72. doi: 10.1145/3397313

Table 1.

Comparing the literature on in-wild eating detection to this work

Year Study Sensors On body position No. of participants Avg hours per day Validation
video
Non-student Obese
2014 Fontana et al. [22] S1, S4, S6 Ear, wrist, chest 12 24.0 X
2015 Thomaz et al. [55] S1 Wrist 7+1 5.7/13.6 X X X
2015 Bedri et al. [10] S2, S5 Ear, head 6 6.0 X X
2016 Farooq et al. [21] S4 Temple 8 3.0 X X
2017 Bedri et al. [9] S1–S3, S5, S7 Neck, ear 10 4.5 X
2017 Zhang et al. [60] S8 Ear 10 6.1 X X X
2017 Mirtchouk et al. [35] S1–S3, S7 Ear, wrist, head 11 11.7 X X
2018 Sen et al. [49] S1, S2, S10 Wrist 9 5.8 X X
2018 Chun et al. [15] S5 Neck 17 4.6 X X X
2018 Bi et al. [13] S7 Ear 14 2.3 X X
2020 This work S1-S3, S5, S9 Neck 10+10 4.9/9.5

S1 - accelerometer, S2 - gyroscope, S3 - magnetometer, S4 - piezo, S5 - proximity, S6 - radio frequency, S7 - microphone, S8 - electromyography, S9 - light, S10 - camera