Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 83 references

MemPal: Leveraging Multimodal AI and LLMs for Voice-Activated Object Retrieval in Homes of Older Adults

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read MemPal claims a voice-activated camera diary helps older adults find lost objects at home.

desk verdict A genuinely useful assistive-system design with an honest but over-claimed evaluation: the path-length result holds, the headline accuracy result does not survive full-trial analysis. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.01801 v1 pith:HPV6R5XB submitted 2025-02-03 cs.HC

Natasha Maniar , Samantha W.T. Chan , Wazeer Zulfikar , Scott Ren , Christine Xu , Pattie Maes This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords memoryassistantlargelanguagemodelsvision-languagevoiceinterfacesobjectretrievalwearablecameraolderadultsactivitydiary
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

MemPal is a wearable memory assistant for older adults that turns a neck-worn camera's view of the wearer's hands into an automatically written text diary, then lets the user say "Pal, where are my keys?" and hear where the object was last seen. The paper reports a within-subject study in 15 older adults' own homes (ages 62 to 96) comparing this audio aid, a visual image aid, and no aid for finding 20 placed objects. Its main claim is that the audio descriptions improve object retrieval relative to no system: retrieval accuracy rose from 81 percent to 97 percent on the analyzed trials, the number of rooms searched fell, and participants rated recalling locations as less difficult. The authors see this as a first step toward a general personal memory agent that supports independent living and reduces caregiver strain, with the same activity-log infrastructure proposed for safety reminders and recall of past actions.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the activity log built from egocentric vision: a neck-worn camera streams frames, hand detection decides when to run a vision-language model that outputs text descriptions of the hand-held object, the current activity, and the background scene, and those descriptions are embedded and stored as time-sequenced text in a vector database. Room localization comes from a calibration video turned into embedding maps plus a room adjacency list. On a voice query, speech-to-text feeds an LLM that classifies the query as object-related, extracts the object name, retrieves the most recent matching entry by exact match or embedding similarity with retrieval-augmented generation, and answers in the form "Your [object] was last seen in the [room] near [background description]." This text-only diary, rather than stored images or manual tags, is what lets MemPal answer open-ended follow-up questions and keeps the stored data lightweight and privacy-preserving.

What would settle it

Run the same 20-object protocol with objects placed by the experimenter, or with a delay of 24 to 48 hours between placement and retrieval, and check whether the audio condition still beats unaided retrieval; if the improvement disappears or the unaided ceiling is already too high, the claimed benefit does not extend to genuine lost-object episodes.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a voice-enabled, multimodal LLM assistant built on an automatically logged text diary can help older adults find misplaced objects in their own homes. Concretely, it claims that when MemPal delivers a correct audio description of an object's last-seen location, users find significantly more objects within three minutes than with no assistance (97 percent versus 81 percent accuracy on the analyzed trials) and search through significantly fewer rooms (1.10 versus 1.93 rooms on average), with no significant drop on task load or confidence and a significant reduction in self-reported recall difficulty. The paper further claims that this audio aid performs comparably to a visual-image aid, that older adults rate the system as usable and useful, and that the same architecture, camera-derived activity descriptions stored as text and queried through a conversational LLM, can be extended to proactive safety reminders and retrospective recall of past actions.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the study's 40-minute, self-placed retrieval task reproduces real-life misplacement; the paper concedes that participants occasionally remembered where they put objects, and unaided accuracy was already 81 percent, so the measured benefit comes from a short-delay, high-ceiling task.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, older adults who lose objects at home can get immediate voice answers about where things were last seen without tagging objects or searching through video.
  • The comparable performance of audio and visual aids implies that users can be offered either modality, or a combination, and still receive most of the retrieval benefit.
  • Because the activity diary is text-only, caregivers and clinicians could receive objective accounts of daily activities, potentially supporting remote monitoring and more accurate memory assessment.
  • The same logging-and-query pipeline is directly reusable for features the paper describes but did not formally test: proactive safety reminders and retrospective recall of past actions.
  • Retrieval improvements translate to less time spent searching and less perceived recall difficulty, which in turn supports older adults' ability to live independently.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A longer-delay, experimenter-placed retrieval test is the natural next check: the present 40-minute protocol with self-placed objects may underestimate how much assistance matters in real misplacement episodes, where memory fades further.
  • The 24 percent object-misidentification rate in the accuracy breakdown suggests the binding constraint is fine-grained object recognition, not room localization; improving object naming could raise the usable-assistance rate well above 72 percent.
  • If the privacy preference generalizes, a text-diary assistant could become an accepted remote patient monitoring tool, but that would require explicit consent and data-sharing norms that the paper only begins to probe.
  • The comparable audio and visual performance hints that personalized modality choice, rather than a single best output, will maximize adoption; participants themselves asked for optionality.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. This paper presents MemPal, a wearable memory assistant combining a neck-worn egocentric camera with a bone-conduction headset and multimodal LLM backend. The system converts egocentric video into a text-based activity diary (objects held, room locations, background descriptions) and answers voice queries such as "Pal, where are my keys?" via exact-match or RAG retrieval. The paper reports a within-subjects study with N=15 older adults (ages 62-96, including participants with subjective cognitive decline and mild cognitive impairment) in their own homes, comparing three object-retrieval conditions: unaided baseline, MemPal audio descriptions, and a visual tiled-image condition. The central claims are that MemPal significantly improves retrieval accuracy, reduces path length (rooms searched), and reduces perceived recall difficulty relative to baseline, with additional technical-accuracy results (72% audio accuracy, 53% visual accuracy) and qualitative findings on usability, privacy, and form factor. The paper positions MemPal as a first step toward a general, privacy-preserving memory agent for older adults.

Significance. If the defensible parts of the evaluation hold, the contribution is meaningful. The system is a credible integration of a registration-free, text-only diary with voice interaction, extending the GoFinder lineage to older adults in real homes; the in-the-wild deployment and recruitment of MCI/SCD participants are genuine strengths. The path-length effect (p=.007 in the all-data analysis) and the recall-difficulty effect are statistically credible, and the manuscript is unusually transparent in reporting both filtered and unfiltered analyses and in disclosing the system's technical limitations (72% audio accuracy, 53% visual accuracy). The qualitative findings on preferences, privacy attitudes, and form-factor constraints provide useful design guidance for future memory-assistance systems. However, the headline retrieval-accuracy claim is not supported by the all-data analysis the paper itself reports (Baseline-MemPal p=.054), and the abstract, introduction, discussion, and conclusion assert the accuracy benefit without that qualification.

major comments (4)
  1. [§6.2.1, §5.2.2, §7.1] The central claim that MemPal "increase[s] the rate of correct object identification (retrieval accuracy)" (Discussion, §7.1) is statistically supported only after excluding the 28% of MemPal trials (26 of 92) in which the system's audio response was judged inaccurate or empty; the same paragraph discloses that with all trials included, the Baseline-MemPal contrast "loses significance (p=.054)". This exclusion is not analytically neutral: an incorrect audio cue (wrong room) is actively misleading rather than equivalent to no assistance, so the excluded trials are systematically those in which the system harmed the user's 3-minute search budget. The filtered analysis should be repositioned as a secondary sensitivity analysis of "efficacy conditional on correct system output," with the all-data analysis as the primary estimate. As written, the abstract, §1, §7.1, and §9 state the accuracy benefit without this qualification, overstating the evidence. In addition, the per-participant accuracy percentages in the filtered analysis are computed over unequal and sometimes very small denominators (Participants P3 and P15 had 29% and 43% system accuracy, leaving few eligible trials), so the N=15 Friedman/Wilcoxon tests on filtered percentages rest on heterogeneous trial counts.
  2. [§5.2.2, §6.1.1 (Table 1), §6.2.1] An analogous filtering removes 47% of Visual trials, and the Visual exclusion includes not only system-error trials but also trials where "participants did not rely on the image for retrieval" — a criterion that is never operationalized and for which no measurement or inter-rater reliability is reported. The importance of this is shown by the all-data analysis, which reverses the accuracy conclusion: Baseline-Visual becomes significant (p=.02) while Baseline-MemPal does not (p=.054). The paper's claim in §7.1 that "both assistance modes supported users in similar ways" therefore holds only under the filtered definitions; under the all-trial analysis the two assistance modes behave differently. The authors should present both analyses prominently and reconcile this reversal in the discussion.
  3. [§6.2.1, §6.2.2, §6.2.4] Several reported statistics are impossible or mislabeled: p=1.03 (MemPal-Visual, retrieval accuracy), p=2.053 (MemPal-Visual, path length), and the reporting of Wilcoxon signed-rank results as "X²=26.0, p=0.91" and "X²=13.0, p=0.06" in §6.2.4. p-values cannot exceed 1, and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests do not produce chi-square statistics. These entries must be corrected (or replaced with the actual test statistics and the Bonferroni-adjusted thresholds) before the pairwise comparisons that the prose relies on can be verified.
  4. [§5.1.1, §8.1.2, §5.2.2] The study's ecological validity is limited in a way that interacts with the filtering: participants placed the 20 objects themselves and retrieved them about 40 minutes later (the paper says "40 minutes" in §5.1.1 but "within 30 minutes" in §8.1.2), and unaided baseline accuracy was already 81%, a strong ceiling. Section 8.1.2 concedes that participants "occasionally remembered where objects were placed since they placed the objects themselves." Under these conditions the filtered 81%→97% improvement does not generalize to real lost-object episodes, which involve longer delays and no self-placement memory. The manuscript should either lengthen the delay and remove self-placement in future work, or explicitly bound the abstract's "validates helpfulness" claim to the short-delay, high-ceiling protocol; as it stands, the abstract and conclusion carry no such bound.
minor comments (7)
  1. [§5.1.1 vs §8.1.2] The placement-to-retrieval delay is stated as 40 minutes in §5.1.1 and §5.3, but as "within 30 minutes" in §8.1.2; the inconsistency should be resolved.
  2. [§7.2 vs §6.3] Section 7.2 reports Ease of use M=5.38 and Response satisfaction M=5.17, but §6.3 reports the same constructs as M=5.07 (SD=1.87) and M=4.86 (SD=1.61); the numbers should be reconciled.
  3. [§7.2] The sentence beginning "we y stored textual information (anoymized and securely stored in a protected database)" is garbled ("we y stored") and contains a typo ("anoymized"); this passage should be rewritten.
  4. [§6.1.1, Table 1] Table 1's "Total Count" row is hard to interpret: the total 92 appears under multiple columns, and the Visual total (145) is not decomposed into the four error categories, so the reader cannot reconstruct how the 53% Visual accuracy figure was computed; a clearer breakdown is needed.
  5. [Appendix B.1.2, §4.3.2] The location-confidence threshold T=0.22, the top-k values (k=1 and k=11 for localization, k=10 for RAG), and the 3-minute search limit are fixed parameters, but no sensitivity analysis is reported; given that room-localization errors drive 22% of audio-response failures, a brief robustness check (or an explicit statement that the parameters were not tuned on study data) would strengthen the technical evaluation.
  6. [§6.4] The MMSE-SUS correlation (r=-0.606, p=.048, N=12) is presented as evidence that higher-MMSE participants found the system less usable, but with three participants who declined to complete the SUS and a p-value near .05, the result is fragile; it should be labeled exploratory, and the analogous correlation with age (available in Table 4) should be reported for comparison.
  7. [General] No code, prompt templates, or data release is mentioned; given the complexity of the vision-language pipeline, releasing the prompt templates and retrieval workflow would materially aid replication and comparison by other groups.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No derivation-based circularity; behavioral outcome measures are independent of system parameters, with only minor non-load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's chain is empirical rather than derivational. The claimed benefit of MemPal's audio descriptions (Sec. 7.1) rests on measured retrieval accuracy, path length, and recall difficulty (Sec. 6.2), each of which is an externally defined behavioral outcome (object found within three minutes; number of rooms searched; Likert rating) and is not computed from the model's fitted parameters. The activity log is an input to the assistant, but the outcome is not constructed from that log by definition. The only internal-input issue is the analysis filter in Sec. 5.2.2 and 6.2.1 that retains only trials with accurate system responses; the paper explicitly discloses that including all data changes the Baseline-MemPal accuracy comparison to p=.054, so the conditional claim is not silently renamed as a fit. That is a statistical robustness concern, not circularity, because the filtered analysis is still a behavioral measurement rather than a parameter-derived prediction. Self-citations ([14]-[16], [79]) appear in related work and in the choice of evaluation metrics (following Memoro [79]), but they are not load-bearing: no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported, and the central comparative claim is tested against a no-system baseline with independent measures. Therefore no step reduces to its own input, and the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The system's claimed performance rests on several hand-set thresholds (T=0.22, k-values, frame filters), on the reliability of commercial VLMs, and on the study's placement protocol. None of these is externally benchmarked or ships with sensitivity analysis, so the reported 72% audio accuracy and the user-study effects should be read as conditional.

free parameters (5)
  • Indoor location confidence threshold T = 0.22
    Hand-set cosine similarity threshold in Step 2 of the localization algorithm; below it, the previous location is kept. No sensitivity analysis is provided.
  • Location candidate counts = k=1 nearest neighbor, k=11 candidates, window length 9
    Heuristics in the indoor localization pipeline (Appendix B.1.2) that determine when a room prediction is accepted; no robustness check is reported.
  • RAG top-k retrieval count = 10
    Chosen in Section 4.3.2 for embedding similarity retrieval; no results show how the answer quality varies with k.
  • Frame pre-processing thresholds = Laplacian variance < 25, SSIM < 0.95
    Hand-chosen filters in Appendix B.1.1 that discard blurry or redundant frames; they shape which frames reach the VLM and thus what gets logged.
  • Search time limit = 3 minutes
    Task design parameter; directly defines retrieval accuracy and path length, so the measured user performance depends on it.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Cosine similarity nearest-neighbor search with an adjacency constraint reliably localizes rooms from egocentric camera frames.
    Invoked in Appendix B.1.2; the whole location tracking pipeline assumes embedding neighborhoods correspond to physical rooms and that similar-looking rooms can be disambiguated by adjacency.
  • domain assumption GPT-4V and CLIP produce accurate zero-shot descriptions of hand-held objects, activities, and scene backgrounds.
    The activity diary and all retrieval answers are generated by these commercial models; no independent benchmark against human annotations is reported.
  • domain assumption Only objects visible in the camera when hands are detected are worth logging.
    Hand detection gates all object and activity recognition (Appendix B.1.3), so objects placed out of view or without hand interaction cannot be retrieved.
  • ad hoc to paper Self-placement and a 40-minute delay model everyday object misplacement in older adults.
    Study protocol uses 20 researcher-provided objects placed by the participant; Section 8.1.2 admits participants remembered placements, creating a high baseline.
  • domain assumption Manual post-hoc labeling by two researchers is a reliable ground truth for system accuracy.
    Section 5.2.1 states two researchers annotated correct and incorrect responses; inter-rater reliability is not reported, and the annotators are not independent of the system design.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MemPal: Leveraging Multimodal AI and LLMs for Voice-Activated Object Retrieval in Homes of Older Adults." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HPV6R5XB

@misc{pith2026250201801,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MemPal: Leveraging Multimodal AI and LLMs for Voice-Activated Object Retrieval in Homes of Older Adults},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HPV6R5XB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.01801}
}
read the original abstract

Older adults have increasing difficulty with retrospective memory, hindering their abilities to perform daily activities and posing stress on caregivers to ensure their wellbeing. Recent developments in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and large context-aware multimodal models offer an opportunity to create memory support systems that assist older adults with common issues like object finding. This paper discusses the development of an AI-based, wearable memory assistant, MemPal, that helps older adults with a common problem, finding lost objects at home, and presents results from tests of the system in older adults' own homes. Using visual context from a wearable camera, the multimodal LLM system creates a real-time automated text diary of the person's activities for memory support purposes, offering object retrieval assistance using a voice-based interface. The system is designed to support additional use cases like context-based proactive safety reminders and recall of past actions. We report on a quantitative and qualitative study with N=15 older adults within their own homes that showed improved performance of object finding with audio-based assistance compared to no aid and positive overall user perceptions on the designed system. We discuss further applications of MemPal's design as a multi-purpose memory aid and future design guidelines to adapt memory assistants to older adults' unique needs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.01801 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. MemPal object location tracking and retrieval feature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. System onboarding phase: Using the MemPal app, the user first watches an instructional demo video before beginning [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. System implementation overview highlights the use of real-time visual context through a wearable camera for a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (15 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: An example of activity log, query log, and higher level activities extracted (from Participant 5 of user study) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: User flow for object retrieval. When the user places an object at a location in the house, MemPal stores this information [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Object Retrieval Implementation: This workflow demonstrates the question and answer system specifically for object [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The user interaction for each memory assistance condition during the object search process. (Left) The MemPal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Object set used during the study for each participant are shown below: folder, cup, phone, bottle, medication, glasses, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Procedure flow of the 2.5 hour study within each participant’s home. All surveys took around 5 minutes. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Retrieval Accuracy and Path length. ∗: p<.05, ∗∗: p<.001 correction determined no condition pairs were significant: Baseline￾MemPal (𝑋 2=26.0, 𝑝=0.91) Baseline-Visual (𝑋 2=13.0, 𝑝=0.06) MemPal￾Visual (𝑋 2=2.0, 𝑝=0.212). Baseline (𝑀=4.87, 𝑆𝐷=1.19), MemPal (𝑀=5.27, 𝑆𝐷=1…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: A post hoc Wilcoxon signed rank analysis after Bonfer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Raw NASA TLX for task load [0-100], confidence [1-7], difficulty to recall [1-7]. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Categorized user perception and experience levels using [1-7] Likert scale. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Vision system workflow: Every frame in a frame batch of nine is first pre-processed to create a tiled image (Left) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Details of the indoor location tracking algorithm including calibration phase and localization. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Safety Reminders Implementation demonstrating proactive reminders, retrospective task remembering, and passive [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: The participant house embedding maps (computed by Fig. 14) show home variability with no clear clusters, indicating [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: This shows the frequency distribution of different rooms across the various participant homes to illustrate high [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_17.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2022. U.S. - seniors as a percentage of the population 1950-2050. https://www.statista.com/statistics/457822/share-of-old-age-population- in-the-total-us-population/ Accessed: 2023-12-13

    2022

  2. [2]

    Gregory D Abowd, Aaron F Bobick, Irfan A Essa, Elizabeth D Mynatt, and Wendy A Rogers. 2002. The aware home: A living laboratory for technologies for successful aging. In Proceedings of the AAAI-02 Workshop “Automation as Caregiver. 1–7

    2002

  3. [3]

    Mohammad Rafayet Ali, Kimberly Van Orden, Kimberly Parkhurst, Shuyang Liu, Viet-Duy Nguyen, Paul Duberstein, and M Ehsan Hoque. 2018. Aging and engaging: A social conversational skills training program for older adults. In23rd International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces . 55–66

    2018

  4. [4]

    Alzheimer’s Association. 2023. 2023 Alzheimer’s disease facts and figures. Alzheimer’s & Dementia 19 (2023), 1598–1695. https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.13016

    doi:10.1002/alz.13016 2023

  5. [5]

    invisible

    Peter S Arno, Carol Levine, and Margaret M Memmott. 1999. The Economic Value Of Informal Caregiving: President Clinton’s proposal to provide relief to family caregivers opens a long-overdue discussion of this “invisible” health care sector. Health Affairs 18, 2 (1999), 182–188

    work page 1999

  6. [6]

    David A Balota, Patrick O Dolan, and Janet M Duchek. 2000. Memory changes in healthy young and older adults.The Oxford handbook of memory (2000), 395–410

    work page 2000

  7. [7]

    Aaron Bangor, Philip T Kortum, and James T Miller. 2008. An empirical evaluation of the system usability scale. Intl. Journal of Human–Computer Interaction 24, 6 (2008), 574–594

    2008

  8. [8]

    Timothy W Bickmore, Lisa Caruso, Kerri Clough-Gorr, and Tim Heeren. 2005. ‘It’s just like you talk to a friend’relational agents for older adults. Interacting with Computers 17, 6 (2005), 711–735

    work page 2005

Show all 83 references
  1. [9]

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology 3, 2 (2006), 77–101

    2006

  2. [10]

    Robin N Brewer and Anne Marie Piper. 2017. xPress: Rethinking design for aging and accessibility through an IVR blogging system. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 1, CSCW (2017), 1–17

    2017

  3. [11]

    John Brooke et al. 1996. SUS-A quick and dirty usability scale.Usability evaluation in industry 189, 194 (1996), 4–7

    1996

  4. [12]

    Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems 33 (2020), 1877–1901

    2020

  5. [13]

    Marco Buzzelli, Alessio Albé, and Gianluigi Ciocca. 2020. A vision-based system for monitoring elderly people at home. Applied Sciences 10, 1 (2020), 374

    2020

  6. [14]

    Samantha WT Chan, Shardul Sapkota, Rebecca Mathews, Haimo Zhang, and Suranga Nanayakkara. 2020. Prompto: Investigating receptivity to prompts based on cognitive load from memory training conversational agent. Proceedings of the ACM on interactive, mobile, wearable and ubiquito...

    2020

  7. [15]

    Samantha WT Chan, Haimo Zhang, and Suranga Nanayakkara. 2019. Prospero: A personal wearable memory coach. InProceedings of the 10th Augmented Human International Conference 2019. 1–5

    2019

  8. [16]

    Samantha W. T. Chan. 2020. Biosignal-Sensitive Memory Improvement and Support Systems. In Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI EA ’20) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–7. https:/...

    2020

  9. [17]

    Samantha W. T. Chan, Thisum Buddhika, Haimo Zhang, and Suranga Nanayakkara. 2019. ProspecFit: In Situ Evaluation of Digital Prospective Memory Training for Older Adults. Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol. 3, 3, Article 77 (Sept. 2019), 20 pages. https://doi....

    2019 doi

  10. [18]

    Sam W. T. Chan, Tamil Selvan Gunasekaran, Yun Suen Pai, Haimo Zhang, and Suranga Nanayakkara. 2021. KinVoices: Using Voices of Friends and Family in Voice Interfaces. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 5, CSCW2, Article 446 (Oct. 2021), 25 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3479590

    2021 doi

  11. [19]

    Wei Ting Samantha Chan. 2022. Augmenting Human Prospective Memory through Cognition-A ware Technologies. Ph. D. Dissertation. ResearchSpace@ Auckland

    2022

  12. [20]

    Sijie Cheng, Zhicheng Guo, Jingwen Wu, Kechen Fang, Peng Li, Huaping Liu, and Yang Liu. 2023. Can Vision-Language Models Think from a First-Person Perspective? arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.15596 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Joseph R Cockrell and Marshal F Folstein. 2002. Mini-mental state examination. Principles and practice of geriatric psychiatry (2002), 140–141

    2002

  14. [22]

    Daniel Collerton, Emily Forster, and Derek Packham. 2014. An exploratory study of the effectiveness of memory aids for older people living in supported accommodation. Journal of Applied Gerontology 33, 8 (2014), 963–981

    2014

  15. [23]

    Cynthia F Corbett, Pamela J Wright, Kate Jones, and Michael Parmer. 2021. Voice- activated virtual home assistant use and social isolation and loneliness among older adults: mini review. Frontiers in Public Health 9 (2021), 742012

    2021

  16. [24]

    Jessamyn Dahmen, Bryan Minor, DJ Cook, Thao Vo, and Maureen Schmitter- Edgecombe. 2018. Design of a smart home-driven digital memory notebook to support self-management of activities for older adults. Gerontechnology (2018)

    2018

  17. [25]

    Nigel Davies, Adrian Friday, Sarah Clinch, Corina Sas, Marc Langheinrich, Geoff Ward, and Albrecht Schmidt. 2015. Security and privacy implications of pervasive memory augmentation. IEEE Pervasive Computing 14, 1 (2015), 44–53

    2015

  18. [26]

    Koldo De Miguel, Alberto Brunete, Miguel Hernando, and Ernesto Gambao. 2017. Home camera-based fall detection system for the elderly. Sensors 17, 12 (2017), 2864

    2017

  19. [27]

    Deepgram. 2024. Deepgram Speech-to-Text API. https://deepgram.com/product/ speech-to-text Accessed: 2024-04-30

    2024

  20. [28]

    Lydia Dubourg, Ana Rita Silva, Christophe Fitamen, Chris JA Moulin, and Cé- line Souchay. 2016. SenseCam: A new tool for memory rehabilitation? Revue Neurologique 172, 12 (2016), 735–747

    2016

  21. [29]

    Samira Farivar, Mohamed Abouzahra, and Maryam Ghasemaghaei. 2020. Wear- able device adoption among older adults: A mixed-methods study. International Journal of Information Management 55 (2020), 102209

    2020

  22. [30]

    Robert J Fontana and Steven J Gunderson. 2002. Ultra-wideband precision as- set location system. In 2002 IEEE Conference on Ultra Wideband Systems and Technologies (IEEE Cat. No. 02EX580) . IEEE, 147–150

    2002

  23. [31]

    Norina Gasteiger, Kate Loveys, Mikaela Law, and Elizabeth Broadbent. 2021. Friends from the future: a scoping review of research into robots and computer agents to combat loneliness in older people. Clinical interventions in aging (2021), 941–971

    2021

  24. [32]

    Olga Gelonch, Mireia Ribera, Núria Codern-Bové, Sílvia Ramos, Maria Quintana, Gloria Chico, Noemí Cerulla, Paula Lafarga, Petia Radeva, and Maite Garolera

  25. [33]

    Hui Jun Guo and Amit Sapra. 2020. Instrumental activity of daily living. (2020)

    2020

  26. [34]

    Matthew Allan Hamilton, Anthony Paul Beug, Howard John Hamilton, and Wil James Norton. 2021. Augmented Reality Technology for People Living with Dementia and their Care Partners. In Proceedings of the 2021 5th International Conference on Virtual and Augmented Reality Simulatio...

    2021

  27. [35]

    Stefan Harrer. 2023. Attention is not all you need: the complicated case of ethically using large language models in healthcare and medicine. EBioMedicine 90 (2023)

    2023

  28. [36]

    Phyllis Braudy Harris. 2006. The experience of living alone with early stage Alzheimer’s disease: What are the person’s concerns? Alzheimer’s Care Today 7, 2 (2006), 84–94

    2006

  29. [37]

    Moh Khalid Hasan, Md Shahjalal, Mostafa Zaman Chowdhury, and Yeong Min Jang. 2019. Real-time healthcare data transmission for remote patient monitoring in patch-based hybrid OCC/BLE networks. Sensors 19, 5 (2019), 1208

    2019

  30. [38]

    Suining He and S-H Gary Chan. 2015. Wi-Fi fingerprint-based indoor positioning: Recent advances and comparisons. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials 18, 1 (2015), 466–490

    2015

  31. [39]

    Steve Hodges, Lyndsay Williams, Emma Berry, Shahram Izadi, James Srinivasan, Alex Butler, Gavin Smyth, Narinder Kapur, and Ken Wood. 2006. SenseCam: A retrospective memory aid. In UbiComp 2006: Ubiquitous Computing: 8th Interna- tional Conference, UbiComp 2006 Orange County, C...

    2006

  32. [40]

    Dodge, Jiayu Zhou, and Zhangyang Wang

    Junyuan Hong, Wenqing Zheng, Han Meng, Siqi Liang, Anqing Chen, Hiroko H. Dodge, Jiayu Zhou, and Zhangyang Wang. 2024. A-CONECT: Designing AI- based Conversational Chatbot for Early Dementia Intervention. In ICLR 2024 Workshop on Large Language Model (LLM) Agents. https://open...

    2024

  33. [41]

    Valerie K Jones, Michael Hanus, Changmin Yan, Marcia Y Shade, Julie Blaskewicz Boron, and Rafael Maschieri Bicudo. 2021. Reducing loneliness among aging adults: the roles of personal voice assistants and anthropomorphic interactions. Frontiers in public health 9 (2021), 750736

    2021

  34. [42]

    Judith D Kasper, Vicki A Freedman, Brenda C Spillman, and Jennifer L Wolff

  35. [43]

    Sunyoung Kim, Willow Yao, and Xiaotong Du. 2022. Exploring older adults’ adoption and use of a tablet computer during COVID-19: longitudinal qualitative study. JMIR aging 5, 1 (2022), e32957

    2022

  36. [44]

    M Rupesh Kumar, Susmitha Vekkot, S Lalitha, Deepa Gupta, Varasiddhi Jaya- suryaa Govindraj, Kamran Shaukat, Yousef Ajami Alotaibi, and Mohammed Zakariah. 2022. Dementia detection from speech using machine learning and deep learning architectures. Sensors 22, 23 (2022), 9311. I...

    2022

  37. [45]

    James R Lewis. 2018. The system usability scale: past, present, and future. Inter- national Journal of Human–Computer Interaction 34, 7 (2018), 577–590

    2018

  38. [46]

    Franklin Mingzhe Li, Di Laura Chen, Mingming Fan, and Khai N Truong. 2019. FMT: A wearable camera-based object tracking memory aid for older adults. Pro- ceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies 3, 3 (2019), 1–25

    2019

  39. [47]

    Chi-yau Lin, Chia-nan Ke, Shao-you Cheng, Jane Yung-jen Hsu, and Hao-hua Chu. 2005. Object reminder and safety alarm. In Embedded and Ubiquitous Computing–EUC 2005 Workshops: EUC 2005 Workshops: UISW, NCUS, SecUbiq, USN, and TAUES, Nagasaki, Japan, December 6-9, 2005. Proceedi...

    2005

  40. [48]

    Lili Liu, Eleni Stroulia, Ioanis Nikolaidis, Antonio Miguel-Cruz, and Adriana Rios Rincon. 2016. Smart homes and home health monitoring technologies for older adults: A systematic review. International journal of medical informatics 91 (2016), 44–59

    2016

  41. [49]

    Mingzhou Liu, Caixia Wang, and Jing Hu. 2023. Older adults’ intention to use voice assistants: Usability and emotional needs. Heliyon 9, 11 (2023)

    2023

  42. [50]

    Arjun Majumdar, Fei Xia, Dhruv Batra, Leonidas Guibas, et al. 2023. Findthis: Language-driven object disambiguation in indoor environments. In 7th Annual Conference on Robot Learning

    2023

  43. [51]

    Jenna Asha Malini Marchant and Kristine N Williams. 2011. Memory matters in assisted living. Rehabilitation Nursing 36, 2 (2011), 83–88

    2011

  44. [52]

    Siddharth Mehrotra, Vivian Genaro Motti, Helena Frijns, Tugce Akkoc, Sena Büşra Yengeç, Oguz Calik, Marieke MM Peeters, and Mark A Neerincx. 2016. Embodied conversational interfaces for the elderly user. In Proceedings of the 8th Indian Conference on Human-Computer Interaction . 90–95

    2016

  45. [53]

    Jacqueline Mogle, Jennifer R Turner, Sakshi Bhargava, Robert S Stawski, David M Almeida, and Nikki L Hill. 2023. Individual differences in frequency and impact of daily memory lapses: results from a national lifespan sample. BMC geriatrics 23, 1 (2023), 670

    2023

  46. [54]

    Sue Molesworth and Lisa Sharrock. 2016. An Evaluation of" Autographer plus Flo. (2016)

    2016

  47. [55]

    Mohammad Nabati and Seyed Ali Ghorashi. 2023. A real-time fingerprint-based indoor positioning using deep learning and preceding states. Expert Systems with Applications 213 (2023), 118889

    2023

  48. [56]

    Tushar Nagarajan, Santhosh Kumar Ramakrishnan, Ruta Desai, James Hillis, and Kristen Grauman. 2024. EgoEnv: Human-centric environment representations from egocentric video. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 (2024)

    2024

  49. [57]

    Jim Nilsson and Tomas Akenine-Möller. 2020. Understanding ssim.arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.13846 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Katherine O’Brien, Sophia W Light, Sara Bradley, and Lee Lindquist. 2022. Opti- mizing voice-controlled intelligent personal assistants for use by home-bound older adults. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 70, 5 (2022), 1504–1509

    2022

  51. [59]

    Katherine E Olson, Marita A O’Brien, Wendy A Rogers, and Neil Charness. 2011. Diffusion of technology: frequency of use for younger and older adults. Ageing international 36, 1 (2011), 123–145

    2011

  52. [60]

    OpenCV. 2023. Camera Calibration. https://docs.opencv.org/4.x/dc/dbb/tutorial_ py_calibration.html. Accessed: 2024-04-29

    2023

  53. [61]

    Christiane Opfermann, Karola Pitsch, Ramin Yaghoubzadeh, and Stefan Kopp

  54. [62]

    Hiroto Oshimi, Monica Perusquía-Hernández, Naoya Isoyama, Hideaki Uchiyama, and Kiyoshi Kiyokawa. 2023. LocatAR: An AR Object Search Assistance Sys- tem for a Shared Space. In Proceedings of the Augmented Humans International Conference 2023. 66–76

    2023

  55. [63]

    Phantom Friend

    Alisha Pradhan, Leah Findlater, and Amanda Lazar. 2019. " Phantom Friend" or" Just a Box with Information" Personification and Ontological Categorization of Smart Speaker-based Voice Assistants by Older Adults. Proceedings of the ACM on human-computer interaction 3, CSCW (2019), 1–21

    2019

  56. [64]

    Laura Ramos, Elise Van Den Hoven, and Laurie Miller. 2016. Designing for the Other’Hereafter’ When Older Adults Remember about Forgetting. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 721–732

    2016

  57. [65]

    Adrián Valera Román, DP Martınez, AL Murciego, Diego M Jiménez-Bravo, and Juan F de Paz. [n. d.]. Voice assistant application for avoiding sedentarism in elderly people based on iot technologies, Electron. 10 (8)(2021)

    2021

  58. [66]

    Emily Schryer and Michael Ross. 2013. The use and benefits of external memory aids in older and younger adults. Applied Cognitive Psychology 27, 5 (2013), 663–671

    2013

  59. [67]

    Valentin Schwind and Niels Henze. 2020. Anticipated User Stereotypes Systemat- ically Affect the Social Acceptability of Mobile Devices. In Proceedings of the 11th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Shaping Experiences, Shaping Society. 1–12

    2020

  60. [68]

    Hyunggoog Seo, Jaedong Kim, Kwanggyoon Seo, Bumki Kim, and Junyong Noh

  61. [69]

    Candace L Sidner, Timothy Bickmore, Bahador Nooraie, Charles Rich, Lazlo Ring, Mahni Shayganfar, and Laura Vardoulakis. 2018. Creating new technologies for companionable agents to support isolated older adults. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (TiiS) 8, 3 (2...

    2018

  62. [70]

    Brodrick Stigall, Jenny Waycott, Steven Baker, and Kelly Caine. 2019. Older adults’ perception and use of voice user interfaces: a preliminary review of the computing literature. In Proceedings of the 31st Australian Conference on Human- Computer-Interaction. 423–427

    2019

  63. [71]

    Christiana Tsiourti, Emilie Joly, Cindy Wings, Maher Ben Moussa, and Katarzyna Wac. 2014. Virtual assistive companions for older adults: qualitative field study and design implications. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for ...

    2014

  64. [72]

    Jonathan Ventura, Clemens Arth, Gerhard Reitmayr, and Dieter Schmalstieg. 2014. Global localization from monocular slam on a mobile phone. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics 20, 4 (2014), 531–539

    2014

  65. [73]

    Dibia Victor. 2017. HandTrack: A Library For Prototyping Real-time Hand TrackingInterfaces using Convolutional Neural Networks. GitHub repository (2017). https://github.com/victordibia/handtracking/tree/master/docs/handtrack. pdf

    2017

  66. [74]

    Bryan Wang, Gang Li, and Yang Li. 2023. Enabling conversational interaction with mobile ui using large language models. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–17

    2023

  67. [75]

    World Health Organization. 2024. Ageing and Health. https://www.who.int/news- room/fact-sheets/detail/ageing-and-health. Accessed: 2024-05-01

    2024

  68. [76]

    Anna Xygkou, Chee Siang Ang, Panote Siriaraya, Jonasz Piotr Kopecki, Alexandra Covaci, Eiman Kanjo, and Wan-Jou She. 2024. MindTalker: Navigating the Complexities of AI-Enhanced Social Engagement for People with Early-Stage Dementia. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Hum...

    2024

  69. [77]

    Takuma Yagi, Takumi Nishiyasu, Kunimasa Kawasaki, Moe Matsuki, and Yoichi Sato. 2021. GO-finder: a registration-free wearable system for assisting users in finding lost objects via hand-held object discovery. In 26th International Confer- ence on Intelligent User Interfaces . 139–149

    2021

  70. [78]

    Ge Yan, Chao Zhang, Jiadi Wang, Zheng Xu, Jianhui Liu, Jintao Nie, Fangtian Ying, and Cheng Yao. 2022. CamFi: An AI-driven and Camera-based System for Assisting Users in Finding Lost Objects in Multi-Person Scenarios. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Ext...

    2022

  71. [79]

    My MIL was always missing her purse and was sure someone had stolen it. She would ransack her room all night long. It would be in the closet. This happened often

    Wazeer Zulfikar, Samantha Chan, and Pattie Maes. 2024. Memoro: Using Large Language Models to Realize a Concise Interface for Real-Time Memory Augmen- tation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.02135 (2024). MemPal: Leveraging Multimodal AI and LLMs for Voice-Activated Object Retrieval...

    2024 arXiv

  72. [2015]

    Health Affairs 34, 10 (2015), 1642–1649

    The disproportionate impact of dementia on family and unpaid caregiving to older adults. Health Affairs 34, 10 (2015), 1642–1649

    2015

  73. [2017]

    Making Suggestions

    The Communicative Activity of" Making Suggestions" as an Interactional Process: Towards a Dialog Model for HAI. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Human Agent Interaction . 161–170

  74. [2019]

    BMC geriatrics 19, 1 (2019), 1–10

    Acceptability of a lifelogging wearable camera in older adults with mild cognitive impairment: a mixed-method study. BMC geriatrics 19, 1 (2019), 1–10

    2019

  75. [2021]

    Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies 5, 3 (2021), 1–24

    Overthere: A simple and intuitive object registration method for an absolute mid-air pointing interface. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies 5, 3 (2021), 1–24

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.