pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.13261 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-13 · 💻 cs.HC · cs.AI

Recognition: no theorem link

"It became a self-fulfilling prophecy": How Lived Experiences are Entangled with AI Predictions in Menstrual Cycle Tracking Apps

Wendy Zhou , Pelin Karaturhan , Alexandra Weilenmann , Jichen Zhu
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-14 18:30 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC cs.AI
keywords menstrual cycle tracking appsAI predictionshuman-AI entanglementlived experienceself-fulfilling prophecyuser interviewsdesign implicationsnon-normative users
0
0 comments X

The pith

Users of menstrual cycle tracking apps interpret their own bodies and feelings through AI predictions, even when those predictions rest on incomplete or inaccurate logs.

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

Menstrual cycle tracking apps increasingly offer AI forecasts of periods, ovulation, and mood changes based on user-entered data. The paper shows that people begin to read their actual physical sensations and emotional states in terms of what the app predicts, creating a loop where the forecast influences what users notice and report. Because logging is often incomplete, the AI outputs are frequently off, yet the apps provide no built-in way for users to see or question this influence. Non-normative cycle patterns leave users feeling especially isolated from the app's normative framing. A reader would care because these apps are now part of daily health routines for millions, quietly shaping personal knowledge of the body with little visibility into the feedback process.

Core claim

The paper establishes that users' lived experiences become entangled with AI predictions in MCTAs: people understand their bodies and mental states in light of the app's forecasts, yet these forecasts are often faulty because of imperfect logging practices; the interface features and explanations do not support awareness or critical engagement with this entanglement; and non-normative users experience a sense of isolation within it.

What carries the argument

Human-AI entanglement, the process by which users adjust their interpretation of personal experiences to align with AI-generated predictions and explanations in menstrual cycle tracking apps.

If this is right

  • Predictive features should be designed to surface the effects of missing or inconsistent logs so users can see where forecasts may be unreliable.
  • Explanations attached to AI outputs need to include prompts that encourage users to compare predictions against their own logged sensations rather than accept them at face value.
  • Interfaces should explicitly accommodate cycle patterns that fall outside statistical norms to reduce the reported sense of isolation.
  • Design changes that increase awareness of entanglement would also reduce the risk that faulty predictions reinforce themselves through changed user behavior.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same entanglement pattern may appear in other personal-data apps that combine self-reports with algorithmic forecasts, such as sleep or mood trackers.
  • Improving the ease and accuracy of data entry could weaken the self-fulfilling loop by producing more reliable predictions that require less interpretive adjustment from users.
  • Future studies could test whether adding uncertainty visualizations around AI forecasts measurably increases users' willingness to question or override the app's suggestions.

Load-bearing premise

The 14 interviews and group autoethnography capture a representative range of user experiences with these apps without major selection or interpretation bias.

What would settle it

A larger, demographically broader interview or diary study that finds most users do not reinterpret their physical sensations or moods to match AI predictions, even when logging data is known to be incomplete.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.13261 by Alexandra Weilenmann, Jichen Zhu, Pelin Karaturhan, Wendy Zhou.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Four screenshots from the Flo menstrual cycle tracking app showing: (a) a list of suggested symptoms and moods to log for the day including items like ’Backache,’ ’Cramps,’ and ’Nausea’; (b) the main logging interface with categories for logging daily experiences and menstrual flow; (c) a chatbot interface displaying AI-driven predictions and personalized recommendations; and (d) an AI explanation screen d… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Three smartphone screenshots from the Flo app shown to interview participants, displaying: AI-based cycle and period predictions with calendar views, personal symptom insights and predictions with icons and descriptions, and fertility prediction features with explanatory text. explained, “I assume that if I don’t enter things every month when I get my period, then it will know less or make a worse predicti… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

In menstrual cycle tracking apps (MCTAs), AI-based predictions and insights have become increasingly popular. These features enable users to receive personalized information about their bodies and mental states. However, there is currently little research on how these predictive AI features and explanations affect users' lived experiences. This paper examines human-AI entanglement in MCTAs through 14 semi-structured user interviews and a group autoethnography. These methods uncover the processes leading to this phenomenon. Our results reveal that: (1) users understand their lived experiences in light of AI predictions, although these predictions can be faulty due to imperfect logging practices, (2) the user interface features and AI explanations do not support awareness or critical engagement with this entanglement and meaning-making, and (3) non-normative MCTA users report a sense of isolation in this entangled interaction. Based on our findings, we propose design implications for predictive AI features and explanations.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. This manuscript examines human-AI entanglement in menstrual cycle tracking apps (MCTAs) via 14 semi-structured user interviews and a group autoethnography. It claims that users interpret their lived bodily and mental experiences through AI predictions (which are often inaccurate due to imperfect logging), that current UI features and explanations fail to support awareness or critical engagement with this process, and that non-normative users experience isolation in these interactions. Design implications for predictive AI features are proposed based on the findings.

Significance. If the results hold, the work makes a meaningful contribution to HCI research on AI in personal health tracking by illuminating how algorithmic predictions shape self-understanding in intimate domains. The qualitative approach yields rich, inductive insights into meaning-making and isolation that complement quantitative studies of app accuracy. The design implications provide concrete directions for improving transparency and user agency, which could influence future MCTA development and broader discussions of algorithmic entanglement in sensitive contexts.

major comments (3)
  1. [Methods] Methods section: The recruitment channels, screening criteria, and detailed participant demographics (e.g., age, cycle regularity, prior app experience) are not reported. This is load-bearing for the central claims, as self-selection among users already attuned to or frustrated by predictions could artifactually amplify reports of entanglement and isolation among non-normative users.
  2. [Methods] Methods section: The thematic analysis process is described at a high level only, with no details on how themes were identified, whether multiple researchers coded the data, inter-rater reliability, or how contradictory cases were resolved. This weakens support for the reported processes of user meaning-making and the UI's failure to enable critical engagement.
  3. [Results] Results section: The evidence for claim (2) that UI features do not support critical engagement rests on participant reports, but lacks direct mapping to specific UI elements (e.g., prediction visualizations or explanation text) or accompanying figures/screenshots. This makes it harder to assess the generalizability of the design implications.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: Adding one sentence on the analysis approach (e.g., thematic analysis) would help readers immediately contextualize the strength of the findings.
  2. [Discussion] Discussion: The design implications could be more tightly linked to specific interview excerpts or autoethnographic observations to increase their actionability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed feedback, which has identified important opportunities to strengthen the transparency of our methods and the evidentiary basis for our results. We have prepared revisions that directly address each major comment while preserving the integrity of our qualitative findings on human-AI entanglement in menstrual cycle tracking apps.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods] Methods section: The recruitment channels, screening criteria, and detailed participant demographics (e.g., age, cycle regularity, prior app experience) are not reported. This is load-bearing for the central claims, as self-selection among users already attuned to or frustrated by predictions could artifactually amplify reports of entanglement and isolation among non-normative users.

    Authors: We agree that detailed reporting of recruitment and demographics is necessary to allow readers to evaluate potential selection effects. The revised manuscript will add a new subsection in Methods that specifies recruitment via targeted posts on Reddit (r/menstruation, r/TwoXChromosomes), Facebook groups focused on menstrual health, and university mailing lists; screening required at least three months of MCTA use with exposure to AI predictions; and a table presenting anonymized participant details including age range (18-42), self-reported cycle regularity (regular/irregular), duration of app use, and prior experience with predictive features. This information will enable assessment of whether the sample over-represents users already critical of predictions while still reflecting the diversity of experiences reported, including both normative and non-normative cycles. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Methods] Methods section: The thematic analysis process is described at a high level only, with no details on how themes were identified, whether multiple researchers coded the data, inter-rater reliability, or how contradictory cases were resolved. This weakens support for the reported processes of user meaning-making and the UI's failure to enable critical engagement.

    Authors: We acknowledge the need for greater methodological transparency. The revised Methods section will expand the description to state that we followed Braun and Clarke's six-phase reflexive thematic analysis. Two authors independently open-coded all 14 interview transcripts and the autoethnographic notes, then met weekly to compare codes, resolve discrepancies through discussion, and iteratively develop themes. No quantitative inter-rater reliability metric was computed, consistent with reflexive TA; instead, we will include a brief account of how contradictory cases (e.g., participants who expressed strong trust in predictions despite inaccuracies) were incorporated into the final themes of entanglement and limited critical engagement. Example codebook excerpts will be added to the supplementary materials. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Results] Results section: The evidence for claim (2) that UI features do not support critical engagement rests on participant reports, but lacks direct mapping to specific UI elements (e.g., prediction visualizations or explanation text) or accompanying figures/screenshots. This makes it harder to assess the generalizability of the design implications.

    Authors: We agree that tighter linkage between participant accounts and concrete UI elements would improve the paper. The revised Results section will include a new figure showing representative screenshots (or generic mock-ups) of common MCTA prediction visualizations, insight cards, and explanation tooltips drawn from the apps mentioned by participants. Each example will be annotated with direct participant quotes and mapped to the specific design implication it supports (e.g., absence of uncertainty indicators in period predictions). Additional verbatim excerpts referencing particular interface components will be inserted to ground the claim that current features do not scaffold critical awareness. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: claims rest on primary qualitative data collection

full rationale

The paper derives its findings through thematic analysis of 14 semi-structured interviews and a group autoethnography, which are independent primary data sources rather than any fitted parameters, equations, or self-referential derivations. No load-bearing steps reduce to self-citation chains, ansatzes, or renaming of known results; the reported entanglement between user experiences and AI predictions emerges directly from participant accounts without statistical forcing or definitional loops. This is the expected outcome for an inductive HCI study whose central claims are falsifiable via additional user data.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work rests on standard qualitative HCI assumptions rather than new parameters or entities.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Semi-structured interviews and group autoethnography can surface reliable accounts of user meaning-making
    Invoked implicitly when treating interview data as evidence of entanglement processes

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5473 in / 1086 out tokens · 37001 ms · 2026-05-14T18:30:17.203764+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Lim, and Mohan Kankan- halli

    Ashraf Abdul, Jo Vermeulen, Danding Wang, Brian Y. Lim, and Mohan Kankan- halli. 2018. Trends and Trajectories for Explainable, Accountable and Intelligible Systems. InProceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI ’18. 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174156

    work page doi:10.1145/3173574.3174156 2018

  2. [2]

    Saleema Amershi, Dan Weld, Mihaela Vorvoreanu, Adam Fourney, Besmira Nushi, Penny Collisson, Jina Suh, Shamsi Iqbal, Paul N Bennett, Kori Inkpen, et al. 2019. Guidelines for human-AI interaction. InProceedings of the 2019 chi conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–13

    2019

  3. [3]

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology3, 2 (2006), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/ 1478088706qp063oa arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

    work page doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa 2006

  4. [4]

    Zana Buçinca, Maja Barbara Malaya, and Krzysztof Z. Gajos. 2021. To Trust or to Think: Cognitive Forcing Functions Can Reduce Overreliance on AI in AI- assisted Decision-making.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.5, CSCW1, Article 188 (April 2021), 21 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3449287

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1145/3449287 2021

  5. [5]

    Kelly Caine. 2016. Local Standards for Sample Size at CHI. InProceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(San Jose, California, USA)(CHI ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 981–992. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858498

    work page doi:10.1145/2858036.2858498 2016

  6. [6]

    Nadia Campo Woytuk, Marie Louise Juul Søndergaard, Marianela Ciolfi Felice, and Madeline Balaam. 2020. Touching and Being in Touch with the Menstruating Body. InProceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376471

    work page doi:10.1145/3313831.3376471 2020

  7. [7]

    Doga Cavdir, Dillion Simone, Myles de Bastion, Shawn Trail, and Nate Hergert

  8. [8]

    It was Mentally Painful to Try and Stop

    Sonic Agency: A Group Autoethnography of Technology-mediated Per- formance Practice by Deaf and Hard of Hearing Musicians. InProceedings of the 27th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1145/3663547.3746396

    work page doi:10.1145/3663547.3746396

  9. [9]

    Cecchinato and Daniel Harrison

    Marta E. Cecchinato and Daniel Harrison. 2025. Rethinking Family Informatics through a Data Feminist Lens: A Duoethnography of Shared Data, (In)visible Labor, and Everyday Tracking.ACM Trans. Comput. Healthcare(2025). https: //doi.org/10.1145/3785668 Just Accepted

    work page doi:10.1145/3785668 2025

  10. [10]

    Si Chen, James Waller, Matthew Seita, Christian Vogler, Raja Kushalnagar, and Qi Wang. 2024. Towards Co-Creating Access and Inclusion: A Group Autoethnography on a Hearing Individual’s Journey Towards Effective Com- munication in Mixed-Hearing Ability Higher Education Settings. InProceed- ings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Syste...

    work page doi:10.1145/3613904.3642017 2024

  11. [11]

    Epstein, Felicia Cordeiro, Matthew Kay, Gregory D

    Eun Kyoung Choe, Saeed Abdullah, Mashfiqui Rabbi, Edison Thomaz, Daniel A. Epstein, Felicia Cordeiro, Matthew Kay, Gregory D. Abowd, Tanzeem Choudhury, James Fogarty, Bongshin Lee, Mark Matthews, and Julie A. Kientz. 2017. Semi- Automated Tracking: A Balanced Approach for Self-Monitoring Applications. IEEE Pervasive Computing16, 1 (Jan. 2017), 74–84. http...

    work page doi:10.1109/mprv 2017

  12. [12]

    Michael Chromik and Andreas Butz. 2021. Human-XAI Interaction: A Review and Design Principles for Explanation User Interfaces.Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)12933 LNCS (2021), 619–640. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3- 030-85616-8{_}36

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3- 2021

  13. [13]

    Douglas Cirqueira, Dietmar Nedbal, Markus Helfert, and Marija Bezbradica. 2020. Scenario-based requirements elicitation for user-centric explainable AI: A case in fraud detection. InInternational cross-domain conference for machine learning and knowledge extraction. Springer, 321–341

    2020

  14. [14]

    Dan Cosley, Elizabeth Churchill, Jodi Forlizzi, and Sean A. Munson. 2017. Intro- duction to This Special Issue on the Lived Experience of Personal Informatics.Hu- man–Computer Interaction32, 5-6 (Nov. 2017), 197–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 07370024.2017.1324787 _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2017.1324787

    work page doi:10.1080/07370024.2017.1324787 2017

  15. [15]

    Cecchinato, and Carman Neustaedter

    Audrey Desjardins, Oscar Tomico, Andrés Lucero, Marta E. Cecchinato, and Carman Neustaedter. 2021. Introduction to the Special Issue on First-Person Methods in HCI.ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact.28, 6 (2021), 37:1–37:12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3492342

    work page doi:10.1145/3492342 2021

  16. [16]

    Finale Doshi-Velez and Been Kim. 2017. A roadmap for a rigorous science of interpretability

    2017

  17. [17]

    Thomas Dratsch, Xue Chen, Mohammad Rezazade Mehrizi, Roman Kloeckner, Aline Mähringer-Kunz, Michael Püsken, Bettina Baeßler, Stephanie Sauer, David Maintz, and Daniel Pinto dos Santos. 2023. Automation bias in mammography: the impact of artificial intelligence BI-RADS suggestions on reader performance. Radiology307, 4 (2023), e222176

    2023

  18. [18]

    Rudresh Dwivedi, Devam Dave, Het Naik, Smiti Singhal, Rana Omer, Pankesh Patel, Bin Qian, Zhenyu Wen, Tejal Shah, Graham Morgan, and Rajiv Ranjan

  19. [19]

    Surv.55, 9, Article 194 (Jan

    Explainable AI (XAI): Core Ideas, Techniques, and Solutions.ACM Comput. Surv.55, 9, Article 194 (Jan. 2023), 33 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3561048

    work page doi:10.1145/3561048 2023

  20. [20]

    Epstein, Nicole B

    Daniel A. Epstein, Nicole B. Lee, Jennifer H. Kang, Elena Agapie, Jessica Schroeder, Laura R. Pina, James Fogarty, Julie A. Kientz, and Sean A. Munson. 2017. Exam- ining Menstrual Tracking to Inform the Design of Personal Informatics Tools. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems . CHI Conference2017 (May 2017), 6876–688...

    work page doi:10.1145/3025453.3025635 2017

  21. [21]

    2023.Skills for the digital age

    Eurostat. 2023.Skills for the digital age. Statistics Explained. https://ec.europa. eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?oldid=628712

    2023

  22. [22]

    Powell, Daniel A

    Mayara Costa Figueiredo, Elizabeth Ankrah, Jacquelyn E. Powell, Daniel A. Ep- stein, and Yunan Chen. 2024. Powered by AI: Examining How AI Descrip- tions Influence Perceptions of Fertility Tracking Applications.Proc. ACM In- teract. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol.7, 4 (2024), 154:1–154:24. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3631414

    work page doi:10.1145/3631414 2024

  23. [23]

    Sarah Fox, Noura Howell, Richmond Wong, and Franchesca Spektor. 2019. Vivewell: Speculating Near-Future Menstrual Tracking through Current Data Practices. InProceedings of the 2019 on Designing Interactive Systems Conference. ACM, San Diego CA USA, 541–552. https://doi.org/10.1145/3322276.3323695

    work page doi:10.1145/3322276.3323695 2019

  24. [24]

    Fox, Amanda Menking, Jordan Eschler, and Uba Backonja

    Sarah E. Fox, Amanda Menking, Jordan Eschler, and Uba Backonja. 2020. Multiples Over Models: Interrogating the Past and Collectively Reimagining the Future of Menstrual Sensemaking.ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact.27, 4 (2020), 22:1–22:24. https://doi.org/10.1145/3397178

    work page doi:10.1145/3397178 2020

  25. [25]

    Christopher Frauenberger. 2019. Entanglement HCI The Next Wave?ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact.27, 1, Article 2 (Nov. 2019), 27 pages. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3364998

    work page doi:10.1145/3364998 2019

  26. [26]

    Michele Estrin Gilman. 2021. Periods for Profit and the Rise of Menstrual Surveillance.Columbia Journal of Gender and Law41, 1 (Nov. 2021), 100–13. https://doi.org/10.52214/cjgl.v41i1.8824

    work page doi:10.52214/cjgl.v41i1.8824 2021

  27. [27]

    Sophie Grimme, Susanna Marie Spoerl, Susanne Boll, and Marion Koelle. 2024. My Data, My Choice, My Insights: Women’s Requirements when Collecting, Interpreting and Sharing their Personal Health Data. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, N...

    work page doi:10.1145/3613904.3642851 2024

  28. [28]

    David Gunning and David Aha. 2019. DARPA’s explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) program.AI magazine40, 2 (2019), 44–58

    2019

  29. [29]

    AKM Bahalul Haque, AKM Najmul Islam, and Patrick Mikalef. 2023. Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) from a user perspective: A synthesis of prior literature and problematizing avenues for future research.Technological Forecasting and Social Change186 (2023), 122120

    2023

  30. [30]

    Sarah Homewood. 2018. Reframing Design Problems Within Women’s Health. InDRS International Conference 2018. https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2018.337

    work page doi:10.21606/drs.2018.337 2018

  31. [31]

    Sarah Homewood, Harvey Bewley, and Laurens Boer. 2019. Ovum: Designing for Fertility Tracking as a Shared and Domestic Experience. InProceedings of the 2019 on Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 553–565. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3322276.3323692

    work page arXiv 2019

  32. [32]

    Sarah Homewood, Amanda Karlsson, and Anna Vallgårda. 2020. Removal as a Method: A Fourth Wave HCI Approach to Understanding the Experience of Self- Tracking. InProceedings of the 2020 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1779–1791. https://doi.org/10.1145/3357236.3395425

    work page doi:10.1145/3357236.3395425 2020

  33. [33]

    Sarah Homewood and Anna Vallgårda. 2020. Putting Phenomenological Theories to Work in the Design of Self-Tracking Technologies. InProceedings of the 2020 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS ’20). Association for Comput- ing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1833–1846. https://doi.org/10.1145/3357236. 3395550

    work page doi:10.1145/3357236 2020

  34. [34]

    Noura Howell, Audrey Desjardins, and Sarah Fox. 2021. Cracks in the Suc- cess Narrative: Rethinking Failure in Design Research through a Retrospective Trioethnography.ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact.28, 6 (2021), 42:1–42:31. https://doi.org/10.1145/3462447 DRAFT How Lived Experiences are Entangled with AI Predictions in Menstrual Cycle Tracking Apps DIS ...

    work page doi:10.1145/3462447 2021

  35. [35]

    Anna Ida Hudig and Jatinder Singh. 2025. Intimate Data Sharing: Enhancing Transparency and Control in Fertility Tracking. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 1184, 24 pages. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3706598.3714089

    work page doi:10.1145/3706598.3714089 2025

  36. [36]

    Is- lamically, I am not on my period

    Zaidat Ibrahim, Pallavi Panchpor, Novia Nurain, and James Clawson. 2024. "Is- lamically, I am not on my period": A Study of Menstrual Tracking in Muslim Women in the US. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642006

    work page doi:10.1145/3613904.3642006 2024

  37. [37]

    Lucas D Introna. 2013. Towards a post-human intra-actional account of socioma- terial agency (and morality). InThe moral status of technical artefacts. Springer, 31–53

    2013

  38. [38]

    Alon Jacovi, Ana Marasović, Tim Miller, and Yoav Goldberg. 2021. Formalizing Trust in Artificial Intelligence: Prerequisites, Causes and Goals of Human Trust in AI. InProceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 624–635. https://doi.org/10.1145/344...

    work page doi:10.1145/3442188.3445923 2021

  39. [39]

    Jeena Joseph. 2025. The algorithmic self: how AI is reshaping human identity, introspection, and agency.Frontiers in Psychology16 (July 2025). https://doi. org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1645795 Publisher: Frontiers

    work page doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1645795 2025

  40. [40]

    Annika Kaltenhauser, Evropi Stefanidi, and Johannes Schöning. 2024. Playing with Perspectives and Unveiling the Autoethnographic Kaleidoscope in HCI – A Literature Review of Autoethnographies. InProceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Honolulu HI USA, 1–20. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642355

    work page doi:10.1145/3613904.3642355 2024

  41. [41]

    Woźniak, and Stefan Schneegass

    Jonas Keppel, Marvin Strauss, Luke Haliburton, Henrike Weingärtner, Julia Do- miniak, Sarah Faltaous, Uwe Gruenefeld, Sven Mayer, Paweł W. Woźniak, and Stefan Schneegass. 2025. Situated Artifacts Amplify Engagement in Physical Activity. InProceedings of the 2025 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, N...

    work page doi:10.1145/3715336.3735690 2025

  42. [42]

    Rachel Keys, Paul Marshall, Graham Stuart, and Aisling Ann O’Kane. 2025. Re- thinking Lived Experience in Chronic Illness: Navigating Bodily Doubt with Consumer Technology in Atrial Fibrillation Self-Care. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–19....

    work page arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    Vivian Lai and Chenhao Tan. 2019. On human predictions with explanations and predictions of machine learning models: A case study on deception detection. In Proceedings of the conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency. 29–38

    2019

  44. [44]

    Lucian Leahu, Steve Schwenk, and Phoebe Sengers. 2008. Subjective objectivity: Negotiating emotional meaning. InProceedings of the Conference on Designing Interactive Systems. 425–434. https://doi.org/10.1145/1394445.1394491

    work page doi:10.1145/1394445.1394491 2008

  45. [45]

    Kwangyoung Lee. 2025. Designing Personal Informatics in Context: Toward Collective Well-being through Nuanced Personal Data. InCompanion Publica- tion of the 2025 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 100–103. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3715668.3735628

    work page arXiv 2025

  46. [46]

    Q Vera Liao and Kush R Varshney. 2021. Human-centered explainable ai (xai): From algorithms to user experiences.arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.10790(2021)

    work page arXiv 2021

  47. [47]

    2016.The Quantified Self(1st ed.)

    Deborah Lupton. 2016.The Quantified Self(1st ed.). Polity Press

    2016

  48. [48]

    Kelly Mack, Maitraye Das, Dhruv Jain, Danielle Bragg, John Tang, Andrew Begel, Erin Beneteau, Josh Urban Davis, Abraham Glasser, Joon Sung Park, and Venkatesh Potluri. 2021. Mixed Abilities and Varied Experiences: a group autoethnography of a virtual summer internship. InProceedings of the 23rd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Acces...

    work page doi:10.1145/3441852.3471199 2021

  49. [49]

    Louie Søs Meyer and Jichen Zhu. 2024. Slide to Explore ’What If’: An Analysis of Explainable Interfaces. InAdjunct Proceedings of the 2024 Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. ACM, Uppsala Sweden, 1–6. https://doi.org/10. 1145/3677045.3685416

    work page arXiv 2024

  50. [50]

    Louie Søs Meyer and Jichen Zhu. 2024. Slide to Explore’What If’: An Analysis of Explainable Interfaces. InAdjunct Proceedings of the 2024 Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. 1–6

    2024

  51. [51]

    Tim Miller. 2019. Explanation in artificial intelligence: Insights from the social sciences.Artificial intelligence267 (2019), 1–38

    2019

  52. [52]

    Maysara Mirzaliyeva. 2024. AI features in Period-Tracking Applications: The effect of AI on user experience of period-tracking apps

    2024

  53. [53]

    Deepa Muralidhar, Rafik Belloum, and Ashwin Ashok. 2025. Operationalizing Selective Transparency Using Progressive Disclosure in Artificial Intelligence Clinical Diagnosis Systems.International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 204 (2025), 103591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2025.103591

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2025.103591 2025

  54. [54]

    Thu Nguyen, Alessandro Canossa, and Jichen Zhu. 2024. How Human-Centered Explainable AI Interface Are Designed and Evaluated: A Systematic Survey.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.14496(2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  55. [55]

    Nolasco, Andrew Vargo, and Koichi Kise

    Hannah R. Nolasco, Andrew Vargo, and Koichi Kise. 2025. AI Solutionism and Digital Self-Tracking with Wearables. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2505.15162 arXiv:2505.15162 [cs]

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.15162 2025

  56. [56]

    Bláithín O’Brien and Edurne Garcia Iriarte. 2025. Periods, technology and identity: The experience of period-tracking app users.Irish Journal of Sociology33, 3 (Dec. 2025), 231–253. https://doi.org/10.1177/07916035251338808 Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd

    work page doi:10.1177/07916035251338808 2025

  57. [57]

    Andrea Papenmeier, Gwenn Englebienne, and Christin Seifert. 2019. How model accuracy and explanation fidelity influence user trust.arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.12652(2019)

    work page arXiv 2019

  58. [58]

    Joo Young Park, Nadia Campo Woytuk, Deepika Yadav, Xuni Huang, Rebeca Blanco Cardozo, Marianela Ciolfi Felice, Airi Lampinen, and Madeline Balaam

  59. [59]

    Smith, Dilruba Showkat, Adinawa Adjagbodjou, and Christina Harrington

    Ambivalences in Digital Contraception: Designing for Mixed Feelings and Oscillating Relations. InProceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference. ACM, Pittsburgh PA USA, 416–430. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3563657.3596062

    work page arXiv 2023

  60. [60]

    Adrienne Pichon, Kasey B Jackman, Inga T Winkler, Chris Bobel, and Noémie Elhadad. 2022. The messiness of the menstruator: assessing personas and func- tionalities of menstrual tracking apps.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association29, 2 (Feb. 2022), 385–399. https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocab212

    work page doi:10.1093/jamia/ocab212 2022

  61. [61]

    Maria Carmen Punzi and Tamara Thuis. 2025. Mapping ethical concerns in algorithm-driven period and fertility tracking technologies.Contraception(Feb. 2025), 110837. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2025.110837

    work page doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2025.110837 2025

  62. [62]

    Lara Reime, Vasiliki Tsaknaki, and Marisa Leavitt Cohn. 2023. Walking Through Normativities of Reproductive Bodies: A Method for Critical Analysis of Tracking Applications. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–15

    2023

  63. [63]

    Freya Sambain, Tara Capel, and Bernd Ploderer. 2025. Bleed Between the Lines: Barriers and Approaches to Personalisation in Menstrual Tracking for Marginalised Users. InProceedings of the 37th Australian Conference on Human- Computer Interaction (OzCHI ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 253–270. https://doi.org/10.1145/3764687.3764708

    work page doi:10.1145/3764687.3764708 2025

  64. [64]

    Pedro Sanches, Axel Janson, Pavel Karpashevich, Camille Nadal, Chengcheng Qu, Claudia Daudén Roquet, Muhammad Umair, Charles Windlin, Gavin Doherty, Kristina Höök, and Corina Sas. 2019. HCI and Affective Health: Taking stock of a decade of studies and charting future research directions. InProceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computi...

    work page doi:10.1145/3290605.3300475 2019

  65. [65]

    Youngsoo Shin. 2025. Toward Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence for Users’ Digital Well-Being: Systematic Review, Synthesis, and Future Directions.JMIR Human Factors12, 1 (Sept. 2025), e69533. https://doi.org/10.2196/69533 Company: JMIR Human Factors Distributor: JMIR Human Factors Institution: JMIR Human Factors Label: JMIR Human Factors Publisher: JM...

    work page doi:10.2196/69533 2025

  66. [66]

    Sehee Son and Youn-Kyung Lim. 2023. Balancing Flexibility and Authority: Exploring Negotiation as an Interaction Strategy for Healthy Sleep Behaviors. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 401–415. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3563657.3596074

    work page doi:10.1145/3563657.3596074 2023

  67. [67]

    Beatrice Tylstedt, Maria Normark, and Lina Eklund. 2023. Reimagining the cycle: interaction in self-tracking period apps and menstrual empowerment. 5 (2023). https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomp.2023.1166210 Publisher: Frontiers

    work page doi:10.3389/fcomp.2023.1166210 2023

  68. [68]

    Jennifer Villareale, Thomas Fox, and Jichen Zhu. 2024. Can Games Be AI Expla- nations? An Exploratory Study of Simulation Games. InConference Proceedings of DiGRA 2024 Conference: Playgrounds

    2024

  69. [69]

    Michał Wieczorek, Fiachra O’Brolchain, Yashar Saghai, and Bert Gordijn. 2023. The ethics of self-tracking. A comprehensive review of the literature.Ethics & Be- havior33, 4 (May 2023), 239–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2022.2082969 Publisher: Routledge _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2022.2082969

    work page doi:10.1080/10508422.2022.2082969 2023

  70. [70]

    Kaiton Williams. 2015. An anxious alliance. InProceedings of The Fifth Decennial Aarhus Conference on Critical Alternatives (CA ’15). Aarhus University Press, Aarhus N, 121–131. https://doi.org/10.7146/aahcc.v1i1.21146

    work page doi:10.7146/aahcc.v1i1.21146 2015

  71. [71]

    World Health Organization. 2025. Polycystic ovary syndrome. https://www. who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/polycystic-ovary-syndrome

    2025

  72. [72]

    Feiyu Xu, Hans Uszkoreit, Yangzhou Du, Wei Fan, Dongyan Zhao, and Jun Zhu

  73. [73]

    Density hypercubes, higher order inter- ference and hyper-decoherence: A categorical approach

    Explainable AI: A Brief Survey on History, Research Areas, Approaches and Challenges. InNatural Language Processing and Chinese Computing, Jie Tang, Min-Yen Kan, Dongyan Zhao, Sujian Li, and Hongying Zan (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 563–574. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030- 32236-6_51

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-

  74. [74]

    Zihan Yan, Yufei Wu, Yang Zhang, and Xiang’Anthony’ Chen. 2022. Emoglass: an end-to-end ai-enabled wearable platform for enhancing self-awareness of emotional health. InProceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–19

    2022

  75. [75]

    Dallal, Robert C

    Jichen Zhu, Diane H. Dallal, Robert C. Gray, Jennifer Villareale, Santiago Ontañón, Evan M. Forman, and Danielle Arigo. 2021. Personalization Paradox in Behavior Change Apps: Lessons from a Social Comparison-Based Personalized App for DRAFT DIS ’26, June 13–17, 2026, Singapore, Singapore Zhou, Karaturhan, Weilenmann, and Zhu Physical Activity.Proc. ACM Hu...

    work page doi:10.1145/3449190 2021

  76. [76]

    Michael Young- blood

    Jichen Zhu, Antonios Liapis, Sebastian Risi, Rafael Bidarra, and G. Michael Young- blood. 2018. Explainable AI for Designers: A Human-Centered Perspective on Mixed-Initiative Co-Creation.IEEE Conference on Computatonal Intelligence and Games, CIG2018-Augus (2018). https://doi.org/10.1109/CIG.2018.8490433

    work page doi:10.1109/cig.2018.8490433 2018

  77. [77]

    Jichen Zhu, Pedro Sanches, Vasiliki Tsaknaki, Willem van der Maden, and Irene Kaklopoulou. 2025. The Centers and Margins of Modeling Humans in Well-being Technologies. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–16. DRAFT How Lived Experiences are Entangled with AI Predictions in Menstrual Cycle Tracking Apps DIS ’26,...

    2025