CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 766Innovative Human-Technology InteractionMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsContext-Aware Activity Recognition Systems

Understanding quantified-selfers' practices in collecting and exploring personal data

Choe, Eun Kyoung, Lee, Nicole B., Lee, Bongshin, Pratt, Wanda, Kientz, Julie A.·2014·Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
DOI 10.1145/2556288.2557372
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Researchers have studied how people use self-tracking technologies and discovered a long list of barriers including lack of time and motivation as well as difficulty in data integration and interpretation. Despite the barriers, an increasing number of Quantified-Selfers diligently track many kinds of data about themselves, and some of them share their best practices and mistakes through Meetup talks, blogging, and conferences. In this work, we aim to gain insights from these "extreme users," who have used existing technologies and built their own workarounds to overcome different barriers. We conducted a qualitative and quantitative analysis of 52 video recordings of Quantified Self Meetup talks to understand what they did, how they did it, and what they learned. We highlight several common pitfalls to self-tracking, including tracking too many things, not tracking triggers and context, and insufficient scientific rigor. We identify future research efforts that could help make progress toward addressing these pitfalls. We also discuss how our findings can have broad implications in designing and developing self-tracking technologies.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/2556288.2557372

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Study 1 recruited 100 users, eliminated 26 based on open-ended responses, leaving a sample of 74 users.

    “Following methodological recommendations concerning compliance of Mechanical Turk participants [18], we eliminated 26 respondents based on their responses to open ended questions, leaving us with a sample of 74 users.”

    From Progressive Disclosure: When, Why, and How Do Users Want Algorithmic Transparency Information? (2020) · cites this paper as [18]

  • Emotional analytics is perceived as a key application by many users.

    “Emotional analytics is perceived as a key application by many users [16,17,18,39,90].”

    From Progressive Disclosure: When, Why, and How Do Users Want Algorithmic Transparency Information? (2020) · cites this paper as [18]

  • Research grounded in lived experiences of this extreme user group remains notably absent.

    “Research grounded in lived experiences of this extreme user group [5, 8] remains notably absent.”

    From 'AI-Induced Delusional Spirals': Understanding Lived Experiences During Maladaptive Human-Chatbot Interactions (2026) · cites this paper as [8]

  • Individuals are willing to engage in this effortful process when they expect that the recorded information will serve one of the functions of autobiographical memory (self, social, directive).

    “Recent studies suggest that individuals are willing to engage in this effortful process when they expect that the recorded information will serve one of the functions of autobiographical memory described above (Stone et al., 2022; see also Broekhuijsen et al., 2017;Choe et al., 2014;Elsden, Durrant, et al., 2016;Finley et al., 2018;Soares & Storm, 2022).”

    From Understanding Autobiographical Memory in the Digital Age: The AMEDIA-Model (2024) · cites this paper as Choe et al., 2014

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 21 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Choe, E. K., Lee, N. B., Lee, B., Pratt, W., & Kientz, J. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Microsoft (United States) (US)
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Publisher
ACM
Published
2014-04-26
Pages
1143-1152
DOI
10.1145/2556288.2557372
OpenAlex
W2151586234
Cited by
766
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 43 · 2025: 65 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 49 · 2022: 53 · 2021: 70 · 2020: 59 · 2019: 60 · 2018: 96 · 2017: 79 · 2016: 65 · 2015: 69 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 1
FWCI
59.91
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.acm.org/publications/policies/copyright_policy#Background (vor)
Locations
CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Context-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
Keywords
self-tracking, quantified self, personal data collection, scientific rigor, user practices

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review