Cited by 40Memory Processes and InfluencesInnovative Human-Technology InteractionPersonal Information Management and User Behavior

Can Less be More?: Contrasting Limited, Unlimited, and Automatic Picture Capture for Augmenting Memory Recall

Niforatos, Evangelos, Cinel, Caterina, Mack, Cathleen Cortis, Langheinrich, Marc, Ward, Geoff·2017·Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies

Abstract

Today's abundance1 of cheap digital storage in the form of tiny memory cards put literally no bounds on the number of images one can capture with one's digital camera or smartphone during an event. However, prior work has shown that taking many pictures may actually make us remember less of a particular event. Does automated picture taking (lifelogging) help avoid this, yet still offer to capture meaningful pictures? In this work, we investigate the effect of capture modality (i.e., limited, unlimited, automatic, and no capture) on people's ability to recall a past event – with and without the support of the pictures captured through these modalities. Our results from a field experiment with 83 participants show that capturing fewer pictures does not necessarily lead to the capture of more relevant pictures. However, when controlling for number of pictures taken, our results show that having a limited number of pictures to capture may lead to pictures with increased memory value. At the same time, automated capture failed to produce pictures that would help remember the past experience better.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3090086

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • Manually taken photos already have a meaning when being taken, whereas automatically recorded photos taken with lifelogging cameras appear more random and only acquire meaning insofar as they offer access to aspects of one's life that one would otherwise not think about.

    “In this context, it has been argued that manually taken photos already have a meaning when being taken (because individuals usually have reasons for taking them); in contrast, automatically recorded photos taken with lifelogging cameras such as SenseCam or Narrative Clip appear more random and only acquire meaning insofar as they offer access to aspects of one's life that one would otherwise not”

    From Understanding Autobiographical Memory in the Digital Age: The AMEDIA-Model (2024) · cites this paper as Niforatos et al., 2017

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Niforatos, E., Cinel, C., Mack, C. C., Langheinrich, M., & Ward, G.
Affiliations
  • Università della Svizzera italiana (CH)
  • University of Essex (GB)
Venue
Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies
Published
2017-06-30
Volume
1
Issue
2
Pages
1-22
ISSN
2474-9567 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2730609101
Cited by
40
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1
FWCI
2.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive Mobile Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies (publishedVersion)
Funders
Seventh Framework Programme (612933)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Personal Information Management and User Behavior
Keywords
lifelogging, event memory, digital photography, smartphone photography, memory aids

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