skip to main content
research-article

Designing Robust Models for Behaviour Prediction Using Sparse Data from Mobile Sensing: A Case Study of Office Workers’ Availability for Well-being Interventions

Published:18 July 2021Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Understanding in which circumstances office workers take rest breaks is important for delivering effective mobile notifications and make inferences about their daily lifestyle, e.g., whether they are active and/or have a sedentary life. Previous studies designed for office workers show the effectiveness of rest breaks for preventing work-related conditions. In this article, we propose a hybrid personalised model involving a kernel density estimation model and a generalised linear mixed model to model office workers’ available moments for rest breaks during working hours. We adopt the experience-based sampling method through which we collected office workers’ responses regarding their availability through a mobile application with contextual information extracted by means of the mobile phone sensors. The experiment lasted 10 workdays and involved 19 office workers with a total of 528 responses. Our results show that time, location, ringer mode, and activity are effective features for predicting office workers’ availability. Our method can address sparse sample issues for building individual predictive behavioural models based on limited and unbalanced data. In particular, the proposed method can be considered as a potential solution to the “cold-start problem,” i.e., the negative impact of the lack of individual data when a new application is installed.

References

  1. Android Developers Web Page 2020. Motion sensors. Retrieved March 9, 2020 from https://developer.android.com/guide/topics/sensors/sensors_motion#sensors-motion-significant.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Jonathan Z. Bakdash and Laura R. Marusich. 2017. Repeated measures correlation. Front. Psychol. 8, (Mar.2017), 1–13. DOI:https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00456Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Nikola Banovic, Christina Brant, Jennifer Mankoff, and Anind Dey. 2014. ProactiveTasks: The short of mobile device use sessions. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services. ACM Press, New York, NY, 243–252. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2628363.2628380Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Ronald De Vera Barredo and Kelly Mahon. 2007. The effects of exercise and rest breaks on musculoskeletal discomfort during computer tasks: An evidence-based perspective. J. Phys. Therapy Sci. 19, 2 (2007), 151–163. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1589/jpts.19.151Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Dave Berque, Jimmy Burgess, Alexander Billingsley, ShanKara Johnson, Terri L. Bonebright, and Brad Wethington. 2011. Design and evaluation of persuasive technology to encourage healthier typing behaviors. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Persuasive Technology: Persuasive Technology and Design: Enhancing Sustainability and Health. ACM Press, New York, NY, 1–10. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2467803.2467812Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Daniel Billsus and Michael J. Pazzani. 2000. User modeling for adaptive news access. User modeling and user-adapted interaction 10, 2-3 (2000), 147–180.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Scott A. Cambo, Daniel Avrahami, and Matthew L. Lee. 2017. BreakSense: Combining physiological and location sensing to promote mobility during work-breaks. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 3595–3607. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3026021Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Yung-Ju Chang and John C. Tang. 2015. Investigating mobile users’ ringer mode usage and attentiveness and responsiveness to communication. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services. 6–15. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2785830.2785852Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Woohyeok Choi, Sangkeun Park, Duyeon Kim, Youn-kyung Lim, and Uichin Lee. 2019. Multi-stage receptivity model for mobile just-in-time health intervention. In Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies (IMWUT’19), Vol. 3. ACM, 1–26. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3328910Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Dean Cooley and Scott Pedersen. 2013. A pilot study of increasing nonpurposeful movement breaks at work as a means of reducing prolonged sitting. J. Environ. Publ. Health 2013 (2013). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/128376Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi and Reed Lardon. 1983. The experience sampling method. New Direct. Methodol. Soc. Behav. Sci. 15 (1983), 41–56.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Daniel A. Epstein, Daniel Avrahami, and Jacob T. Biehl. 2016. Taking 5: Work-breaks, productivity, and opportunities for personal informatics for knowledge workers. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’16). 673–684. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858066Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Anja Exler, Marcel Braith, Andrea Schankin, and Michael Beigl. 2016. Preliminary investigations about interruptibility of smartphone users at specific place types. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing Adjunct (UbiComp’16). 1590–1595.DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2968219.2968554Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Joel E. Fischer, Chris Greenhalgh, and Steve Benford. 2011. Investigating episodes of mobile phone activity as indicators of opportune moments to deliver notifications. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (MobileHCI’11). 181–190. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2037373.2037402Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Joel E. Fischer, Nick Yee, Victoria Bellotti, Nathan Good, Steve Benford, and Chris Greenhalgh. 2010. Effects of content and time of delivery on receptivity to mobile interruptions. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (MobileHCI’10). 103–112. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1851600.1851620Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Traci Galinsky, Naomi Swanson, Steven Sauter, Robin Dunkin, Joseph Hurrell, and Lawrence Schleifer. 2007. Supplementary breaks and stretching exercises for data entry operators: a follow-up field study. Am. J. Industr. Med. 50, 7 (Jul. 2007), 519–27. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.20472Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Andrew Gelman, John B. Carlin, Hal S. Stern, and Donald B. Rubin. 2004. Bayesian Data Analysis (2nd ed.). Chapman & Hall, Boca Raton, FL.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Miriam Gil, Pau Giner, and Vicente Pelechano. 2012. Personalization for unobtrusive service interaction. Pers. Ubiq. Comput. 16, 5 (Jun. 2012), 543–561. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-011-0414-0Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Alexandre Girard, Nathalie Bréheret, Gaëlle Bal, Jean-Gabriel Mavoungou, Jean-Félix Tchibinda, Fils Makaya, and Marc Girondot. 2021. Unusual sexual dimorphism and small adult size for olive ridley sea turtles are linked to volumetric geometric constraints. Mar. Biol. 168, 1 (2021), 1–11.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. J. D. Hadfield and S. Nakagawa. 2010. General quantitative genetic methods for comparative biology: Phylogenies, taxonomies and multi-trait models for continuous and categorical characters. J. Evol. Biol. 23, 3 (2010), 494–508. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2009.01915.xGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Genevieve N. Healy, David W. Dunstan, Jo Salmon, Ester Cerin, Jonathan E. Shaw, Paul Z. Zimmet, and Neville Owen. 2008. Breaks in sedentary time: beneficial associations with metabolic risk. Diabetes Care 31, 4 (Apr. 2008), 661–6. DOI:https://doi.org/10.2337/dc07-2046Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Joyce Ho and Stephen S. Intille. 2005. Using context-aware computing to reduce the perceived burden of interruptions from mobile devices. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’05). 909–918. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1054972.1055100Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. M. C. Jones, J. S. Marron, and S. J. Sheather. 1996. A brief survey of bandwidth selection for density estimation. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 91, 433 (Mar. 1996), 401.DOI:https://doi.org/10.2307/2291420Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Kyohei Komuro, Yuichiro Fujimoto, and Kinya Fujita. 2017. Relationship between worker interruptibility and work transitions detected by smartphone. In Proceedings of the Human-Computer Interaction: Interaction Contexts (HCI’17). Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, Cham, 687–699. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58077-7_53Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. N. Lathia, V. Pejovic, K. Rachuri, C. Mascolo, M. Musolesi, and P. J. Rentfrow. 2014. Smartphones for large-scale behaviour change interventions. IEEE Perv. Comput. 12, 3 (2014), 66–73. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/MPRV.2013.56Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Christine Leah. 2011. Exercises to reduce musculoskeletal discomfort for people doing a range of static and repetitive work. Technical Report. Health and Safety Laboratory. https://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr743.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Po-An Lin, Sulav Paudel, Amin Afzal, Nancy L. Shedd, and Gary W. Felton. 2021. Changes in tolerance and resistance of a plant to insect herbivores under variable water availability. Environmental and Experimental Botany 183 (2021), 104334.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Akhil Mathur, Nicholas D. Lane, and Fahim Kawsar. 2016. Engagement-aware computing: modelling user engagement from mobile contexts. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing. 622–633. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2971648.2971760Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Charles E. Mcculloch. 2003. Generalized linear mixed models. In Proceedings of the NSF-CBMS Regional Conference Series in Probability and Statistics. Institute of Mathematical Statistics.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Abhinav Mehrotra, Robert Hendley, and Mirco Musolesi. 2016. PrefMiner: Mining user’s preferences for intelligent mobile notification management. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing (UbiComp’16). ACM, 1223–1234. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2971648.2971747Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Abhinav Mehrotra, Veljko Pejovic, Jo Vermeulen, Robert Hendley, and Mirco Musolesi. 2016. My phone and me: understanding people’s receptivity to mobile notifications. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1021–1032. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858566Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Dan Morris, A. J. Bernheim Brush, and Brian R. Meyers. 2008. SuperBreak: using interactivity to enhance ergonomic typing breaks. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’08). ACM Press, 1817–1826.DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1357054.1357337Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Hyungik Oh, Laleh Jalali, and Ramesh Jain. 2015. An intelligent notification system using context from real-time personal activity monitoring. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo. 1–6. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/ICME.2015.7177508Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Tadashi Okoshi, Hiroki Nozaki, Jin Nakazawa, Hideyuki Tokuda, Julian Ramos, and Anind K. Dey. 2016. Towards attention-aware adaptive notification on smart phones. Perv. Mobile Comput. 26 (2016), 17–34. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmcj.2015.10.004Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. K. T. Palmer. 2001. Use of keyboards and symptoms in the neck and arm: evidence from a national survey. Occupat. Med. 51, 6 (2001), 392–395. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/51.6.392Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. C. Park, J. Lim, J. Kim, S.-J. Lee, and D. Lee. 2017. “Don’t bother me. I’m socializing!”: a breakpoint-based smartphone notification system. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. 541–554. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2998181.2998189Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Sharon Parry and Leon Straker. 2013. The contribution of office work to sedentary behaviour associated risk. BMC Publ. Health 13, 1 (2013), 296. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-296Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Veljko Pejovic, Neal Lathia, Cecilia Mascolo, and Mirco Musolesi. 2016. Mobile-based experience sampling for behaviour research. In Emotions and Personality in Personalized Services. Springer, Cham, 141–161. http://arxiv.org/abs/1508.03725.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Veljko Pejovic and Mirco Musolesi. 2014. InterruptMe: Designing intelligent prompting mechanisms for pervasive applications. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing. ACM, 897–908. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2632048.2632062Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Martin Pielot, Karen Church, and Rodrigo de Oliveira. 2014. An in-situ study of mobile phone notifications. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services. 233–242. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2628363.2628364Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Juho Piironen and Aki Vehtari. 2017. Comparison of Bayesian predictive methods for model selection. Stat. Comput. 27, 3 (2017), 711–735. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11222-016-9649-yGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Zinta Podniece, S. Heuvel, and B. Blatter. 2008. Work-related Musculoskeletal Disorders: Prevention Report. Technical Report. European Agency for Safety and Health at Work.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Benjamin Poppinga, Wilko Heuten, and Susanne Boll. 2014. Sensor-based identification of opportune moments for triggering notifications. IEEE Perv. Comput. 13, 1 (2014), 22–29. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/MPRV.2014.15Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Alireza Sahami Shirazi, Niels Henze, Tilman Dingler, Martin Pielot, Dominik Weber, and Albrecht Schmidt. 2014. Large-scale assessment of mobile notifications. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 3055–3064. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557189Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Yu Sang, Heng Qi, Keqiu Li, Yingwei Jin, Deqin Yan, and Shusheng Gao. 2014. An effective discretization method for disposing high-dimensional data. Inf. Sci. 270 (2014), 73–91. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2014.02.113Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. Hermann Stern, Viktoria Pammer, and SN Lindstaedt. 2011. A preliminary study on interruptibility detection based on location and calendar information. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Context-Systems Design, Evaluation and Optimisation.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Wendell C. Taylor, Ross Shegog, Vincent Chen, David M. Rempel, Marybeth Pappas Baun, Cresendo L. Bush, Tomas Green, and Nicole Hare-Everline. 2010. The booster break program: Description and feasibility test of a worksite physical activity daily practice. Work 37, 4 (2010), 433–443. DOI:https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-2010-1097Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. G. H. Ter Hofte. 2007. Xensible interruptions from your mobile phone. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services. 178–181. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1377999.1378003Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. Piiastiina Tikka and Harri Oinas-Kukkonen. 2016. RightOnTime: The role of timing and unobtrusiveness in behavior change support systems. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Persuasive Technology (Persuasive’16). Springer International Publishing, 327–338. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31510-2_28Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Liam D. Turner, Stuart M. Allen, and Roger M. Whitaker. 2017. Reachable but not receptive: Enhancing smartphone interruptibility prediction by modelling the extent of user engagement with notifications. Perv. Mobile Comput. 40 (2017), 480–494. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmcj.2017.01.011Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. Yunus Emre Ustev, Ozlem Durmaz Incel, and Cem Ersoy. 2013. User, device and orientation independent human activity recognition on mobile phones. In Proceedings of the 2013 ACM Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing Adjunct. ACM Press, New York, NY, 1427–1436. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2494091.2496039Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. Saskia Van Dantzig, Gijs Geleijnse, and Aart Tijmen Van Halteren. 2013. Toward a persuasive mobile application to reduce sedentary behavior. Pers. Ubiq. Comput. 17, 6 (2013), 1237–1246. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-012-0588-0Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. Aku Visuri, Niels Van Berkel, Chu Luo, Jorge Goncalves, Denzil Ferreira, and Vassilis Kostakos. 2017. Predicting interruptibility for manual data collection: a cluster-based user model. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services. ACM, 12. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3098279.3098532Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. Dhaval Vyas, Thilina Halloluwa, Nikolaj Heinzler, and Jinglan Zhang. 2019. More than step count: designing a workplace-based activity tracking system. Pers. Ubiq. Comput. (Sep. 2019), 1–15.DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-019-01305-1Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. He Wang, Ahmed Elgohary, and Romit Roy Choudhury. 2012. No need to war-drive: Unsupervised indoor localization. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Mobile Systems, Applications, and Services (MobiSys’12). 197–210. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2307636.2307655Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. R. Williams and M. Westmorland. 1994. Occupational cumulative trauma disorders of the upper extremity. American J. Occupat. Therapy 48, 5 (1994), 411–420. DOI:https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.48.5.411Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. David H Wolpert. 2002. The supervised learning no-free-lunch theorems. In Soft Computing and Industry. Springer, 25–42.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. Michał Woźniak, Manuel Graña, and Emilio Corchado. 2014. A survey of multiple classifier systems as hybrid systems. Inf. Fus. 16 (2014), 3–17.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  59. Manuela Züger, Christopher Corley, André N Meyer, Boyang Li, Thomas Fritz, David Shepherd, Vinay Augustine, Patrick Francis, Nicholas Kraft, and Will Snipes. 2017. Reducing interruptions at work: A large-scale field study of flowlight. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 61–72. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025662Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  60. Manuela Züger and Thomas Fritz. 2015. Interruptibility of software developers and its prediction using psycho-physiological sensors. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2981–2990. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702593Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  61. Manuela Züger, Sebastian C. Müller, André N. Meyer, and Thomas Fritz. 2018. Sensing interruptibility in the office: a field study on the use of biometric and computer interaction sensors. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 591. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174165Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Designing Robust Models for Behaviour Prediction Using Sparse Data from Mobile Sensing: A Case Study of Office Workers’ Availability for Well-being Interventions

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in

          Full Access

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader

          HTML Format

          View this article in HTML Format .

          View HTML Format
          About Cookies On This Site

          We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

          Learn more

          Got it!