↓ Skip to main content

Challenges and Opportunities of Lifelog Technologies: A Literature Review and Critical Analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Science and Engineering Ethics, July 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
81 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
Challenges and Opportunities of Lifelog Technologies: A Literature Review and Critical Analysis
Published in
Science and Engineering Ethics, July 2013
DOI 10.1007/s11948-013-9456-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tim Jacquemard, Peter Novitzky, Fiachra O’Brolcháin, Alan F. Smeaton, Bert Gordijn

Abstract

In a lifelog, data from various sources are combined to form a record from which one can retrieve information about oneself and the environment in which one is situated. It could be considered similar to an automated biography. Lifelog technology is still at an early stage of development. However, the history of lifelogs so far shows a clear academic, corporate and governmental interest. Therefore, a thorough inquiry into the ethical aspects of lifelogs could prove beneficial to the responsible development of this field. This article maps the main ethically relevant challenges and opportunities associated with the further development of lifelog technologies as discussed in the scholarly literature. By identifying challenges and opportunities in the current debate, we were able to identify other challenges and opportunities left unmentioned. Some of these challenges are partly explained by a blind spot in the current debate. Whilst the current debate focuses mainly on lifelogs held by individuals, lifelogs held by governmental institutions and corporations pose idiosyncratic ethical concerns as well. We have provided a brief taxonomy of lifelog technology to show the variety in uses for lifelogs. In addition, we provided a general approach to alleviate the ethical challenges identified in the critical analysis.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
Ireland 2 2%
Turkey 1 1%
India 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 74 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 21%
Student > Bachelor 14 17%
Researcher 10 12%
Student > Postgraduate 7 9%
Student > Master 6 7%
Other 16 20%
Unknown 11 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 30 37%
Social Sciences 15 19%
Engineering 5 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 4%
Other 14 17%
Unknown 10 12%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 January 2023.
All research outputs
#2,592,068
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#218
of 947 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,166
of 197,578 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#3
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 947 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 197,578 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.