RUNNING HEAD: Sketching the Future of Human-Food Interaction

Sketching the Future of Human-Food Interaction:
Emerging Directions for Future Practice

Jialin Denga, Ferran Altarriba Bertranb,c, Marianna Obristd, Yan Wanga & Florian ‘Floyd’
Muellera, Carlos Velascoeab

Escola Universitària ERAM, Universitat de Girona, Salt, Spain, ferranaltarriba@gmail.comcGamification Group, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland, ferranaltarriba@gmail.com
deExertion Games Lab, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia, {jialin, yan,
floyd}@exertiongameslab.org

Department of Computer Science, University College London, m.obrist@ucl.ac.uk

Centre for Multisensory Marketing, Department of Marketing, BI Norwegian Business School, Oslo,
Norway, carlos.velasco@bi.no1

Sketching the Future of Human-Food Interaction:

2

Emerging Directions for Future Practice345ABSTRACT

6

There is an increasing interest in food within the Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) field

7

with emerging interactive prototypes that augment, extend, and challenge the various ways

8

in which people engage with food. The emerging subfield is defined as “Human-Food

9Interaction” (HFI). Given the rapid advancement of interactive technology that converges

10with a wide range of food settings, this article seeks a continuous scrutiny towards the field11

to ensure it advances in fruitful directions. In this article, we identify nine emerging themes

12building on the submissions presented by 19 researchers at an HFI workshop recently held13

at an international conference. Furthermore, we brought to light three potential design and14

research directions to inspire HFI futures, and, simultaneously, to build a foundation upon15

which HFI, gastronomy and food science communities can work together.

16

Keywords: Food, Interaction Design, Human-Computer Interaction, Human-Food

17

Interaction

18

1 INTRODUCTION

19

Food is an essential part of life. From birth to death, we spend hours procuring, preparing,

20

eating, digesting, and thinking of food (Rozin et al., 2003), and innovations in food practices

21

have shaped our life experiences (Ulijaszek et al., 2012). The emergence of digital

22

technology has taken food innovation to new heights, including significant changes to the1

23

ways in which foods are produced, prepared, and consumed. The convergence between food24

and technology, producing novel engagements with food, has become a vital matter of25interest in Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) research. Innovations are taking place in

26

digital fabrication (Mizrahi et al., 2016), interactive eating (Mehta et al., 2018), and27

gustatory augmentation (Narumi et al., 2011), have combined to constitute an emerging

28

subfield within HCI, which has been named “Human-Food Interaction” (HFI) (Altarriba

29

Bertran & Wilde et al., 2019; Choi et al., 2014; Comber et al., 2014; Deng et al., 2021; Khot30

et al., 2019), denoting the “the interconnection between the self and food”(Choi et al., 2014).

31

Subsequently, the various research has turned HFI into a flourishing area of study. The use

32

of digital technology has underpinned a wide variety of implementations that have enriched33

food practices across bodily (Khot et al., 2017a), communal (Wang et al., 2020), societal

34(Barden et al., 2012), environmental (Liu et al., 2018), and planetary aspects (Obrist et al.,352019). At the same time, the heterogeneous nature of this emerging field challenges

36

researchers and practitioners to critically engage with the community (Altarriba Bertran &37

Wilde et al., 2019). In this context, we call for continuous scrutiny towards the field to ensure38

it advances in fruitful directions.

39

While there have been various food research in the area of gastronomy, for example, food40

studies in relation to the arts (Youssef et al., 2018), the humanities (Hsu et al., 2022; Spence,

412021), the natural sciences (Spence, 2022; Spence & Youssef, 2019), and the social sciences

42(Koerich & Müller, 2022; Plata et al., 2022). However, HFI and gastronomy have different

43

cultures and practices of scientific enquiry and, so far, the two fields have limited synergy

44

in a substantive way to develop a deep and common understanding of food. In this context,

45

this article attempts to build a foundation upon which HFI, gastronomy and food science

46

communities can work together. To support this collaboration, we examined 19 recent HFI

47

works and identified nine emerging themes and a set of future directions that we hope can48

inspire food researchers and practitioners to collaborate to create preferable food futures.

249

2 BACKGROUND

50

Over the last couple of decades, there has been a notable increase in HFI research,

51

highlighting the exciting possibilities for technology to impact our food practices and52

experiences (Altarriba Bertran & Wilde et al., 2019). To demonstrate new ways to interact

53

with food, researchers have experimented with emerging technologies such as

54

computational gastronomy (Zoran, 2019), food printing (Khot et al., 2017a; Sun et al.,552015), virtual reality (Arnold et al., 2018), capacitance sensing (Heller, 2021; Wang et al.,56

2018; Wang et al., 2020), robotics (Mehta et al., 2018), electrical muscle stimulation

57(Niijima & Ogawa, 2016), acoustic levitation (Vi et al., 2017; Vi et al., 2020), and shape-

58

changing interfaces (Nishihara & Kakehi, 2021; Wang et al., 2017) to illustrate new ways

59

of interacting with food. Also, gastrophysics researchers (Spence, 2017) and multisensory

60

researchers (Spence & Piqueras-Fiszman, 2014; Velasco, 2020; Velasco et al., 2018a;

61

Velasco et al., 2018b) have explored new ways for culinary practitioners and designers to62

use emerging technology to innovate with food design and enhance the associated dining

63

experiences.

64

We contend that the “technological solutionism” (Morozov, 2013) found in some of the65

works we reviewed is only one of many ways in which we can bring together food and66

technology design. For example, Comber et al. (2012) proposed that HFI needs to pay

67

greater attention to people and the ways in which they engage with food, rather than focusing

68

on the efficiencies and novelties that new technologies offer; the authors also argued that69

due to the nuanced practices and experiences around food and technology, HFI has been70

evolving dynamically with the varied perspectives of understanding across transdisciplinary71

research fields, reflecting the diversity of ways people interact with food. For example, prior72

works from a range of fields, including anthropology (Holtzman, 2006; Mintz & Bois,

73

2002), medical sciences (Kendrick, 2008; Scrinis, 2013; Willett & Stampfer, 2013),

74

psychology (Bays, 2017; Connor & Armitage, 2002; Rogers et al., 2016), and sociology

3

75(Schneider, 2018; Warde, 2016), have increasingly utilized food as a research vehicle to76

understand the beneficial impacts that the integration of food and technology can have on

77human health (McCurry, 2022), wellbeing (Block et al., 2011), social experiences (Chen et78

al., 2021), and planetary sustainability (Liu et al., 2018).

79

This transdisciplinary nature of HFI has motivated researchers in the field to initiate a80wide range of articulations of the relationships between food, human, and technology, and81

of HFI’s social and environmental impacts. For example, employing three themes – eat,82

cook, and grow – Choi et al. (2014) put forward a rich platter of perspectives and a variety

83

of expertise from design, computing, and social studies to find ways to design technology

84

toward engaging, healthy, socially inclusive, and environmentally sustainable food futures.

85

Similarly, Khot et al. (2019) reviewed existing research in HFI and conceptulized a rich86

design space to guide further exploration. While these prior works represent initial attempts

87

to conceptualize how we might understand and design HFI for a better future, they do not88

offer a systematically thorough revision of the current state of HFI. This poses a question:89

how do researchers and practitioners remain up to date with the state of HFI, so that they90

can continuously engage with and make sense of this emerging field?

91

In response, Altarriba Bertran & Wilde et al. (2019) developed a literature review tool92

and a conceptual model of the broad spectrum of HFI disciplines, methodologies, and93

research agendas. Based upon their examination of the state of HFI research, using a

94

taxonomy they developed from a 260-publication dataset, the authors expressed their95

concern that the number of HFI research “contributions that fix, speed up, ease, or otherwise

96

make interactions with food more efficient, clearly outweigh those that explore the social,

97

playful, or cultural aspects of food practices.” In response to this concern, the authors called98

for more research that focuses on food practices and cultures “to ensure that advances in99

technology do not come at the cost of enriched, embodied engagement with and through100

food” (Altarriba Bertran & Wilde et al., 2019, p. 9). The authors also pointed out that their

4

101

dataset and analysis of the latest HFI research should be continuously updated, to ensure an

102

ongoing meaning-making process within HFI. Likewise, in their review of existing HFI

103

works, which focused on the use of computational technologies, exploration of human104

senses, and digital interactions in food experience design, Aguilar et al.’s (2019) concluded

105

that “where everyday new discoveries appear, the challenges to be solved are constant,106

frequently challenging the researcher” (dos Santos Aguilar & Aguilar, 2019).

107

Additionally, a variety of HFI workshops, Special Interest Groups (SIGs), and events have108

made significant contributions to the field’s understanding and visions of the future of food109

(Choi et al., 2009). For example, “Future of Food in the Digital Realm” SIG (Khot et al.,110

2017b) discussed food printing practices and envisioned a future of digital technology for111

food fabrication, while other workshops (Ferran Altarriba Bertran et al., 2019; Chisik et al.,112

2020; Davis et al., 2020; Dolejšová et al., 2020; Vannucci et al., 2018) reimagined future

113

food practices and play that can nourish both people and the planet. Also, a “Manifesto on

114

the interwoven Future of Computing and Food” (Obrist et al., 2018) was developed from115

work undertaken at an ACM Future of Computing Academy event.

116

Because of the rapid progression of HFI research and knowledge, the HFI community

117

faces the challenge of maintaining the currency and completeness of its understanding of the118

state-of-the-art. With this challenge in mind, we concur with the call for an ongoing HFI

119

meaning-making process (Altarriba Bertran & Wilde et al., 2019), and we call for120

continuous and constant scrutiny of HFI to ensure it advances in fruitful, societally desirable

121

directions, and meanwhile, to look at what comes next. In response to these HFI imperatives,

122

this article examines 19 recent HFI works to provide an update to the HFI community’s123current understanding of HFI work, and to identify emerging themes that indicate promising124

future directions for HFI research and inspire practitioners to venture down new paths.

5

125

3 METHOD

126

This article is based on the outcomes of a workshop (“The future of Human-Food

127

Interaction”) we conducted at the Association for Computing Machinery CHI Conference128

on Human Factors in Computing Systems in 2021 (Deng et al., 2021). brought together

129

experts with diverse opinions on the design of the experiential aspects of technology-enabled130

food engagements and offered a forum in which the research community and a broad range

131

of practitioners could learn from each other. To encourage further HFI community-building,132

we invited a wide variety of submissions on HFI explorations and received 19 proposals1

133

co-authored and submitted by practitioners, researchers, and theorists from several

134

universities, research centers, and industry-based organizations across the world. The

135

submission topics included theory, methods, technology, and applications from a variety of136

perspectives, including computer science, food science, HCI, psychology, design,137

multimedia and the digital arts, affective and social computing, data science, cyber-physical138

systems, machine translation, cognitive science, intelligent engineering, digital health,139

marketing, and communications. These submissions and the workshop discussions

140

constitute the data that this article analyzes (Table 1). The workshop was conducted via

141videoconferencing, with the activities divided into two parts. In part one, submission lead142

authors made PechaKucha presentations of their content, then all workshop participants

143

engaged in open discussion around the topics, ideas and research presented. In part two,144

breakout groups brainstormed the HFI space, challenges, and concepts, then showcased the145

outcomes of their activity to the whole workshop. We also discussed the future of HFI with146

specific attention given to how technology design can contribute to stimulating, sustainable,

147

just, and socio-culturally rich food futures.

1

All submissions can be found on the workshop’s online collaboration platform here:
https://miro.com/app/board/o9J_lLLQmP0=/?share_link_id=885890873005.

6

148

We analyzed the workshop submissions and the workshop outputs to identify key themes.

149

We followed a reflexive thematic analysis process (Braun & Clarke, 2019), whereby we

150

progressively made sense of the workshop submissions emphasizing our “reflective and151

thoughtful engagement” with our data and analytic process. While thematic analysis is quite

152

common in HFI research, its procedure is the subject of some debate. (Braun & Clarke,

1532021). Instead of rigidly following a traditional “phase-approach” procedure (Braun &154

Clarke, 2012), we believe that “quality reflexive thematic analysis is not about following

155

procedures ‘correctly’ (or about ‘accurate’ and ‘reliable’ coding, or achieving consensus

156

between coders)” (Braun & Clarke, 2019). First, three authors of this article independently

157

reviewed the workshop submissions to establish an overview of the data and identify

158

patterns of shared meaning (emerging themes) across the works reflecting the primary

159

design/research directions of future HFI. Using this initial list, two of the researchers

160

iteratively combined and synthesized the themes based on their commonalities and161

differences. After three iterations, nine key themes emerged from the analysis: 1) food162

perception, 2) blending interfaces, 3) food magic, 4) food play, 5) digital commensality, 6)163

food tech for all, 7) healthy food choices, 8) sustainability, and 9) empowering R&D. These

164

themes were independently checked and confirmed by a third researcher.

165

4 THEMES

166

This section sets out the 19 workshop submissions (WS) and their connections with the nine167

HFI futures themes (Table 1), then defines each theme and outlines the workshop

168

submissions that exemplify that theme.

169

Table 1: A summary of workshop submissions, authors, affiliations, and key themes
WS

Submission Title

Author(s)Affiliation(s)7Theme(s)1Differences In Remembered
Taste and Smell Sweetness
in Food and Beverages
Between Sweet-Liker
Phenotypes.
Motivating ResearchIntersecting Visual
Analytics and Human-Food
Interaction.

Chi Thanh Vi,
RhiannonArmitage,
Martin Yeomans

Sussex Ingestive Behaviour Group,
School of Psychology, Universityof Sussex, UK.

Food perception

Michelle Dowling

School of Computing, Grand Valley
State University, USA.
Department of Computer Science,
Virginia Tech, USA.

Food perception;
Blending
interfaces;
Empowering R&D

3

The Future of Food is on
the (Capacitive) Table.

Florian Heller

Hasselt University–tUL–Flanders
Make, Belgium.

Blending interfaces

4

Mind-Gut Computer
Interaction: Research Areas
and Opportunities.

Khalid Majrashi

Blending interfaces

Francisco Barbosa
Escobar,Qian Janice Wang

Department of Information
Technology, Institute of Public
Administration, Saudi Arabia.
School of Science (Computer
Science), RMIT University,
Australia.
Department of Marketing, BI
Norwegian Business School, Oslo,
Norway.
Department of Food Science,
Aarhus University, Aarhus,
Denmark.

2

Timothy L. Stelter

Alexandra L.
Uitdenbogerd
5

Impossible Food
Experiences in Virtual
Reality.

Carlos Velasco

Food magic

6

Rendezfood – Interactingwith Anthropomorphized
Food.

Philip Weber,Thomas Ludwig

Cyber-Physical Systems, Universityof Siegen, Siegen, Germany.

Food Magic,
Empowering R&D

7

Gastroludology –Gastronomy Meets
Ludology.
Socially Situated HumanFood Interaction.

Yoram Chisik

Independent researcher.

Food play, Foodmagic

Gijs Huisman

Delft University of Technology, theNetherlands.
University of Twente, theNetherlands.
Delft University of Technology,
The Netherlands.
Sapienza University of Rome, Italy.

Digitalcommensality

8

Roelof Anne Jelle
De Vries
Mailin Lemke
Maurizio Mancini
9

Designing To Support the
Exchange of Food andEating Practices Between
Remote, Intergenerational
Family Members.

Aswati Panicker,
Kavya Basu,
Chia-Fang Chung

Indiana University Bloomington,
USA.

Digitalcommensality

10

Digital Commensality
Helps Strangers Connect –A Qualitative Study.

Khawla Alhasan,
Chee Siang Ang,
Alexandra Covaci

University of Kent, UK.

Digitalcommensality

8

11

12

13

14

15

“My Mind Was Telling Me‘Stay in Bed All Day...
Only Get Up to Eat’”:Opportunities to Design
Around Food from Eating
Behaviors During thePandemic.

Mario O. Parra,
Jesus Favela

Ensenada Center for Scientific
Research and Higher Education,
MexicoLuis A. Castro

Sonora Institute of Technology(ITSON), Mexico

Investigation Of HumanFood Interaction (HFI) andFood Practices Behaviors in
People with Intellectually
Disability.
Food Sharing and IoT in
Community Building: The
Case of Community
Fridges.

Shijing He

Cisco Systems, Inc., China

Food tech for all

Sarah Kiden,
Joyce Yee,Angelika
Strohmayer

School of Design, Northumbria
University, Newcastle upon Tyne,
UK.

Food tech for all

Ambience and Appraisal:
Effect of VR and AR
Generated Ambience on
Consumers’ Food
Evaluations and Food
Choices.

Pennanen Kyösti,Vanhatalo Saara

VTT Technical Research Centre of
Finland Ltd, Finland.

Healthy foodchoices

Raisamo Roope

Tampere University, Finland

Sozer Nesli

VTT Technical Research Centre of
Finland Ltd, Finland.

Exploring Tradeoffs in The
Design Space of HumanCentered Semi-AutomatedFood Journaling.

Xi Lu

Informatics, University ofCalifornia Irvine, USA.
Cognitive Sciences, University ofCalifornia Irvine, USA.
Electrical and Computer
Engineering, University of Texas atAustin, USA.
Informatics, University ofCalifornia Irvine, USA.

Healthy foodchoices

SruthiRamabadran
Edison Thomaz
Daniel A. Epstein

16
17

18

19

Digitalcommensality

A Future Vision for
Sustainable Human-FoodInteraction.
Envirofy: A Real Time Tool
to Support Eco-Friendly
Food Purchases Online.

PhilipEngelbutzeder

University of Siegen, Siegen,Germany.

Sustainability

Gözel Shakeri

University of Glasgow, Scotland,
UK.
University of Northumbria,
England, UK.

Sustainability

The Future of Meat:
Sentiment Analysis of Food
Tweets.

Maija Kāle

Faculty of Computing, Universityof Latvia, Latvia.
The University of Tokyo, Japan.

Sustainability

Virtual Farmer’s Market:
Towards Virtualizing andAugmenting Food Testing.

Summer D. Jung

Center for Design Research,
Stanford University, USA.
Independent researcher, USA.

Empowering R&D

Claire McCallum

Matīss Rikter

Chandrayee Basu

9

Soh Kim

Center for Design Research,
Stanford University, USA.

170
171

4.1 Theme 1: Food perception

172

The food perception theme relates to submissions that focus on understanding the173mechanisms associated with how we perceive food in the way we do. The theme

174

encompasses research into the multi-sensory nature of food experiences, and how those175

multi-sensory experiences can be studied and understood by using interactive technology,

176

and research often draws upon other fields, such as sensory science, psychology, and177

neuroscience.

178

With respect to food perception, Vi et al. (WS1) investigated perceptions of the179

sweetness of foods and drinks among people of different sweet-liking types. Their findings

180

suggested a correspondence between people’s sweet-liking phenotypes and their memories

181of the perceived sweetness of foods and beverages. The authors pointed out that this study

182

could potentially inform future designs of more personalized gustatory and olfactory

183

interfaces. Complementing this work, Dowling and Stelter (WS2) proposed an under-

184

explored area at the intersection between HFI and “Visual Analytics (VA)”. The authors

185

aimed to help users to communicate their food and eating experiences across cultures and186

languages via the interactive visualization of food items in the dataset. Using statistical187

analytic approaches, Dowling and Stelter’s system allowed users to compare similarities

188

amongst food items in terms of taste and mouthfeel attributes.

189

4.2 Theme 2: Blending interfaces

190

The blending interfaces theme relates to submissions that focused on interfaces that blend

191

the real and the digital world, and it encompasses the exploration of how to make the edible

192

computational and the computational edible.

10

193

With respect to blending interfaces, Heller (WS3) presented a new interaction space for194food as an edible, tangible, ephemeral interface, by using muffins as part of the interactive

195

medium that could be detected and identified on a capacitive touchscreen. The system196

enabled animated food recommendations and opened up new ways to arrange and serve197

food. Majrashi and Uitdenbogerd (WS4) proposed “Mind-Gut Computer Interaction

198(MGCI)”, whereby human mind-gut activities can be blended with external computing

199

devices. The authors envisioned combining brain activities and human motility, secretion,

200

nutrition delivery, and microbial balance with computation. The authors also presented four201

potential MGCI research opportunities: using ubiquitous, wearable, or mobile computing

202

tools and systems to detect and record mind-gut activities; developing visualization tools to203enhance the understanding of mind-gut communications; providing tailored food intake

204

advice (to optimize mind-gut communications) based on an individual’s mind-gut activities

205

data; and evaluating user interfaces and experiences.

206

4.3 Theme 3: Food magic

207

The food magic theme relates to submissions that focused on the creation of technology-

208

enabled food experiences that go beyond the real and towards and towards the fantastical by

209

defying the limitations of analog food practices and breaking the laws of physics. Food

210

magic research focuses on allowing users to experience sensory experiences that would be

211

impossible without the mediation of computation.

212

With respect to food magic, Velasco et al. (WS5) proposed a “reality-impossibility”

213

model to guide future research into and design possibilities for “impossible food214

experiences” via virtual reality. This model aims to open new opportunities through breaking

215

the laws of physics, and the authors envisioned “fantasy dining scenarios where the216

questions of where, when, who, and what to eat are all open to experimentation.” Weber and217

Ludwig (WS6) conceptualized another future possibility for a food magic experience:

11

218

“Rendezfood”. The “Rendezfood” Augmented Reality (AR) application enables diners to

219

interact (“chat”) with “anthropomorphized” food in a human-like manner. Also, Chisik

220(WS7) proposed several possibilities for using multimedia for playful eating augmentations.

221

4.4 Theme 4: Food play222

The “food play” theme is concerned with submissions that focused on playful interactions

223

with/through food, including the study and the design of novel artifacts, systems, and224

experiences that afford such playful interactions.

225

Specifically, Chisik (WS7) introduced the notion of “Gastroludology” and argued that226

exploiting “food affordances and properties” holds an inherent potential for play. The author

227

also provided examples of a growing research interest in harnessing technology to engage

228

and play with food. Examples of this interest include the use of image projection to alter the229

perceived quantity of food, applying electricity to the tongue to simulate taste sensations

230

and create novel taste and texture experiences, and sharing virtual taste sensations to231

augment social eating and cooking experiences. Chisik suggested that future playful HFI

232

designs could consider the development of games to engage people with the broader cultural

233

and environmental aspects of food, and the design of food as electronic interface elements

234

in applications and games.

235

4.5 Theme 5: Digital commensality

236

The digital commensality theme refers to studies of eating together and the multi-faceted

237

nature of social dining. It encompasses research that explores the social dimension of eating

238

experiences and the design of technologies that intervenes with it.

239

For example, Huisman et al. (WS8) proposed an HFI approach that “considers food and240

the act of eating as being socially situated”, and “technology as a lens through which to view241

social eating, and develop artifacts that serve as mediators for social engagements around

12

242

food.” Panicker et al. (WS9) conducted a study on nuanced forms of long-distance243

communication and social connectedness in families and this study inspired the future244

design of systems that support healthy eating conversations by facilitating sharing behaviors

245

among family members. Alhasan et al. (WS10) provided an initial account of how current

246

digital platforms (e.g., AR) can offer an enhanced sense of commensality by facilitating

247“open-up”, “relaxed”, and “informal” communications while users eat. Parra et al. (WS11)248

reported on an eating behavior study that was conducted during the Covid-19 pandemic. The

249

study’s aim was to inform the design of future interactive technologies to enrich eating250

experiences, including improving socialization while eating (e.g., turning solo home251

cooking into impromptu online social activities) as a way of alleviating negative feelings

252

such as loneliness. The authors proposed the design of a virtual space in which people could

253

gather around food (the food equivalent of “gather.town”) and which could be presented as254

different types of locations (e.g., virtual restaurants, pubs).

255

4.6 Theme 6: Food tech for all

256

The “food tech for all” theme is concerned with submissions that focus on food-related

257

inclusive design. This theme encompasses research into how technology can help to make258

food practices more inclusive, and how to design food-related technology that is inclusive

259

and accessible.

260

With respect to food tech for all, He’s (WS12) research statement proposed that future261

HFI design should aim to improve the wellbeing and quality of life of people with

262

intellectual disabilities by reducing public discrimination and prejudice in food practices.

263

He called for the integration of ethnography with user-centric, inclusive, participatory, and264

collaborative design, and the consideration of deep engagement, interdisciplinarity,

265

individuality, and practicality when designing technologies for populations with special

266

needs. Taking a different perspective on the same goal of creating food technology for all,

13

267

Kiden et al. (WS13) investigated how a network of community fridges could use Internet of268

Things (IoT) technology to support social inclusion in culturally diverse neighborhoods.

269

4.7 Theme 7: Healthy food choices

270

The “healthy food choices” theme relates to submissions that focused on the design and use

271

of interactive technology to facilitate healthy eating choices.

272

With respect to healthy food choices, Kyösti et al. (WS14) reported on two experiments

273

utilizing VR and AR technologies to investigate how multisensory ambience could affect274

dietary behaviors. The results of these experiments indicated that a “sunny day” and “nature”

275

ambience was more likely to nudge participants toward healthier food choices (i.e., rye276

nacho and vegetable-based dishes). Experiments like these could inform the future277

development of technologies and consumer studies that aim to encourage/support healthier278

food choices. Similarly, Xi et al. (WS15) proposed a “speculative survey” of several concept279

designs of on-body diet tracers and suggested the use of wearable and intraoral sensors to

280

explore users’ acceptance of different self-monitoring technologies for food journaling. The

281

goal of these wearables and sensors would be to give users a better understanding of their282

eating patterns, thereby helping them to build healthier eating habits and manage their283

weight.

284

4.8 Theme 8: Sustainability

285

The “sustainability” theme relates to submissions that focused on overcoming sustainability

286

challenges associated with food. This theme encompasses research into how technology can

287

support sustainable food lifestyles, as well as how food-technology innovations can be288

ecologically sound.

289

Specifically, Kāle and Rikter (WS18) reported on their analysis of food tweets to assess

290changes in the public mood and attitude toward meat consumption over the past nine years.

14

291

This report, according to the authors, could potentially “pave the way for, e.g., alternative

292

proteins as well as vegetarian/vegan diets”. Engelbutzeder (WS16) called for future

293“sustainable HFI” research that addresses the urge for “a deep change in food systems”, and294

that highlights the “values, consumption and production practices, as well as politics

295

allowing for deliberation and grassroots mobilization.” Shakeri and McCallum (WS17)296

argued that educating consumers about the environmental impact of their choices as they297

shop may be a powerful approach to encouraging eco-friendly food purchases. The authors298

presented Envirofy: a real-time e-commerce grocery tool (in the form of a browser

299

extension) that allows shoppers to reduce their dietary carbon footprint by delivering

300“behavioral interventions” when they are making purchase decisions. A pilot test suggested

301

that Envirofy could improve “relevant knowledge, skills and perceived consumer

302

effectiveness across all participants” while reducing the CO2 in their shopping basket by 14

303

percent.

304

4.9 Theme 9: Empowering R&D

305

The theme “empowering R&D” relates to submissions that focused on the mediums,

306

methods, and processes that facilitate research and development in HFI. This theme

307

encompasses research into technologies and methods that support food sector professionals

308(e.g., food markets, restaurants, and the hospitality industry) to develop digital alternatives

309

that enrich customer experiences, through more personalized options, and help corporations

310

cope with extreme situations, such as pandemics.

311

For example, Jung et al. (WS19) presented a study on “human-food-human interaction”,

312

which investigated enabling people to try out and experience the food in a virtualized

313

farmer’s market environment. Their study envisioned future virtual systems to bridge the314

vocabulary gap between food makers and food eaters. Weber and Ludwig’s “Rendezfood”

315(WS6), aimed to increase awareness and intensify customer loyalty in the catering industry

15

316

by creating an emotional connection between the customer and food products, highlighting

317

future technological companions (e.g., AR) that enable augmentation and communication

318

with food in a human-like manner.

319

5 DISCUSSION: FUTURE DIRECTIONS320

HFI research has been predominantly a technology-centric endeavor, according to previous

321

research (Altarriba Bertran & Wilde et al., 2019). Such techno-solutionist (Morozov, 2013)

322

approaches may seem to contradict the goal of HFI research, which aims to emphasize the323

people and the ways they engage with food (Comber et al., 2014). In response, Alonso324(2020) identified future opportunities focusing on the materiality and consumption of food.

325

Furthermore, Velasco et al. (2021) summarized multiple areas for future development326

around multisensory inquiries, including eating, food attitude, social aspect, and ethical327

considerations. Our analysis of the work discussed at our workshop with HFI experts

328

highlights a set of design and research directions that approach the human-food-technology

329interplay through a more diverse and holistic perspective. Furthermore, our themes

330

demonstrated a more heterogeneous nature across various areas. From our critical reflection

331

on the themes that emerged from the workshop, here we share four areas of HFI that might

332

give rise to exciting future advancements in the field.

333

5.1 Design for experiential augmentations via food’s material affordances, integrated

334

mind-gut activities, and multisensory experiences

335

Our themes (particularly food perceptions, blending interfaces, and magic food) revealed336

that designing for experiential augmentations is an exciting direction in which the HFI field

337

can advance. While previous work has explored technologies for augmented eating, such as

338

eating with mixed reality (Narumi et al., 2011) and digital taste (Ranasinghe et al., 2016),

339

we identified a set of new approaches to designing experiential augmentations. For example,

340

rather than focusing on technological novelty and efficiency, we propose the employment

16

341

of food and its affordances as a material and playground for interaction design. This342

direction requires us to consider the food physics (i.e., the physical properties of food343

materials) (Figura & Teixeira, 2007) and food’s aesthetic, affective, sensual, and344

sociocultural qualities (e.g., (Deng et al., 2022; Obrist et al., 2014; Obrist et al., 2019)). We

345

hope that this focus will reveal new ways to produce, serve, and engage with food. Another346

approach to experiential augmentation is integrating mind-gut activities within

347

computational systems. Another approach to designing for experiential augmentations is to348

integrate mind-gut activities within computational systems. One possible design direction

349

could be to consider the human gastrointestinal tract and the brain activities as synergistic

350

parts of the computational systems, with the objective of enabling a more personal351

communication between the consumer and the creator and delivering more personalized

352

services and experiences in real-time. Furthermore, incorporating multisensory experiences353

into food practices and contexts could offer a pathway to experiential augmentations for354

consumers. In this respect, possible design considerations include multimodal HFI through355

studying the sensorial phenomenon and developing multimedia devices and VR/AR

356

applications for creating playful and magical food experiences. Overall, this direction could

357

potentially lead the way to future advancements in hospitality, food markets and retail shops

358

by enriching any product line and creating novel food experiences.

359

5.2 Reinforce commensality and sociocultural bonds for communal responsibility

360

Sociocultural engagement provides an opportunity to solidify food values and norms and361strengthen communal ties (Batat et al., 2019), especially, our themes (particularly food play,362

digital commensality, and food tech for all) emphasized building up a more accessible,

363

inclusive, and just food community for everyone. The future direction of reinforcing

364

commensality and sociocultural bonds, inspired by our themes, suggests a multifaceted

365

pathway. This could include designing technology-enabled remote eating (e.g., tele-dining

366

installations), technology-mediated environments where diners can eat together (e.g.,

17

367

utilizing virtual and augmented reality), or developing Metaverse food communities that368

place a virtual layer over the physical world and help people to socialize over food. Our

369

themes also point toward a research direction that incorporates inclusive, justice-focused,370

and participatory design approaches into technology developments, including the use of IoT

371

and the use of open-source hardware to design more accessible food technology. This future372

direction for HFI design and research could inspire policy makers, social designers, and373

scientists to build a more engaging, just, and ethical community around food.

374

5.3 Promote better food choices for health and environmental care375

Our themes also revealed the potential for HFI to raise awareness and empower design for376

healthy food choices and environmental care through technological interventions

377(particularly healthy food choices and sustainability). The themes suggested two future378

possibilities of designing technology to promote healthy food choices: the first being to379

facilitate nudging through multisensory design created through VR and AR; and the second

380

being the use of bodily monitoring devices and on-body sensors to better understand users’381

eating patterns. Our themes also highlighted possible technology interventions (e.g.,

382

utilizing social media to collect food-related data, and developing applications to track383

customers’ behavior in relation to food practices) for improving food attitudes, food beliefs,

384

and food knowledge. The insights gained from these interventions can then guide385

researchers in their design of novel systems that aim to vary people’s food choices and386

support a more sustainable food future. Overall, we hope that this direction in HFI research387

and design will light the way for governments and food institutes who are looking for new

388

ways to improve customers’ understanding and awareness of their consumption and its

389

impacts.

18

390

6 LIMITATIONS & FUTURE WORK

391

While we acknowledge the limitations of our work, these limitations also present

392

opportunities for future work. We acknowledge that this article does not provide an ultimate

393

guide to future HFI research, given that it is based upon the results of an examination of a394

limited number of submissions made at a single workshop. Our more modest goal is to offer395

a timely summary of what a group of HFI experts see as the future ways in which research396

and design might bring food, humans, and technology together to beneficially shape human397

food practices. The addition of the work and perspectives of other experts would allow for398

a more comprehensive understanding of the present state of HFI and provide richer insights

399

into future HFI practices. We also acknowledge that HFI does not yet adequately cover some400

contemporary developments in food studies, including emerging research around: food401

provenance, authenticity and the use of blockchain (Cao et al., 2021; Foth, 2017; Teli et al.,4022022); food waste (Berns et al., 2021; Farr-Wharton et al., 2014; Farr-Wharton et al., 2012);

403

and green energy in food preparation (Kuznetsov et al., 2022). Also, it is necessarily to point404

out that our work is only a starting point and does not comprehensively address all aspects

405

of contemporary food issues raised in previous studies, including agriculture and production

406

challenges (Pawlak & Kołodziejczak, 2020), food policy and allocation issues (Alkaabneh407

et al., 2021), as well as hunger (Collier, 2008) and the climate crises (Downing et al., 1996).

408

Our work provides only a starting point that needs to be developed and critiqued further by409

other scholars and practitioners across food, gastronomy, and HCI. With these gaps in mind,

410

we intend to conduct future workshops, special interest groups, and seminars to continue the411

discussion of possible HFI futures, and to, thereby, facilitate an ongoing sense-making

412

process (Altarriba Bertran & Wilde et al., 2019).

413

Finally, we acknowledge that our article originated from a group of researchers who are

414

predominantly from institutions around the developed world (mostly the USA and Europe).

415

Consequently, our results might be perceived as reflecting the biases inherent to our

19

416

“privileged” positions. For example, the future directions we identify might only be relevant

417

to or in reach of those in similarly privileged positions. Furthermore, as contributors to, and418

convenors, coordinators, examiners, analysts, and communicators of the workshop content,

419

processes and results, our inherent values, and our beliefs about the HFI field might have420

biased the selection and characterization of themes and future directions. Nevertheless, we

421

believe that this article’s assessment provides a comprehensive foundation for future422

research that advances the HFI field. Our different roles in the workshop allowed us to423

develop an intimate knowledge of the submissions and an overarching view of the workshop

424

outcomes as they unfolded. We believe this privileged position helped us to establish and425

communicate a deep and rich understanding of the emerging themes and future directions

426

of HFI.

427

7 CONCLUSION

428

In conclusion, as the HFI field rapidly progresses and expands, overviews of its status can429

quickly become outdated. Contributions to knowledge and systems in the field also need to430

be constantly re-assessed with reference to what will no doubt be rapid changes in the field’s431

aims. In this context, we convened a workshop in which we received and examined 19 works

432

by HFI experts. By analyzing these expert submissions along with the results of the433

workshop, we identified nine themes relating to the objectives of HFI research and design434

and three emerging future directions for HFI research and design. Ultimately, with our work,435

we hope to update the current understanding of HFI and inspire researchers and practitioners

436

to venture down new paths.

437

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

438

We thank all authors for their contributions to the workshop the Future of Human-Food

439

Interaction at CHI 2021. We also thank prior literature reviews in HFI that set a foundation440

to our work. Florian ‘Floyd’ Mueller thanks the Australian Research Council.

20

441

REFERENCES

442
443
444

Alkaabneh, F., Diabat, A., & Gao, H. O. (2021). A unified framework for efficient, effective, and fairresource allocation by food banks using an Approximate Dynamic Programming approach.
Omega, 100, 102300. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2020.102300

445
446

Alonso, M. B. (2020). Future Everyday Food: How Emerging Technologies Could Impact Food
Consumption. APRIA Journal, 2(1), 85-90. https://doi.org/10.37198/APRIA.02.01.a10

447
448
449
450
451

Altarriba Bertran, F., Duval, J., Isbister, K., Wilde, D., Segura, E. M., Pañella, O. G., & León, L. B.
(2019). Chasing Play Potentials in Food Culture to Inspire Technology Design. Extended
Abstracts of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play Companion
Extended Abstracts (CHI PLAY '19 Extended Abstracts), Barcelona, Spain. 829–834.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1145/3341215.3349586

452
453
454

Altarriba Bertran, F., Jhaveri, S., Lutz, R., Isbister, K., & Wilde, D. (2019). Making Sense of HumanFood Interaction. 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Glasgow,
Scotland Uk. Paper 678, 671-613. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300908

455
456
457
458

Arnold, P., Khot, R. A., & Mueller, F. (2018). "You Better Eat to Survive": Exploring Cooperative
Eating in Virtual Reality Games. Twelfth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded,
andEmbodiedInteraction,
Stockholm,
Sweden.
398–408.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3173225.3173238

459
460
461
462

Barden, P., Comber, R., Green, D., Jackson, D., Ladha, C., Bartindale, T., . . . Olivier, P. (2012).
Telematic dinner party: designing for togetherness through play and performance.
Designing Interactive Systems Conference, Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom. 38–47.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2317956.2317964

463
464
465

Batat, W., Peter, P. C., Moscato, E. M., Castro, I. A., Chan, S., Chugani, S., & Muldrow, A. (2019). The
experiential pleasure of food: A savoring journey to food well-being. Journal of BusinessResearch, 100, 392-399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.12.024

466
467

Bays, J. C. (2017). Mindful Eating: A Guide to Rediscovering a Healthy and Joyful Relationship with
Food (Revised Edition). Shambhala Publications.

468
469

Berns, K., Rossitto, C., & Tholander, J. (2021). Queuing for Waste: Sociotechnical Interactions within
a Food Sharing Community. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445059

470
471
472

Block, L. G., Grier, S. A., Childers, T. L., Davis, B., Ebert, J. E. J., Kumanyika, S., . . . Bieshaar, M. N. G.
G. (2011). From Nutrients to Nurturance: A Conceptual Introduction to Food Well-Being.
Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 30(1), 5-13. https://doi.org/10.1509/jppm.30.1.5

473
474
475
476

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2012). Thematic analysis. In APA handbook of research methods inpsychology, Vol 2: Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, andbiological.
(pp.
57-71).
AmericanPsychological
Association.
https://doi.org/10.1037/13620-004

21

477
478
479

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research inSport,
ExerciseandHealth,11(4),
589-597.
https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806

480
481
482

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive)
thematic analysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18(3), 328-352.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238

483
484
485

Cao, S., Foth, M., Powell, W., & McQueenie, J. (2021). What Are the Effects of Short Video
Storytelling in Delivering Blockchain-Credentialed Australian Beef Products to China? Foods,
10(10). https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10102403

486
487
488
489

Chen, D., Seong, Y. a., Ogura, H., Mitani, Y., Sekiya, N., & Moriya, K. (2021). Nukabot: Design of Carefor Human-Microbe Relationships. In Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems, Yokohama, Japan. Article 291.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3411763.3451605

490
491
492
493

Chisik, Y., Bertran, F. A., Schaper, M.-M., Segura, E. M., Vidal, L. T., & Wilde, D. (2020). Chasing playpotentials in food culture: embracing children's perspectives. In Proceedings of the 2020
ACM Interaction Design and Children Conference: Extended Abstracts (IDC '20), London,
United Kingdom. 46–53. https://doi.org/10.1145/3397617.3398062

494
495
496

Choi, J., Foth, M., Hearn, G., Blevis, E., & Hirsch, T. (Eds.). (2009). Hungry 24/7? HCI Design for
Sustainable
Food
Culture.
Brisbane,Qld.
https://doi.org/https://eprints.qut.edu.au/31087/.

497
498

Choi, J. H.-j., Foth, M., & Hearn, G. (2014). Eat, cook, grow: Mixing human-computer interactions
with human-food interactions. MIT Press.

499
500

Collier, P. (2008). The Politics of Hunger: How Illusion and Greed Fan the Food Crisis. Foreign Affairs,
87(6), 67-79. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20699372

501
502
503

Comber, R., Choi, J. H.-j., Hoonhout, J., & O'Hara, K. (2014). Designing for human–food interaction:
An introduction to the special issue on ‘food and interaction design’. International Journalof Human-Computer Studies, 72(2), 181-184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2013.09.001

504
505
506
507

Comber, R., Ganglbauer, E., Choi, J. H.-j., Hoonhout, J., Rogers, Y., O'Hara, K., & Maitland, J. (2012).
Food and interaction design: designing for food in everyday life. In CHI '12 Extended
Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Austin, Texas, USA. 2767–2770.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2212776.2212716

508

Connor, M., & Armitage, C. J. (2002). The Social Psychology of Food. Open University Press.

509
510
511
512

Davis, H., Wilde, D., Altarriba Bertran, F., & Dolejšová, M. (2020). Fantastic(e)ating Food Futures:
Reimagining Human Food Interaction. In Companion Publication of the 2020 ACM
Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS' 20 Companion), Eindhoven, Netherlands.
377–380. https://doi.org/10.1145/3393914.3395906

22

513
514
515
516

Deng, J., Patrick Olivier, Josh Andres, Kirsten Ellis, Ryan Wee, & Mueller., F. (2022). Logic Bonbon:
Exploring Food as Computational Artifact. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in
Computing
Systems(CHI’22),
New
Orleans,
LA,
USA.
21
pages.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3501926.

517
518
519
520

Deng, J., Wang, Y., Velasco, C., Bertran, F. A., Comber, R., Obrist, M., . . . Mueller, F. (2021). The
Future of Human-Food Interaction. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems
Extended
Abstracts
(CHI
’21),
Yokohama,
Japan.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3411763.3441312

521
522
523
524

Dolejšová, M., Wilde, D., Altarriba Bertran, F., & Davis, H. (2020). Disrupting (More-than-) HumanFood Interaction: Experimental Design, Tangibles and Food-Tech Futures. In Proceedingsof the 2020 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS '20), Eindhoven,
Netherlands. 993–1004. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1145/3357236.3395437

525
526

dos Santos Aguilar, J., & Aguilar, I. (2019). Interactions between Human, Computer and Food. Foodand Nutrition Open Access, 2(2), 116. https://doi.org/10.31021/fnoa.20192116

527
528
529

Downing, T. E., Watts, M. J., & Bohle, H. G. (1996, 1996//). Climate Change and Food Insecurity:
Toward a Sociology and Geography of Vulnerability. Climate Change and World Food
Security, Berlin, Heidelberg. 183-206.

530
531
532

Farr-Wharton, G., Choi, J., & Foth, M. (2014). Food talks back: Exploring the role of mobile
applications
in
reducing
domesticfood
wastage.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2686612.2686665

533
534
535

Farr-Wharton, G., Foth, M., & Choi, J. (2012). Colour Coding the Fridge to Reduce Food Waste.
Proceedings of the 24th Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference, OzCHI 2012.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2414536.2414556

536
537

Figura, L., & Teixeira, A. A. (2007). Food physics: physical properties-measurement and applications.
Springer Science & Business Media.

538
539

Foth, M. (2017). The promise of blockchain technology for interaction design. Proceedings of the
29th Australian Conference on Computer-Human Interaction.

540
541
542
543

Heller, F. (2021). Muffidgets: Detecting and Identifying Edible Pastry Tangibles on Capacitive
Touchscreens. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference on Tangible,
Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (TEI'21), Salzburg, Austria. Article 44.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3430524.3442449

544
545

Holtzman, J. D. (2006). Food and Memory. Annual Review of Anthropology, 35(1), 361-378.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.35.081705.123220

546
547

Hsu, F. C., Agyeiwaah, E., & Scott, N. (2022). Understanding tourists' perceived food consumption
values: Do different cultures share similar food values? International Journal of

23

548
549

Gastronomy
andFood
Science,https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgfs.2022.100533

28,

100533.

550551

Kendrick, M. (2008). The great cholesterol con: the truth about what really causes heart disease
and how to avoid it. Kings Road Publishing.

552
553

Khot, R., Mueller, F., & Young, D. (2019). Human-Food Interaction. Foundations and Trends® in
Human-Computer Interaction, 12, 238-415. https://doi.org/10.1561/1100000074

554
555
556
557

Khot, R. A., Aggarwal, D., Pennings, R., Hjorth, L., & Mueller, F. (2017a). Edipulse: investigating aplayful approach to self-monitoring through 3D printed chocolate treats. 2017 CHI
Conferenceon
Human
FactorsinComputing
Systems,
6593-6607.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025980

558
559
560

Khot, R. A., Lupton, D., Dolejšová, M., & Mueller, F. F. (2017b). Future of Food in the Digital Realm.
2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Denver,
Colorado, USA. 1342–1345. https://doi.org/10.1145/3027063.3049283

561
562
563

Koerich, G. H., & Müller, S. G. (2022). Gastronomy knowledge in the socio-cultural context oftransformations. International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science, 29, 100581.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgfs.2022.100581

564
565
566
567

Kuznetsov, S., Rodriguez Vega, A., & Long, E. (2022). A Study of Solar Cooking: Exploring ClimateResilient Food Preparation and Opportunities for HCI. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '22), 457.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3517557

568
569
570
571

Liu, J., Byrne, D., & Devendorf, L. (2018). Design for Collaborative Survival: An Inquiry into HumanFungi Relationships. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in
Computing
Systems(CHI'18),
Montreal
QC,
Canada.
Paper
40.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173614

572
573
574

McCurry, J. (2022). Saline solution: Japan invents ‘electric’ chopsticks that make food seem more
salty. T. Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/19/saline-solutionjapan-invents-electric-chopsticks-that-make-food-seem-more-salty

575
576
577
578

Mehta, Y. D., Khot, R. A., Patibanda, R., & Mueller, F. (2018). Arm-A-Dine: Towards Understanding
the Design of Playful Embodied Eating Experiences. 2018 Annual Symposium on ComputerHuman
InteractioninPlay,
Melbourne,
VIC,
Australia.
299–313.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3242671.3242710

579
580

Mintz, S. W., & Bois, C. M. D. (2002). The Anthropology of Food and Eating. Annual Review of
Anthropology, 31(1), 99-119. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.32.032702.131011

581
582

Mizrahi, M., Golan, A., Mizrahi, A. B., Gruber, R., Lachnise, A. Z., & Zoran, A. (2016). Digital
Gastronomy: Methods & Recipes for Hybrid Cooking. In In Proceedings of the 29th Annual

24

583
584

Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST '16), Tokyo, Japan. 541–552.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2984511.2984528

585
586

Morozov, E. (2013). To save everything, click here: The folly of technological solutionism. Public
Affairs.

587
588
589
590

Narumi, T., Nishizaka, S., Kajinami, T., Tanikawa, T., & Hirose, M. (2011). Augmented reality flavors:
gustatory display based on edible marker and cross-modal interaction. SIGCHI Conferenceon Human Factors in Computing Systems, Vancouver, BC, Canada. 93–102.
https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1978957

591
592
593

Niijima, A., & Ogawa, T. (2016, 11-15 July 2016). A proposal of virtual food texture by electric muscle
stimulation. In 2016 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia & Expo Workshops(ICMEW), Seattle, WA. 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICMEW.2016.7574698

594
595
596

Nishihara, Y., & Kakehi, Y. (2021). magashi: Fabrication of Shape-Changing Edible Structures by
Extrusion-Based Printing and Baking. In Creativity and Cognition (C&C '21), Virtual Event,Italy. Article 44. https://doi.org/10.1145/3450741.3465388

597
598
599
600
601

Obrist, M., Comber, R., Subramanian, S., Piqueras-Fiszman, B., Velasco, C., & Spence, C. (2014).
Temporal, affective, and embodied characteristics of taste experiences: a framework fordesign. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
(CHI
'14),
Toronto,Ontario,
Canada.
2853–2862.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557007

602
603
604
605

Obrist, M., Marti, P., Velasco, C., Tu, Y., Narumi, T., & Møller, N. L. H. (2018). The future ofcomputing and food: extended abstract. In Proceedings of the 2018 International
Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces (AVI '18), Castiglione della Pescaia, Grosseto,
Italy. Article 5, 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1145/3206505.3206605

606
607
608

Obrist, M., Tu, Y., Yao, L., & Velasco, C. (2019). Space Food Experiences: Designing Passenger's
Eating Experiences for Future Space Travel Scenarios [Original Research]. Frontiers in
Computer Science, 1(3). https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomp.2019.00003

609
610
611

Pawlak, K., & Kołodziejczak, M. (2020). The Role of Agriculture in Ensuring Food Security in
Developing Countries: Considerations in the Context of the Problem of Sustainable Food
Production. Sustainability, 12(13).

612
613
614

Plata, A., Motoki, K., Spence, C., & Velasco, C. (2022). Trends in alcohol consumption in relation to
the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-country analysis. International Journal of Gastronomy andFood Science, 27, 100397. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgfs.2021.100397

615
616
617

Ranasinghe, N., Lee, K.-Y., Suthokumar, G., & Do, E. Y.-L. (2016). Virtual ingredients for food andbeverages to create immersive taste experiences. Multimedia Tools and Applications,75(20), 12291-12309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-015-3162-8

25

618
619
620

Rogers, P. J., Ferriday, D., Jebb, S. A., & Brunstrom, J. M. (2016). Connecting biology with psychology
to make sense of appetite control. Nutrition Bulletin, 41(4), 344-352.
https://doi.org/10.1111/nbu.12237

621
622
623

Rozin, P., Bauer, R., & Catanese, D. (2003). Food and life, pleasure and worry, among Americancollege students: Gender differences and regional similarities. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 85(1), 132-141. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.1.132

624

Schneider, T. (2018). Food and Health. In In: The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology. (2nd Edition).

625

Scrinis, G. (2013). Nutritionism: The science and politics of dietary advice. Columbia University Press.

626

Spence, C. (2017). Gastrophysics: The new science of eating. Penguin UK.

627
628
629

Spence, C. (2021). Explaining seasonal patterns of food consumption. International Journal of
Gastronomy
andFood
Science,24,100332.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgfs.2021.100332

630
631
632

Spence, C. (2022). On the use of ambient odours to influence the multisensory experience of dining.
International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science, 27, 100444.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgfs.2021.100444

633
634

Spence, C., & Piqueras-Fiszman, B. (2014). The Perfect Meal: The Multisensory Science of Food andDining. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118491003.ch9

635
636
637

Spence, C., & Youssef, J. (2019). Synaesthesia: The multisensory dining experience. International
Journalof
Gastronomy
andFood
Science,18,100179.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgfs.2019.100179

638
639
640

Sun, J., Peng, Z., Zhou, W., Fuh, J. Y. H., Hong, G. S., & Chiu, A. (2015). A Review on 3D Printing for
Customized
Food
Fabrication.
Procedia
Manufacturing,1,
308-319.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2015.09.057

641
642
643

Teli, M., McQueenie, J., Cibin, R., & Foth, M. (2022). Intermediation in design as a practice ofinstitutioning
andcommoning.
DesignStudies,
82,
101132.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2022.101132

644
645
646
647

Ulijaszek, S. J., Mann, N., & Elton, S. (2012). Evolution of human diet and eating behaviour. In N.
Mann, S. Elton, & S. J. Ulijaszek (Eds.), Evolving Human Nutrition: Implications for Public
Health(pp.
117-150).
Cambridge
University
Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139046794.006

648
649
650

Vannucci, E., Altarriba Bertran, F., Marshall, J., & Wilde, D. (2018). Handmaking Food Ideals:
Crafting
theDesignof
FutureFood-related
Technologies.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3197391.3197403

651
652

Velasco, C. (2020). Multisensory Experiences: Where the Senses Meet Technology. Oxford
University Press. https://books.google.com.au/books?id=1PH6DwAAQBAJ

26

653
654

Velasco, C., Nijholt, A., & Karunanayaka, K. (2018a). Multisensory Human-Food Interaction.
https://doi.org/10.3389/978-2-88945-518-8

655
656

Velasco, C., Obrist, M., Petit, O., & Spence, C. (2018b). Multisensory technology for flavor
augmentation: a mini review. Frontiers in psychology, 9, 26.

657
658
659

Velasco, C., Wang, Q. J., Obrist, M., & Nijholt, A. (2021). A Reflection on the State of Multisensory
Human–Food Interaction Research [Perspective]. Frontiers in Computer Science, 3.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomp.2021.694691

660
661
662
663

Vi, C. T., Marzo, A., Ablart, D., Memoli, G., Subramanian, S., Drinkwater, B., & Obrist, M. (2017).
TastyFloats: A Contactless Food Delivery System. 2017 ACM International Conference on
Interactive Surfaces and Spaces, Brighton, United Kingdom. 161–170.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3132272.3134123

664
665
666
667

Vi, C. T., Marzo, A., Memoli, G., Maggioni, E., Ablart, D., Yeomans, M., & Obrist, M. (2020). LeviSense:
A platform for the multisensory integration in levitating food and insights into its effect on
flavour perception. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 139, 102428.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2020.102428

668
669
670
671

Wang, W., Yao, L., Zhang, T., Cheng, C.-Y., Levine, D., & Ishii, H. (2017). Transformative appetite:
shape-changing food transforms from 2D to 3D by water interaction through cooking. the2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 6123-6132.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3026019

672
673
674
675
676

Wang, Y., Li, Z., Jarvis, R., Khot, R. A., & Mueller, F. (2018). The Singing Carrot: Designing Playful
Experiences with Food Sounds. In Proceedings of the 2018 Annual Symposium on
Computer-Human Interaction in Play Companion Extended Abstracts (CHI PLAY '18
Extended
Abstracts),
Melbourne,
VIC,
Australia.
669–676.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3270316.3271512

677
678
679
680

Wang, Y., Li, Z., Jarvis, R. S., Delfa, J. L., Khot, R. A., & Mueller, F. (2020). WeScream! Toward
Understanding the Design of Playful Social Gustosonic Experiences with Ice Cream (DIS '20).
In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference, Eindhoven,
Netherlands. 951–963. https://doi.org/10.1145/3357236.3395456

681

Warde, A. (2016). The Practice of Eating. John Wiley & Sons.

682
683

Willett, W. C., & Stampfer, M. J. (2013). Current Evidence on Healthy Eating. Annual Review of
Public Health, 34(1), 77-95. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031811-124646

684
685
686
687

Youssef, J., Sanchez, C. C., Woods, A. T., & Spence, C. (2018). “Jastrow's Bistable Bite”: What
happens when visual Bistable illusion meets the culinary arts? International Journal of
Gastronomy
andFood
Science,13,
16-24.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgfs.2018.04.004

27

688
689

Zoran, A. (2019). Cooking With Computers: The Vision of Digital Gastronomy [Point of View].
Proceedings of the IEEE, 107(8), 1467-1473. https://doi.org/10.1109/JPROC.2019.2925262

690

28