Int. J. Human–Computer Studies 183 (2024) 103197

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Human - Computer Studies
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhcs

Grand challenges in human-food interaction☆
Florian ‘Floyd’ Mueller a, *, Marianna Obrist b, Ferran Altarriba Bertran c, Neharika Makam d,
Soh Kim e, Christopher Dawes f, Patrizia Marti g, Maurizio Mancini h, Eleonora Ceccaldi i,
Nandini Pasumarthy j, Sahej Claire e, Kyung seo Jung k, Jialin Deng a, Jürgen Steimle l,Nadejda Krasteva m, Matti Schwalk m, Harald Reiterer n, Hongyue Wang a, Yan Wang aaDepartment of Human-Centred Computing, Exertion Games Lab, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
University College London, London, UK
Escola Universitària ERAM, Universitat de Girona, & Gamification Group, Tampere University, Salt, Catalonia, Spaind
Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USAe
Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USAf
Department of Computer Science, University College London, London, UK
gUniversity of Siena, Siena, Italyh
Department of Computer Science, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italyi
CasaPaganini - InfoMus, DIBRIS, University of Genoa, Genoa, Italyj
HAFP Research Lab, RMIT University, Melbourne, AustraliakStanford Center at the Incheon Global Campus, Incheon, South Koreal
HCI Lab, Saarland University, Saarland Informatics Campus, Saarbrücken, GermanymSony Europe B.V., Stuttgart, Germanyn
HCI Group, University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germanybc

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Keywords:
Human-food interaction
EatingGrand challenges
Interactive technology

There is an increasing interest in combining interactive technology with food, leading to a new research area
called human-food interaction. While food experiences are increasingly benefiting from interactive technology,
for example in the form of food tracking apps, 3D-printed food and projections on dining tables, a more sys­
tematic advancement of the field is hindered because, so far, there is no comprehensive articulation of the grandchallenges the field is facing. To further and consolidate conversations around this topic, we invited 21 HFIexperts to a 5-day seminar. The goal was to review our own and prior work to identify the grand challenges inhuman-food interaction. The result is an articulation of 10 grand challenges in human-food interaction across 4
categories (technology, users, design and ethics). By presenting these grand challenges, we aim to help re­searchers move the human-food interaction research field forward.

1. Introduction
There is an increasing trend in combining interactive technology
with food, embraced under the term ”Human-Food Interaction” (HFI)(Khot and Mueller, 2019). For example, there are apps that allow
tracking food intake to achieve diet goals (Silva et al., 2011), kitchen
tools that connect to food databases on the internet (Thermomix, 2022),
robots that help with cooking (Zhu and Chang, 2020), natural language
and image processing systems that personalize recipes (Li and McAuley,2020), big data systems to create culinary menus (Varshney et al., 2019),

and projected visuals on the dining table to support the eating experi­ence (Hagger, 2018). Food is not only essential for our survival but also
provides some of the most fundamental pleasures of life (Brillat-Savarin,2009). Hence, combining it with interactive technology offers unique
opportunities, but also poses unique challenges when compared to
traditional interaction design, such as that the material of interaction isperishable. In particular, it is believed that HFI offers opportunities toenhance the way we engage with food, possibly leading to a healthier
diet (Marshall et al., 2022) and enriching the social benefits gained fromeating together (Barden et al., 2012), leading to improved health and

CCS CONCEPTS • Human-centered computing → Interaction design* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: floyd@exertiongameslab.org (F.‘. Mueller).

☆

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2023.103197
Received 4 June 2023; Received in revised form 10 October 2023; Accepted 24 November 2023
Available online 3 December 2023
1071-5819/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

International Journal of Human - Computer Studies 183 (2024) 103197

F.‘. Mueller et al.

wellbeing. However, HFI work could also lead to negative outcomes. For
example, reducing the complexity of eating, turning the richness of foodpractices into bland experiences only concerned with optimal energy
intake (Choi et al., 2012; Grimes and Harper, 2008). One prominent
negative example is the use of mobile phones at the dinner table,
resulting in mindless eating and hindering the social benefits of eating
together (Ferdous, 2015).
We consider HFI within Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) as being
concerned with using interactive technology to enhance, enrich ortransform the food experience. Although technology can play a role in
the larger food context, such as by providing resource management
systems for agriculture, sourcing advice systems for wholesalers, andonline recipe database search functions, in this article we focus on thefood experience that is concerned with eating the food (Altarriba Ber­tran, Jhaveri, Lutz, Isbister, and Wilde, 2019). So, our interactive tech­
nology discussions are specific to the fact that the food is being eaten byhumans. As such, our scope is restricted to the food experience byhumans and does not consider topics like, for example, the production offood for animals or the growth of eatable produce that is not meant forhuman consumption. We scoped this article in this way because webelieve that the food experience offers opportunities, but also chal­lenges, that we want to examine first before we delve into moretangential areas. The challenges stemming from a rather unique com­bination of characteristics touched upon in prior non-food HCI work,
however, come together strongly in an intertwined way that is specific to
HFI. For example, HFI is concerned with food, a tangible and perishable
material. Hence, HFI can draw upon tangible interactions (Shaer andHornecker, 2010) and ephemeral interface research (Doering et al.,2013). However, this prior research has not yet fully investigated what
happens if the user eats the interaction’s material, that is, the food(Wiberg, 2018; Deng et al., 2021, 2022, 2023a–c; Deng and Mueller,
2023; Mueller et al., 2021). Furthermore, HFI involves more than one
sense (therefore, it is not just concerned with taste, but also how a dishlooks, how it smells, how its texture is perceived, what sound it makes
when biting, etc. Spence 2021). Hence, HFI can also build upon researchon multisensory interactions. However, the associated research com­munity has not yet fully understood the specifics of multisensory eating(Carlos Velasco and Marianna Obrist, 2020). Additionally, HFI’s interestin eating highlights an interaction that everyone needs to do (otherwise,
they risk severe health implications). Hence, HFI shares similarities withubiquitous computing and, in particular, its use of biosensors, as thisresearch is also interested in non-optional interactions such as implicit
interactions. However, this research area does not tell us much about
these interactions regarding food. Moreover, HFI is concerned with theconsumption of food, mostly multiple times a day, which is deeply
cultural and socially embedded (Locher et al., 2005). HCI research
involving ethnographic approaches and alike has previously aimed tounderstand such practices, hence, HFI can build on this prior work.
However, how to turn this understanding into system design is still
underdeveloped.
We would argue that the above list suggests that the HFI field iscomplex and multi-disciplinary, and possibly even fragmented (Altar­
riba Bertran, Jhaveri, et al., 2019; Bertran et al., 2018; Min et al., 2019).
Specifically, not only does HFI involve the augmentation of user expe­
riences, but it also focuses on the biological and chemical foundations oftaste, the understanding of food production systems, the application oftechnology across these systems, and the overarching societal un­
derpinnings of food engagements and the societal influences on behav­
iors. On the one hand, this makes it very exciting to work in HFI, but on
the other hand, it also makes it challenging, as not much guidance exists,such as in the form of a set of grand challenges that offers a coherent
structure on how to bring the field forward. Other emerging sub-fields of
HCI (such as social robotics (Tapus et al., 2007), crowdwork (Kittur
et al., 2013), human-computer integration (Mueller et al., 2020),
shape-changing interfaces (Alexander et al., 2018), immersive analytics(Ens et al., 2021), and information retrieval (Belkin, 2008)) havepreviously faced a similar predicament. To address this, they have ar­ticulated “grand challenges”, a set of major current or potential limiting
factors that can serve to form an agenda to identify and steer the di­rection of future research (Shneiderman et al., 2016). Just as these priorgrand challenge articulations have advanced their respective research
fields, we hope that our work will similarly move the HFI field forward.
We believe that, aligned with the prior grand challenge works wementioned above, identifying the grand challenges is an important stepto guide future research. Hence, in this article, we present 10 grandchallenges in HFI across four categories, technology, users, design andethics, inspired by prior work that used similar four categories (Alex­
ander et al., 2018; Mueller et al., 2020). One of these seminars even used
the same venue (Mueller et al., 2020). The 10 grand challenges are
summarized in Table 1. We invited 21 HFI experts to a 5-day seminar.
The goal was to review our own and prior work to identify the grandchallenges in HFI.
We believe that our articulation of the grand challenges in HFI canhelp:• researchers currently not working in the HFI area identify where they
can contribute, bringing them into the field;• researchers currently working in the HFI area to situate their workwithin a larger research agenda, leading to a more coherent vision of
the field;• students, such as Master and PhD candidates, to pick research topics
within HFI that advance the field forward rather than rehashingexisting areas of investigation;• industry practitioners to see where the field could be heading,helping them to prepare for future HFI applications that emerging
technologies enable;• grant providers to assess the state-of-the-art of the HFI field in orderto provide targeted support such as funding.
Taken together, with our articulation of the grand challenges in HFI,
we believe we can better help to navigate and coordinate this exciting
research area, collaboratively explore the emerging opportunities andalso collectively reflect upon the associated responsibilities when
designing future food experiences.
2. The evolution of HFI
We now present the evolution of the HFI field to indicate the state of
the art that our grand challenges build upon. This section surveys priorefforts from various perspectives to bring the diverse field together intoa more coherent whole to create a basis for the emerging area that HFI is.
Such efforts include definitions of HFI, surveys of HFI, HFI workshops,
symposia, and seminars, as well as journal special issues on HFI.
Several authors have proposed definitions of what HFI is (and what it
is not) to sharpen future research’s focus. For example, Choi et al.
defined HFI as “the interconnection between the self and food” (Choiet al., 2014). Relatedly, Khot et al. defined food practices as “any humanactivity in which food is involved, ranging from agriculture, foodTable 1
Grand challenges in HFI.
Technology

Users

DesignEthicsSensing taste

Supporting
creativepractitioners
Evaluation
frameworks for
HFI

Dealing with the taste
experience’s
complexity
Identifying
interactivity
opportunities in foodscenarios
Designing new formsof commensality

HFI for and as
sustainable
practice
Applying HFIethically

Synthesizing
food
Food asinteraction
material

2

F.‘. Mueller et al.

International Journal of Human - Computer Studies 183 (2024) 103197

preparation, eating, gifting food, sharing meals and cleaning up” (Khotand Mueller, 2019). Symons refers to these practices as “the human foodcycle” (Symons, 1994). This led Khot et al. to consider four phases of
HFI: growing, cooking, eating and disposal (Khot and Mueller, 2019). In
our seminar, we considered the above definition of “human activity inwhich food is involved”, but focused on technology-mediated in­teractions, hence our grand challenges are concerned with those.
Over the past years, the field has produced an increasing number ofpublications, and as a result, there have been efforts to summarize themin the form of surveys (Altarriba Bertran, Jhaveri, et al., 2019; Bertranet al., 2018; Min et al., 2019). Many papers describing and evaluating
systems that are concerned with eating have been captured in thesesurveys, which has enabled a series of workshops, symposia, and semi­
nars, which we describe next.
For example, there have been workshops accompanying HCI con­ferences (Altarriba Bertran, Duval, et al., 2019; Choi et al., 2012; Clear
et al., 2013; Comber et al., 2012; Davis et al., 2020; Dolejšová et al.,2019, 2018; Kuznetsov et al., 2016; Raturi et al., 2017; Vannucci et al.,2018). There have also been symposia on HFI (Foodchi, 2022) and social
interest groups (Khot et al.). Stanford organizes a “Food Innovation &Design” symposia annually along different themes such as sustainability,
health, joy, culture, and more (Kim, 2022). A recent workshop at CHI
2021 aimed to investigate the “future of human-food interaction”,
asking what is next for the field. The need for an articulation of grandchallenges was discussed, as there was general agreement that such an
articulation, which other sub-fields of HCI had previously benefitedfrom, is still missing in HFI (Deng et al., 2021). Therefore, as having suchan articulation might also be beneficial for the HFI field, we organized
our seminar.
A prior food seminar resulted in a manifesto to enable an inclusive
future for HFI (Obrist et al., 2018). The participants argued thatdesigning interactive systems around food requires careful consider­ation of what one could do with such technology (use and misuse).
Educating people is the most urgent action the seminar called for toprevent mistakes. Educating people means training their criticalthinking, which is often ignored when we eat and when it comes to what
we eat, and how that impacts others and ourselves, the participants
believed. In our seminar, we, therefore, also tried to capture such soci­etal impacts in our grand challenges.
A special issue on “human-food interaction” asked how researchers
should engage with the complex disciplinary, political and culturallandscape of the HFI field (Khot and Choi, 2018). More recently, a 2022
Frontiers Research Topic journal special issue (Frontiers, 2022) asked
for contributions on commensality-related research in psychology andcomputer science. We believe that these prior efforts highlighted the
deeply socially embedded practice of eating, which we aimed to reflectin our grand challenges, especially around how social aspects of eating(e.g., eating together in the same shared space, or remotely) could betechnologically augmented.
Taken together, although these prior efforts helped to create a basis
for the emerging area that HFI is, there is still no comprehensive
structure articulated that could guide future HFI work, such as in theform of grand challenges. In response, we conducted a seminar where
we aimed to articulate grand challenges in HFI.

(Desjardins et al., 2015), and “reflection” (Baumer et al., 2014)), forfuture work, acknowledging that they could nicely complement our
results.
3.1. Participants
21 people participated in the seminar (M age = 38.8, SD age = 11.9,
range = 21 to 61 years). Participants came from a broad range of bothacademic and private institutions located in the USA (4), Australia (4),Germany (4), Italy (3), the UK (2), Spain, Finland, Japan, among others.
The primary research fields of participants varied from design back­grounds (7), computer science (3), medicine, cognitive science, psy­chology, sociology, engineering, HCI, material science, and multimedia
with an average of 3.5 years of experience specifically in HFI (SD = 2.6,
range = 0.8 - 10 years). Seven participants were vegetarians, four were
flexitarians, and the remainder reported no specific dietary preferences.
Participants were invited because they had designed, taught,
deployed or studied HFI systems. A selection of HFI systems we dis­cussed at the seminar is illustrated in Fig. 1. For example, capacitive
touch sensors made of edible material that can be embedded in pastry todetect user interaction (Marion Koelle et al., 2022), an interactive platethat plays sound effects when the diner uses their fork to take off a pieceof cake (Mueller et al., 2018, 2020), an interactive ice cream cone thatuses capacitive sensing to detect licking actions to play music (Wanget al., 2020a), a set of logic gates made out of edible material that allows
diners to computationally reconfigure their dessert’s flavor (Deng et al.,2022); examinations into the influence of multi-sensory eating experi­
ences in virtual reality (Obrist et al., 2019; Arnold et al., 2018; Mueller
et al., 2019), and an artificial dining companion, providing commensal
experiences for participants eating alone (Ceccaldi et al., 2020).
3.2. Discussion process
The seminar began with introductory talks by the organizers. This
included explanations of why this seminar is topical now (due to anincrease of interactive systems emerging around food-related topics),
necessary (there are also systems emerging that could be considered“gimmicky” and many research works repeat prior endeavors, suggest­
ing that the HFI area could be at a point of stagnation), and needed (theworld faces considerable challenges around food, such as overeating,hunger and food waste). These talks also included insights from prior
works on grand challenges in the other HCI sub-fields mentioned above(Alexander et al., 2018; Ens et al., 2021; Mueller et al., 2020), including
a realization that most of these prior grand challenges could be roughly
grouped into (as papers already suggested (Alexander et al., 2018; Enset al., 2021; Mueller et al., 2020)): technology, users, society, anddesign. Hence, we also started with these groupings and complemented
them with an “other” category to allow for additional groupings to
emerge, if required.
Based on prior seminars of the same length, participants were asked
to share one to three seminal readings in the HFI area that they thought
everyone should know about (Benford et al., 2018). Participants werealso asked beforehand to prepare an introductory talk in a Pecha Kucha
style format. They were invited to explain their choice of the seminal
readings, present their prior HFI work in the area, and what they
thought the grand challenges were, based on the hurdles they had facedin their own work so far. Potential grand challenges that emerged
through discussion were noted for consideration. These notes wereloosely grouped based on the prior categories mentioned above, whichwere later collaboratively and iteratively refined by combining similar
individual challenges into broader grand challenges.
Following this first collection and grouping effort, a longer activity
period (half-day) was allocated to articulate the individual grand chal­lenges within each grouping in more precise terms. Participants thenworked within self-selected teams to refine the individual wordings,
encouraged by the organizers to also articulate how these challenges are

3. Approach of identifying grand challenges in HFIOur approach was primarily based on a week-long seminar that wasestablished to review our own and prior work and identify the grandchallenges in Human-Food Interaction. Of course, other approaches to aseminar are possible, such as systematic literature reviews (Kittur et al.,2013; Tapus et al., 2007), one-day workshops (Vannucci et al., 2018) orinterviews with practitioners using HFI systems. However, as the HFI
field is still emerging, we opted for our approach for now and leavecomplementary approaches (such as utilized for other, more established,
HCI sub-fields like “sustainability” (DiSalvo et al., 2010), “the home”
3F.‘. Mueller et al.

International Journal of Human - Computer Studies 183 (2024) 103197

Fig. 1. A collage of HFI works: (a) “Virtual Tasty”: exploring VR and food; (b) Desktop hydroponic garden; (c) Space food experiences; (d) “Logic Bonbon”: food ascomputational artifact; (e) Board game teaching gut interactions; (f) Edible capacitive sensor; (g) Cover of FoodInno 2019; (h) Speculative catalog of play-foodtechnology futures; (i) Playful tangibles to explore food interactions; (j) Artificial commensal companion; (k) “iScream”: playful gustosonic ice cream experiences.

from these activities, participants were asked to engage in an exercisethat aimed to help refine the challenges by speculating what the field of
HFI would look like in the year 2052. “How would the future of HFI look
like if we do not solve those grand challenges?” was the driving questionof this speculative design session (Dunne and Raby, 2013). Thisapproach was used to collectively imagine “possible, probable, plau­
sible, and preferable futures”. We encouraged participants to also
consider sustainable and equitable futures using an extended “flash­light” visualization (Fig. 2) (Dunne and Raby, 2013).
Additionally, participants were instructed to imagine what a news­
paper article would look like that responds to this speculation, which
was to be supplemented by a speculative social media Tweet. This
speculative media snippet exercise was designed to help think more
concretely about the grand challenges and their implications.
A second peer-review session aimed to critically examine the refinedchallenges and arrive at a more textual representation. The results wereagain documented in an online document and shared with the entire
group to elicit feedback. As part of this session, we also presented par­ticipants with the “SPRUCE” framework (De Freitas et al., 2021) (as we
previously had good experiences using it in our practice) – originallydeveloped to create a desirable future using responsible design throughproviding a practically-oriented structure – in order to help reflect upon
HFI from a responsible design perspective. Participants appeared toembrace this opportunity and consequently developed a new “SPROUT”

specific to HFI. Results were documented, collated, and then discussed
together again with the entire group in order to resolve any instanceswhere one grand challenge was grouped under more than one category.
Such multi-assignments were rather easily resolved; however, the namesof the groupings were heavily debated. For example, everyone agreed on“technology,” but the “user” category was discussed extensively as it
appeared to overlap with design. Similarly, “society” was discussed interms of whether or not it had the right name at all. Also contentious was
the “design” category, as it seemingly had unintentionally turned into acatch-all for grand challenges that did not fit elsewhere. Anotherdebated category was “other”, which was briefly named “sustainable
design” before its grand challenges were moved under “ethics”. The
associated discussions helped identify additional challenges that we
added and also aided in refining existing ones. The discussions also
clarified whether some of them can indeed be considered “grand” orwhether they are important, but not elementary for the future of HFI to
be solved. Critical voices also emerged, questioning whether some of thechallenges were not specific enough for HFI but rather apply to HCI oreven technology projects more broadly. Furthermore, it was questioned
whether some of the proposed challenges are so big that they are outside
the scope of HFI or cannot be solved by HFI, in particular those that wereconcerned with sustainability and associated supply chains.
To support these discussions from a different angle, an interactivitystyle session was designed for participants to exhibit, discuss and review
their own HFI work. This included sensor-equipped eyeglasses to detectchewing activity and an interactive drinking utensil that influences taste
perception through weight distribution. Experiencing these systems not
only appeared to enrich participants’ enjoyment of the seminar, but also
generated discussions about how systems development and grandchallenges inform each other.
In order to further refine the grand challenges, we also conducted apeer-review session in which the different teams from the grouping
exercise reviewed each other’s results, respectively. Participants werealso encouraged to comment on, add and edit any content within theassociated documents as they saw fit. This resulted in what we consid­
ered a more structured set of challenges that were articulated more
uniformly, bringing them more in line with one another. Following on

Fig. 2. Flashlight visualization used in the speculative design session.
4F.‘. Mueller et al.

International Journal of Human - Computer Studies 183 (2024) 103197

framework that unites a vision of promoting Safe, Personalized,
Responsible, Original, Uniform, and Transformational HFI futures(explained later in our “towards a shared HFI future” section).
What followed was an iterative and reflective discussion and writing
session, both in individual and whole-cohort sessions, to ensure theintegration of all the results from the different activities. On the pre-final
day, an interactive session was organized to act out via role-playing
further thoughts on the possible consequences we face in the future if
the grand challenges are not to be solved. Participants played out anoverreliance on cooking robots producing anti-social behaviors, theconcept of food distribution based on “social credit” criteria, and many
more. This was followed by a “thinking through writing” activity. Here,participants were encouraged to collaboratively (Tomlinson et al., 2012)
develop the textual representation for each challenge and review it
while it was emerging, including considering which challenge was soimportant that it could not be excluded for brevity purposes.
The final activity involved collating all the results and discussing
them in a townhall-style setup in order to ensure that nothing important
had been missed. Reflections were then facilitated through the presen­tation of three final questions everyone should think about, which weresuggested to begin with “I like …”, “I wish …”, and “I wonder …”(Stanford d.school, 2018). These questions aimed to facilitate reflection
on what was achieved but also what could be improved upon in the
future.
The result of the seminar was an articulation of 10 grand challenges
across 4 categories (technology, users, design and ethics), which we now
describe.

4.2. Synthesizing foodA dish most often comprises of multiple ingredients that the chef
expertly puts together. Many HFI systems would benefit from the ability
to computationally synthesize food, however, how to do this is still an
unsolved challenge.
Although large collections of recipes already exist online from whichan HFI system could draw from, and electrical devices are available that
can aid in preparing the making of a dish (such as the “thermomix”(Thermomix, 2022) that displays a recipe on an LED display and pro­vides instructions in which order to add the ingredients before auto­
matically cooking them), as well as robots that can automate the cooking
process (Park et al., 2017), they are still very limited in their abilities.
For example, current systems are not able to adapt to, for example,
alternative ingredients that require altering their procedures such as
when an egg is smaller than required. Furthermore, these devices are
only able to mix ingredients, whereas fabrication devices such as
3D-printers that can handle food produce are able to create entire dishes
from scratch; however, an integration of these technologies to synthe­
size more complex dishes is still underdeveloped. Ongoing research isinvestigating the possibility to synthesize more complex dishes, forexample, researchers have been able to synthesize very particular foodtextures (Pereira et al., 2021) and managed to create food that canchange its state after printing (Navaf et al., 2022). However, such moreadvanced systems suffer from the same limitations as additive
manufacturing (Baudisch and Mueller, 2017), but are exacerbated as aresult of using food as printing material (Khot et al., 2015, 2015b, 2020;
Khot et al., 2017a; Khot et al., 2017b). For example, most food
3D-printers can only dispense a small amount and a limited range ofmaterials, not suiting common recipes. Furthermore, most personal
fabrication devices are not very good at changing their process on thefly, giving users only limited interaction opportunities throughout theprocess (contrasting how, for example, chefs continuously check thetaste of a dish in progress). Additionally, only a very limited set offoodstuff is suitable to be used in today’s personal fabrication devices,limiting the range of dishes that can be computationally synthesized.
Subtractive fabrication devices, such as laser cutters, appear to have thepotential to help with synthesizing food, however, they have their own
problems: for example, laser cutters create temperatures that alter thetaste of many ingredients.
One way to address this challenge is to combine fabrication devices,
allowing for, for example, mixing and cutting within one process pipe­line. Furthermore, applying temperature changes, such as heating up or
freezing, within the same process pipeline could help address thischallenge, as it would allow to create even more dishes. However, how
to combine such devices while ensuring that safety standards are upheld(for example, keeping food-safe temperatures during fabrication pro­
cesses that depend on warming the material to make it digitallydispensable) is still unclear. Furthermore, how to ensure that the pipe­line does not alter the taste in an undesired way (for example, when 3Dprinting takes longer than the cooking process demands) is also not yet
fully understood. In addition, how to combine fabrication with cook­
ing’s chemical processes (such as the Maillard reaction) into one
coherent synthesizing pipeline is also still unclear. Lastly, current
fabrication devices commonly benefit from a technical person being able
to oversee the process to engage with low level details in case of mal­function, for tuning and maintenance. It remains a challenge to develop
user-friendly devices that do not require such technical support to easily
specify the properties of the desired food to be synthesized, not only ingeometry and aroma, but also in color, texture, and taste.

4. Grand challenges in HFI: technology
The “technology” category encompasses challenges regarding thetechnical implementation or materialization of new forms of inter­
activity with/through food and food practices. The challenges under the“technology” category are: sensing taste, synthesizing food and food asinteraction material (with 3 stages: embedding interactivity in foodutensils, embedding interactivity components in food, and edibleinteractivity).
4.1. Sensing taste
When we refer to taste here, we mean the special sense that perceives
and distinguishes the sweet, sour, bitter, salty, or umami quality of adissolved substance, usually mediated by taste buds on the tongue, buthere captured through a sensing system. This is because if HFI is aiming
to enhance and enrich the eating experience, where taste plays a majorrole, we believe that it might be beneficial to be able to sense the sweet,
sour, bitter, salty, or umami quality of a food item in order to feed thisinformation into an interactive system. Interaction designers have awide range of microphones available to sense sound, ranging from cheap
models for quick-and-dirty prototyping, to expensive high-end versions
for production-level installations. Similarly, there is a wide range ofcameras available for interaction designers to experiment with. How­ever, when it comes to taste, there are not many sensors available for the
HFI researcher in the same way that other sensors are available on manyof the popular HCI prototyping websites like Sparkfun.
In recent years, however, progress has been made, for example,“digital tongue” systems have been developed that can deconstructselected components within certain dishes (Fuentes et al., 2021). Elec­trical impedance spectroscopy has also been used for food character­ization (Grossi and Riccò, 2017). Such advances, in particular whencombined with systems that interaction designers are familiar with like
Arduinos (Corbellini and Vallan, 2014), could be very useful for future
HFI research. In particular, we would welcome more technological ad­vances that would allow feeding the data in real-time into an interactive
system. We believe that this could help when aiming to design HFI
systems that benefit from being able to sense taste.

4.3. Food as interaction material
HFI systems are concerned with interactions where the user eats,meaning that an essential physical element of the interaction is present
at the beginning of the interaction, but then gone, ending in the user’s
5

F.‘. Mueller et al.

International Journal of Human - Computer Studies 183 (2024) 103197

stomach. As such, food is HFI’s “material concern for interaction”(Wiberg, 2018). Food does not only have physical characteristics quite
different to most other, more traditional, HCI materials of computa­
tional devices (soft, malleable, liquid, etc.), but it is also consumable andideally palatable, hence a challenge for HFI is how food can be aninteraction material.
We point out that prior work already remarked that computational
devices appear to become closer and closer to the human body, withmany people now comfortably donning wearables (Mueller et al., 2018).
However, HFI needs to go a step further and hence “closer”, consideringthat people put food inside their bodies. This could lead to developments
where participants eat computational devices. This might not be as
strange as it initially appears. For example, we point to modern ther­mometers that people already put in their mouths, or tiny sensors in
capsule format that participants swallow, resulting in “ingestibles” (Liet al., 2020a, 2020b, Li et al., 2021a, 2021b, 2023; Li et al., 2019).
However, eating computational devices faces additional challenges,
going beyond the safety concerns already raised with ingestibles: forexample, users might bite on a device, not only breaking its functionality
but possibly also releasing toxic components. Furthermore, the stom­
ach’s acids might damage the device and affect its form in a way thatremaining bits might get stuck inside the participant, creating a hazard
that needs to be surgically removed.
We find that, so far, HFI appears not to have engaged much with sucha view on food as interaction material, but rather physically put existing
interactive devices around food (Deng et al., 2022). To aid future workin this area, we now describe three key stages along with a timeline
through which this challenge could be addressed. The first stage isconcerned with embedding interactivity in food utensils, the second
stage with embedding interactivity components in food and the third
stage with edible interactivity (Fig. 3).

These systems suggest that embedding interactivity in food utensils is
feasible and can cover a wide range of dining scenarios. Furthermore,
the required interactivity components can often be sourced from exist­
ing HCI approaches, such as tangible computing or ubiquitous
computing, where documentation, software libraries and toolkits often
already exist, speeding up implementation efforts. However, systems inthis first stage suffer from a missing integration (Mueller et al., 2020,2023b,a; Mueller et al., 2022;Semertzidis et al., 2021, 2022; Andres
et al., 2022) with the food material itself: they mostly sense eating ac­
tions by embedding sensors into the food utensils with which people eat.
As a result, they “work” even if the user does not consume the food, aslong as they perform the movements that lead to eating. Therefore,
augmentation of the movement affects the eating experience, notaugmentation of the eating itself. In response, we point to the next twostages, beginning with “embedding interactivity components in food”.
4.3.2. Embedding interactivity components in food
The second stage concerns embedding interactivity components infood. As computers are becoming smaller and smaller, it seems reason­
able to expect that interactivity components could become so small thatthey could be embedded into the food itself, allowing users to ingest
them as part of a dish. Recent research explorations suggest that thisenvisioning is increasingly becoming plausible in about 5–10 years. For
example, prior work investigated a “gum sensor” that senses actions
while being in the mouth (Darabi et al., 2015). Similarly, Li et al. pre­sented an ingestible sensor that can wirelessly sense temperature in theuser’s intestines, allowing participants to affect their intestine’s tem­
perature by consuming different foods and drinks (hot or cold) (Li et al.,2018, 2018). Although these devices cannot be digested along withexisting dishes (as users might bite on them), they hint at a future where
designers could embed interactive components in food in order to sup­port interactivity not just when the user picks up a particular food itemwith their food utensil, but also in the user’s mouth and possible even in
their digestive system. With this, unlike in stage 1, the interactivity
would only unfold if the user actually ate. This not only prevents“cheating” actions to occur, but also offers novel opportunities affordedby the food, in particular, we point to the fact that food undergoes atransformation process in the user’s mouth (chewing, swallowing) anddigestive system. For example, we can envision future HFI systems thattrack food intake by sensing chewing actions and only offering inter­
activity when the user has swallowed the food. This could be useful innursing home settings where staff need to ensure that (bulimia) patients
have eaten their meals. We can also envision future HFI systems that
only unfold their interactivity when in the user’s mouth or in their in­
testine. This could create novel entertainment experiences, reminding usof Pop Rock Candy that has pressurized carbon dioxide gas bubbles
embedded inside, creating a popping reaction when in the mouth.
Overall, we would argue that, in this stage, any interactivity com­ponents are more tightly integrated with the food due to their physicalsize allowing it to be embedded inside the foodstuff, with the participant(possibly unknowingly) eating an interactive system through their dish.
This, of course, raises ethical questions, such as whether the user should
always know what they eat. See, for example, restaurants stating in­
gredients on their menus in order to cater to food allergies and gov­
ernments requiring food makers to print ingredient labels on theirproducts in order to support transparency. However, these existing ap­
proaches might not be sufficient in stage 2, as the interactivity could
only unfold in the user’s mouth, making the experience a very personal
one as a result of a dynamic feedback loop. Another challenge is con­cerned with the size and taste of the interactivity components, as theymight be so small that they can be eaten, however, they might change
the mouthfeel, flavor, taste etc. of the dish, affecting the overall expe­
rience in a way that the food designer had not intended. In response, we
point to the 3rd stage.

4.3.1. Embedding interactivity in food utensils
This is probably the easiest stage to implement and hence designers
interested in HFI might want to start here. Several examples exist where
designers embedded traditional interactivity components, such as sen­sors and actuators, into food utensils like crockery (Wang et al., 2018).
For example, Wang et al. embedded a capacitance sensor and a loud­speaker into an ice cream cone to enable an interactive ice creamexperience (Wang et al., 2019a, 2019b). Similarly, the “SWAN” system(Khot et al., 2020) uses computer vision to detect if people eat mind­
lessly in front of a screen and uses a motor inside a spoon to take controlof the associated eating actions to foster mindful eating. Relatedly,
Mitsudo (2016) embedded a sensor into cutlery to sense when people
eat. Another example is the interactive service set with a sensor inside
the plate to enable an interactive eating game for children (Joi et al.,2016). There is also an interactive cup with a straw that senses if
someone drinks out of it and plays a sound in response to facilitate anenriched drinking experience (Wang et al., 2020b; Wang et al., 2021,2022). Another example is the “straw-like user interface” project that
presented a cup that allows diners to virtually experience the sensationsof drinking with a straw. The sensations were created through the use ofan embedded speaker, servomotor, and solenoid, based on pressure,vibration, and sound data recorded during drinking with a straw(Hashimoto et al., 2008, 2006, 2005).

Fig. 3. Three stages and their timeline of food as interaction material.
6F.‘. Mueller et al.

International Journal of Human - Computer Studies 183 (2024) 103197

4.3.3. Edible interactivity
The third stage is concerned with edible interactivity, meaning that
here, the food itself is interactive, rather than accompanying (1st stage)or housing (2nd stage) interactivity. This stage is probably the mostambitious and hence the furthest out in terms of implementation reali­zation, however, we believe that it holds great potential without thecompromises associated with stage 1 and 2 systems.
Interactivity components today are not edible, making stage 3 sys­
tems difficult to envision, yet alone develop. However, advances inmaterial science have resulted in research projects that showed thatbasic electrical components are feasible to produce using edible mate­rial. For example, recent research developed a number of edible elec­
tronic devices including a pH sensor, radio frequency filter, and a
microphone (Xu et al., 2017). Furthermore, researchers have demon­
strated that capacitive sensors can be made out of food materials such as
charcoal (Marion Koelle et al., 2022) and supercapacitors out ofseaweed, Gatorade and sliced cheese (Wang et al., 2016). These efforts
aimed at demonstrating that existing electrical components could be
produced with sustainable materials. We note that due to the focus onsustainability, palatability was probably not of highest importance.
However, the results suggest that edible electronics are possible. We areinspired by this prior work and believe that food could be produced at acomplexity level that enables at least simple computation while offeringa palatable experience. To further fuel such investigations, we also point
to research that was inspired by “alternative ways for computation”(Adamatzky, 2021) that suggested liquid-based computational systems.
The result is a palatable “cyber bonbon” that can compute either anAND, OR, or XOR logic operation through differently flavored coulis
liquids that the diner presses through the dessert via small pipettes(Deng et al., 2022). The (albeit simple) interactivity enabled by the logic
gate allowed the cyber bonbon to change its flavor while also providing
visual feedback in the form of a liquid-filled display. We can regard thissystem as an initial attempt towards edible interactivity, as the gate thatenabled the interactivity was edible, starting the possibility to investi­
gate what “computation” might taste like (Deng et al., 2022).
We see this third stage analogous to the early days of computing,where cumbersome and bulky hardware devices were only able toperform simple computational functions (like the logic gates above).
However, with technological advances and miniaturization, more
complex functionality became possible, enabling highly advanced
computational systems as we know them today. Similarly, we canenvision complex interactivity systems in the future that are completely
edible. This would allow for novel systems previously not possible,
enabling users to experience what interactivity tastes like. Such systems
could perform interactivity inside the user’s body without the fooddesigner making any compromises such as in stage 2 above. Further­more, the interactivity could respond to chewing input in a way thattransforms the entire taste of the dish, as the dish itself performs theinteractivity (as suggested by material science research (Souto et al.,2022)). Moreover, the dish could perform interactivity inside the user’s
digestive system without the same health concerns as with the in­gestibles above (Li et al., 2018, 2018). Through this tight integration ofinteractivity with food, a more holistic HFI vision could be facilitatedthat does not suffer any of the limitations in the previous stages. How­ever, we point out that the material properties of current computational
devices like the silicon in microchips have enabled rapid advances suchas postulated by Moore’s Law (Schaller, 1997). In contrast, efforts suchas with the fluid-based gates appear to have much bigger limitations as aresult of the laws of physics: for example, the coulis liquid is limited interms of the speed at which it can travel, and the tubes housing the liquid
can only be reduced to a certain size without the coulis liquid getting
stuck (Deng et al., 2022). As such, we believe that stage 3 will be con­strained by the laws of physics probably more than we encountered withtraditional interactive systems. This would make advancements aroundstage 3 systems slower to emerge and hence we will probably see
associated systems mostly along a timeline that is 10 and more years out.

These constraints speak to an article on grand challenges in immersive
analytics that similarly laments that “overcoming constraints of reality”
is one of the key hurdles for the field to overcome (Ens et al., 2021).
5. Grand challenges in HFI: users
The “users” category encompasses challenges arising from our un­derstanding of the users of HFI systems. The challenges under “users”
are: supporting creative food practitioners and evaluation frameworks
for HFI.
5.1. Supporting creative food practitioners
Many HFI systems are best used by food designers such as chefs andrestaurateurs as they can employ them to elevate their creative practice.
For example, the projection-mapping system (Hagger, 2018) allows
chefs to enrich the dining experience with animated content that can be
programmed to highlight where the ingredients originally came from.
However, most chefs do not have an interaction design background andhence might not be competent with the hard- and software. Prior HCI
work has already investigated how to support non-expert users (Chenget al., 2019), however, supporting creative food practitioners brings
about new, far more complex interaction challenges.
Consulting interaction designers can provide the initial setup.
However, as menus are often adapted to respond to the availability of
local produce, creative food practitioners need to be able to adjust theinteractivity component based on the food that they are serving, allwhile considering the guests they are hosting. This could accommodate,for example, a birthday or food allergies. For this, interfaces need to be
designed that are not only operable by creative food practitioners withlittle training while supporting frequent reconfigurations but also sup­port the fast workflow in a kitchen and restaurant. For example, a chef
ready to serve a hot dish does not have time to wait for an update to beinstalled. Furthermore, the interface design needs to consider that thecreative food practitioner might have both hands busy or that they are
not clean, all while working in a loud kitchen, making some popularinteraction modalities such as touch and voice input impractical.
Additionally, as kitchens often house an entire team that might all needto interact with an HFI system, these different users need to be managedwithout requiring complex and time-consuming logging-in processes
while allowing the head chef final say over the resulting dish.
To solve this challenge, future systems might need to offer low entry
barriers into HFI interactions, for example, by providing users withmultiple input devices to achieve a goal. However, with such a solution,
the creative food practitioner needs to be able to quickly discover what
input possibilities are available to them (Norman, 2010), while possibly
also demanding additional cognitive load in an already hectic environ­ment. Working towards a unified interaction vocabulary could help inan effort to support creative food practitioners so as not to distract themfrom their creative craft with unsuitable interfaces.
5.2. Evaluation frameworks for HFI
Evaluating interactive systems with the aim of drawing conclusions
is difficult under the best of conditions. In HFI research, there are spe­cific challenges: these include the novelty effect (Koch et al., 2018;
Shavitt and Stellner, 2011; Shin et al., 2019), which has a rich history
with food innovations that have often been initially dismissed as“gimmick” but turned into stable food experiences. In particular, when it
comes to so-called “fads”, research doubts the view that benefits people
perceive through novelty are not valuable (Shavitt and Stellner, 2011).
In fact, most technologies go through a “diffusion of innovation”, where“early adopters”, who are often younger people (and today’s diners
match this young demographic in many countries: 40 % are born after
1996 (Wood, 2019)), drive the initial uptake by a majority later (Rogers
et al., 2014). Furthermore, there is a long culinary history of food7

F.‘. Mueller et al.

International Journal of Human - Computer Studies 183 (2024) 103197

innovations that stood the test of time. For example, “alphabet soup”
was in 1900 considered a “novelty”, yet it is still going strong (Edwards,
2014). It is the hope that HFI can lead to similar success stories.
Being able to evaluate the effects of certain HFI systems is crucial inunderstanding their value, but what are the most suitable methods andmetrics to quantify these effects? How do we deal with the curse ofdimensionality in these studies, given the wide range of factors to assessin these complex systems? We propose that the HFI research community
needs to develop evaluation frameworks that clearly specify what as­pects of HFI systems are assessed and how these can be measured using
suitable metrics. Such frameworks could include measures that capture
the nutritional value of the foodstuff; for this, the framework will need tolearn from other fields, such as nutritional science. The frameworks
might also need to consider personal food preferences and food allergies.
There might be a benefit for HFI having multiple frameworks fordifferent evaluations based on different requirements. Prior HCI
frameworks on context-aware computing (Abowd et al., 1999) might beuseful here, as they already aimed to help consider wider aspects of anexperience, however, how this context can be sensed for such evaluation
frameworks is still unknown.
While the specifics of evaluation techniques and metrics may varydepending on dining scenarios and systems, a variety of evaluation
frameworks might offer a starting point for study design that may enable
comparisons across studies. Such frameworks may also provide per­spectives on when specific research questions benefit from a more
focused, controlled in-the-lab study and when an in-the-wild (Rogers,
2011) study in a restaurant, canteen, or food outlet might be moresuitable.

6.2. Identifying interactivity opportunities in food scenarios
Prior surveys in HFI highlighted that there are several food scenarios
where interactivity could be not only beneficial but also welcomed(Altarriba Bertran, Jhaveri, et al., 2019; Bertran et al., 2018; Bertranet al., 2019, 2019). For example, Wang et al. showed that adding
interactivity can be welcomed in casual ice cream-eating scenarios(Wang et al., 2020a). However, our discussions with culinary expertssuggest that adding interactivity to food scenarios is not always
welcomed. For example, these conversations, including with some of theworld’s best chefs, revealed that they can see their food creations ascreative outputs that should be eaten in a particular way, and only inthat way. The suggestion to introduce interactivity in order to provide
the diner with more control over what and how they eat can be quickly
regarded as compromising the chef’s integrity. For example, some res­taurants refuse to cook a steak beyond medium, even if the dinerexplicitly expresses the wish to do so.
This tension between the chef’s integrity and the diner’s possible
desires, including the argument that it is the diner who is ultimately
paying for the experience, raises interesting questions around the role ofinteractivity within this relationship. After all, interactivity usually as­
sumes a high sense of agency in the user (Mueller et al., 2021): without
the diner having some agency, the envisioned food scenario is more akinto a movie, where the diner passively consumes the chef’s creation. On
the other end of the spectrum sit possible experiences more akin to ac­tion games, where the diner has a lot of agency as they are able to control
at any point in time what and how they eat. We can see that suchhigh-agency dining experiences are probably more suitable to budget
food scenarios or casual eating/drinking settings, such as prior workaround adding interactivity to casual drinks settings via an interactive
drinking vessel suggests (Wang et al., 2021; Khot et al., 2014, 2015a,
2015b). In other eating scenarios, such as when a high throughput isrequired, like in some canteens, introducing interactivity might besimilarly unsuitable as the technology might extend the duration theuser spends at the eating table.
Therefore, we highlight that for HFI a grand challenge is to identify
interactivity opportunities in food scenarios. For this, the researchcommunity and diners need to work together in order to be able toanswer questions such as: Why do specific food scenarios benefit from
HFI systems while others do not? What are the key characteristics ofspecific food scenarios that make HFI systems useful? When in theoverall food experience is it best to integrate an HFI system?
By creating a set of recommendations for when HFI can benefit aparticular food scenario, researchers could help the hospitality industry
to use HFI (more) successfully. Determining the scenarios that HFI sys­
tems can enrich could facilitate engagement of diners in the creation anduse of such systems, allowing for user-centered design advancements.
Such advancements could scaffold conversations and design processes
that holistically tailor HFI solutions to the characteristics of a particularfood scenario. This could lead to a greater adoption of HFI systems thatmaximize benefits to users.

6. Grand challenges in HFI: design
The “design” category encompasses challenges regarding the designof HFI experiences. The challenges under “design” are: dealing with thetaste experience’s complexity, identifying interactivity opportunities infood scenarios and designing new forms of commensality.
6.1. Dealing with the taste experience’s complexity
The taste experience is a highly complex (Petrini, 2003) and hence
any interaction concerned with it will need to deal with its inherently
rich and multimodal complexity. A person’s taste experience is influ­
enced by a wide variety of factors that can be affected through inter­
active technology (some to a higher degree than others), including
smell, mouthfeel, the sound the food makes when biting (Spence, 2017),
but also the environmental noise (Spence et al., 2014), the company inwhich one is eating (Herman and Polivy, 2008), and even the weight ofthe eating utensil (Harrar and Spence, 2013). In consequence, designers
can use a variety of systems to enhance or dampen the taste experience,for example by using speakers to play different sounds (Wang et al.,2020a) or fabricate an alternative structure for food so that it sounds
different when eaten (Souto et al., 2022). For this, designers have a wide
variety of different sensors and actuators at their disposal (IMUs, cam­eras, microphones, etc.) and options where to place them (speakers incutlery, actuators in eating utensils, 3D-food printers to produce
different food structures, etc.). However, it is still unclear what the best
approach is, in fact, the best solution will probably need to consider acombination of interfaces to address the taste experience’s complexity.
Prototyping such combinations is difficult (Perelman et al., 2016),
making a systematic investigation into which modality provides the“best bang for the buck” challenging. For example, if an HFI system
distributes the weight of an eating utensil in a way that makes theperceived taste experience more bitter, will a “sweetness” induced soundthat is played at the same time cancel the weight distribution out? Un­
derstanding the relationship between different effects as a result ofdifferent interactivity components will allow HFI systems to better
exploit the richness of taste experiences.

6.3. Designing new forms of commensality
Humans do not only need food for its nutritional values: food isinherently social and eating with others, i.e., commensality, caters to thehuman need for connectedness and belonging (Ceccaldi et al., 2020). In
fact, the link between food and social relationships is so strong that foodcan become a social surrogate, an object that acts as a reminder of a past,
positive social encounter (Troisi and Wright, 2017). Food can therefore
create a sense of belonging in situations of loneliness (Troisi et al.,2015), thus becoming “comfort food” (Spence, 2017). However, modern
lifestyles are putting commensality at stake, with single-person house­holds becoming predominant worldwide, with people finding them­selves in situations of loneliness (US Census Bureau, 2018, 2022). Alongwith such phenomena comes the urgent need to bring commensality
8

F.‘. Mueller et al.

International Journal of Human - Computer Studies 183 (2024) 103197

back for participants who are physically distant. For example, HFI
research could develop solutions to share meals online (Barden et al.,2012). HFI research could also develop artificial commensal compan­
ions for people living alone (Mancini et al., 2020). In fact, researchshows that merely watching videos of other people eating (known as
Mukbang Choe 2019) can give a glimpse of a sense of sharedness
compared to people eating alone. When participants share meals online
through, for example, video-conferencing systems, they do it for thesame reasons they do it face-to-face: because commensality “addssomething” to their social encounters, making them feel less alone, andcloser to their commensal partners (Ceccaldi et al., 2020). However,when such video-conferencing systems are evaluated by users, they are
rated to be unable to provide experiences that actually cater to partici­
pants’ needs. In other words, although distributed commensality sys­
tems can be implemented technically (Barden et al., 2012), they still notprovide fully satisfactory commensal experiences. From this point ofview, HFI can contribute to creating new commensal opportunities,
endowing technologies with the possibility to share taste and smell
while providing new ways to enjoy food and eating-related activities
while also taking the social side into account (see, e.g., Fig. 4). Althoughinteractive technology can foster commensality in several different
ways, we hereby describe two digital commensality scenarios that can
exemplify how technology could “join the dining table”: remote dining
and artificial commensal companions.

are only two examples of how novel technologies could be embedded infuture tools for remote dining to overcome its current limitations.
6.3.2. Artificial commensal companions
Technologies such as social robots, virtual agents, or chatbots can beused to enable and enhance social interactions and conviviality, and,
consequently, increase personal well-being. In 2020, Mancini et al.
(2020) introduced such a social companion for eating in the form of arobot producing simple non-verbal signals while the user is eating. Re­
sults from a qualitative survey indicate that the presence of the social
robot is preferred over eating alone. However, many questions in thearea of artificial commensal partners are still unanswered, for example:
can such technologies make the eating experience more enjoyable, andwill it increase the conviviality at the table? (Mehta et al., 2018).
7. Grand challenges in HFI: ethics
The “ethics” category encompasses challenges regarding ethical HFI
research. The challenges under “ethics” are: HFI for and as sustainable
practice and applying HFI ethically.
7.1. HFI for and as sustainable practiceSustainability is an epic challenge and HCI is increasingly interested
in fostering sustainable practices (Hansson et al., 2021). HFI as a field
has a unique opportunity but also a big hurdle to overcome if it wants tocontribute positively to sustainability efforts. Unlike prior HCI works
that mostly concerned themselves with sustainability issues aroundpower consumption and e-waste (Perkins et al., 2014), concerns aroundsustainability as challenge within the HFI field are heightened: HFI
systems not only need to address power consumption and e-waste
problems as discussed in traditional HCI (as they also contain electronic
devices), but also food waste, as they are intimately connected withproduce. The challenges are therefore: HFI for sustainable practice and
HFI as sustainable practice.

6.3.1. Remote dining
Technology already allows videoconferencing with a remote friend
or relative while eating (Spence, 2017). There are also more elaborate
tele-dining installations that allow for some element of interactivity withthose whom we may be dining with remotely (e.g., Barden et al. 2012).
Existing studies reported participants’ responses to questions
checking the major shortcomings of currently available remote dining
experiences. For example, in work by Ceccaldi et al. (2020) 37 % ofparticipants reported the impossibility of sharing food, taste, and smell;
29 % felt observed as they were eating; 25 % reported problems with thedevice or with their internet connection. So, as part of this grand chal­lenge, efforts will need to go toward technologies for sharing meals
online, allowing co-diners to experience the benefits (e.g., a sense of
togetherness and belonging, improving well-being and quality of life)that characterize face-to-face commensal settings. Smell detection andfood 3D-printing (Mueller et al., 2020) (see also “technology” category)

7.1.1. HFI for sustainable practiceIf HFI wants to grow into a mature field, it needs to take the issue offood waste seriously and demonstrate that its focus on food while uti­
lizing the power of technology can contribute to sustainable practice.
There are already HCI works that have used mobile phone apps to
educate people about how to reduce food waste (Titiu, 2019) and there
are augmented bins that aim to make people aware of the amount offood that they dispose of in order to promote more sustainable practices
in the kitchen (Altarriba et al., 2017; Comber and Thieme, 2017). These
approaches, although applaudable, are mostly concerned with advo­
cating better food choices at the purchasing level in order to avoid
buying food that will not be eaten and hence disposed of. In the future,
however, we hope that HFI research is going a step further and help
support sustainable practice closer to the eating experience itself. For
example, fabrication systems could produce food on-the-fly so that there
is no need to cook food “just in case” people will be very hungry.
However, such systems face the challenge that in some communities
providing an oversupply of food to guests is a common cultural practice(Phasha et al., 2020).
7.1.2. HFI as sustainable practice
HFI also faces the challenge of becoming a sustainable research
practice itself. We refer to our design practice, where we noticed that a
lot of food waste has been produced as part of our explorations in ourlabs. We believe that the field must become better at that. HCI researchalready faces sustainability challenges through its iterative methods
where not only a lot of energy is consumed but prototypes also produce
e-waste. HFI research adds to this by producing food waste during theprototyping stage (which is an essential part of many research-throughdesign methods (Holmquist, 2012) that a lot of HFI researchers seem toFig. 4. New forms of digital commensality: (a) adding previously captured
eating activities to existing HFI experiences; (b) adding a digital layer tocommensal interactions, allowing remote users to share a meal online; (c)enhancing the eating experience through, e.g., projections or augmented re­ality; (d) synthesizing artificial dining companions (Arza et al., 2018).
9

International Journal of Human - Computer Studies 183 (2024) 103197

F.‘. Mueller et al.

engage in). Furthermore, HFI researchers are missing clear guidance on
when food is still safe to eat if being exposed to technical equipment,
leading possibly to researchers acting on the side of caution andapplying unnecessarily strict hygiene protocols that result in food waste.
For example, chemical labs have clear guidance as to what constitutes
contamination, but HCI researchers who want to set up an HFI lab face
the challenge that there is not much guidance available (is food that got
in touch with a microcontroller still ok to eat?).

Table 2Grand challenges in HFI together with a sample of individual limitations we
discussed.

7.2. Applying HFI ethicallyConcerns over tracking and collecting personal user data are alreadyprevalent with today’s smartphones (Ketelaar and Van Balen, 2018).
These concerns have the potential to become much more substantial
with HFI systems, as they may provide access to more bodily and hence
private data, such as data on what people eat, how, when, and withwhom. For example, in the future, advanced sensors could detect how
food is processed inside the user’s body and even infer health conditions
based on people’s excretion. For example, see the speculative systeminstalled at an HCI conference that pretended to be able to infer personal
health data from attendees’ bathroom usage through a sensor includedin the venue’s toilets (Fox et al., 2019)). Grocery shopping and fooddelivery apps already track what food people order. If a smart fridge isconnected to this data, a system could infer how much food is actually
being consumed, and in combination with a smart bin (Altarriba et al.,2017; Comber and Thieme, 2017), this could provide a detailed accountof what people eat and when, and how much food waste they produce.
This increased collection of food-related data raises concerns. For
instance, there could be misuse through health insurers who might raise
their premiums if their customer is eating too much junk food. On theother hand, governments have a responsibility to support their citizen’s
health, and only through a multi-pronged approach that includes in­dustry and individuals will we be able to address issues such as theobesity epidemic (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2013). Having suchdetailed food-related data could be valuable when aiming to achievethis, hence a balance needs to be found that involves careful manage­
ment of the data that prevents misuse. However, eating is highly sociallycontextual: for example, people in overweight social circles tend to eat
more (Christakis and Fowler, 2007). Hence, individual data from withina social group could be more powerful to address obesity issues thanlarger population-wide aggregate data but might make the individual
who produced the data identifiable. Shaming people for certain foodpurchases tracked through the systems is another potential misuse.
To address this challenge, we believe that users at least need to bemade aware of what data is collected from them, however, as mostpeople eat three times a day, there will be a lot of data that many users
might find overwhelming to consent to or manage in a meaningful way.
Furthermore, interventions such as the “MetaCookie” deliberately
deceive the user by displaying a bigger cookie through augmented re­ality than the user actually eats, drawing on the psychological study thatshowed that seeing larger portion sizes can make people feel full quicker(Narumi et al., 2011). Here, the system uses a psychological “trick” tohelp people eat less, which might be in the interest of the diner, forexample, when on a diet. However, if the diner becomes aware that they
are being tricked, will they still feel full and continue to use the system?

Technology

Users

DesignEthicsSensing taste• Limited sensor
capabilities• Limited
integration withinteraction
designers’
toolkits• Limited real-time
support forinteractivity

Supporting creative
practitioners• Limitedknowledge aboutfood
practitioners as
system users• Limitedknowledge of
how to support
creativepractitioner’s
frequent
reconfigurationsin the kitchen• Limitedknowledge of
how to support
the kitchen’s fast
workflow• Limitedknowledge ofmultimodal
input for creative
practitioners• Limitedknowledge of
how systems
need to be
designed so as to
not distract
creativepractitioners or
demand too
much cognitive
load, distracting
them fromcooking
Evaluation
frameworks for HFI• How to evaluate
novel “gimmicky”- food systems• Limitedknowledge whatneeds to beassessed• Limitedknowledge aboutsuitable metrics• Limitedknowledge about
what evaluation
framework forwhat purpose

Dealing withthe tasteexperience’s
complexity• Limitedknowledge of
how todesign fortaste’s richandmultimodal
complexity• Limitedknowledge of
how tocombineinterfaces inorder toaddress thetasteexperience’s
complexity• Limitedknowledge of
how todesign for
the tasteexperience’s
individual
aspects that
affect eachother

HFI for and as
sustainable
practice

Identifying
interactivity
opportunities
in food
scenarios• Limitedknowledge ofwhereinteractivity
is notwelcomed• Limitedknowledge of
how tomaintain thechef’sintegrity• Limitedknowledge of
how todesign theright agency
split between
diner andchef
• Limitedknowledge of
how todesign forhighthroughput• Limitedknowledge of
how toidentify the

Applying HFIethically• Limitedknowledge of
how topreserve user’s
privacy• Limitedknowledge of
how to prevent
shaming• Limitedknowledge of
how people
will feel whenan HFI system
tricks them in
eatinghealthierSynthesizing food
• Limited systemcapabilities tocomputationallysynthesize food
• Limited ability
by food
processing
systems to adapt
to changes iningredients• Limited ability tosynthesize
complex dishes• Limited abilities
to change
synthesizationon the fly• Current
fabrication
devices often
createtemperatures notsuitable for food
• Limited ability tosynthesize
beyondgeometry andaroma• Fabrication
devices still
complex tooperate

8. Summary
We will now summarize our grand challenges in HFI together with asample of individual limitations we discussed in a table form (Table 2).
9. Towards HFI futures that are both shared and heterogeneous
Identifying key grand challenges is only the beginning of bringing
the community together and establish a shared understanding of what
was done, what could be done, and what it means for those designing• Limitedunderstandingof howfabrication
systems could
support foodproduction onthe-fly in orderto facilitatesustainable
practices• Limitedknowledge of
how to reduce
e-waste during
researchthrough-design
practice(continued on next page)10

International Journal of Human - Computer Studies 183 (2024) 103197

F.‘. Mueller et al.

Overall, HFI needs to respect time as a design feature, both for
improving the quality of food through waiting or speeding up the pro­duction and preparation process without altering the quality andauthenticity of the food. Dealing with contradictory concepts such as
fast- versus slow-food movements, varying socio-cultural, socio-eco­nomic conditions and individual preferences, will long challenge HFIfutures. Yet, it is a dialogue between all involved stakeholders that will
enable a future of HFI we like to experience.

Table 2 (continued )Technology

Food as interaction
material• If food becomesan interaction
material, danger
arise as a resultof eating toxic
material likebatteries• Systems work
even if food is
not eaten• Limitedknowledge how
to embedinteractivity infood utensils• Limitedknowledge how
to embedinteractivity
components infood• Limitedknowledge how
to create edibleinteractivity

Users

DesignEthicsbest time in
the food
experience tointegrate an
HFI system
Designing new
forms ofcommensality• Limitedknowledge of
how todesign sharemeals online• Limitedknowledge of
how todesignartificial
commensal
companions• Limitedknowledge of
how design
affects
conviviality

10. Limitations & future work
It is important to recognize the limitations and in particular thedangers of the HFI field, our participants pointed out (Obrist et al.,2018). In prior interaction design work on proxemic interactions, re­searchers have used “dark patterns” (Greenberg et al., 2014) – appli­
cation scenarios where users are deliberately deceived through aparticular technology – to articulate how a sub-field of HCI can easily
turn “dark”. We encourage future work to investigate such “dark pat­terns” in HFI to identify if and how similar scenarios might occur in the
HFI field (such as we hinted at with our “applying HFI ethically” grandchallenge) while hoping that our article presented here could be usefulto structure such investigations.
We point out that our approach of conducting a seminar with experts
has not only advantages but can also have a certain bias towards theassembling of the challenges. For example, we acknowledge that ourexperts were eager to drive the HFI field forward and hence might be
optimistic about the broader social acceptability of the coming togetherof interactive technology and food. However, surveys amongst new
generations suggest that diners are increasingly comfortable, and eveneager, to use interactive technology as part of their eating experience,suggesting that expecting social acceptability will increase could be
warranted. For example, surveys found that 73 % of diners believe thattechnology can improve the guest experience (Toast, 2017). Further­more, 69 % of millennials (who eat out 20 % more than other age
groups) do not expect just good food, but an experience that “stands out”
(Yurieeff, 2018). In response, in surveys, 56 % of restaurateurs reported
that they think that technology engagement is crucial (Bassig, 2019).
We also acknowledge that our assemblage of experts has concen­
trated on people with an HCI interest owing to the focus of the seminar’sorganizational body. This meant that other experts were not included,
such as food scientists and chefs, who might have had interesting andvaluable additions to the content of the seminar and could have there­
fore complemented our work. We suggest researchers interesting intaking this work further to also consider incorporating the views of such
experts.
In addition, we acknowledge that our work could be complemented
by future investigations that incorporate additional food-relevant per­spectives and aspects that go beyond our focus on the food experiencethat is concerned with eating the food. For example, we have yet toinvestigate how technology could support the sourcing of food or how
technology could facilitate the digestion of food. We encourage future
work in this area and hope that our work could be useful in scaffolding
such investigations.
Furthermore, we acknowledge that our article originated from agroup of experts who mostly come from a privileged position, i.e., workin the developed world where food ingredients are widely available andculinary expertise in the form of hospitality experts such as high-end
chefs is easily accessible. For example, our seminar participants
worked with Michelin-starred chefs, contestants of national TV cooking
shows and the “world’s best bartender” award winners. As such, ourresults are biased and hence might give the impression that some of theoutcomes that are possible if the challenges are resolved might only bewithin reach for those in similar privileged positions. This could be thecase, however, it might just be a matter of time before innovations
trickle through to more accessible food outlets. For example, we arepointing to the triumph of salted caramel that began as an expensive

HFI. Our grand challenges go beyond the pure idea of how technology
affects HFI experiences but does acknowledge its wider relevance forsociety and global efforts toward sustainability. In an attempt to further
foster this foundation, we now also present here the outcome from thegroup’s reflection on responsible design, which was part of our process.
Modeled based on the SPRUCE framework for responsible design (DeFreitas et al., 2021), we developed the SPROUT framework to further
foster a responsible HFI future. SPROUT calls for an HFI future that is:
Safe: HFI does not harm others or put others at unreasonable risk ofharm (e.g., hygiene, allergies, eating disorders, use of pesticides/
antibiotics, etc.).
Personalized: HFI respects personal sensory, socio-economical needs
and abilities, food preferences, and cultural diversity in terms of foodchoices.
Responsible: HFI is based on ethical, moral, fair, and sustainable
practices (e.g., circularity, labor, production/location, use of natural
resources/supply chain, etc.) through traceability and transparency
of information.
Original: HFI is original in its outcome (food we are presented withand eat) and the process of food production and preparation (e.g.,
supply chains, manufacturing, food 3D-printing) through appreci­
ating the importance of time (e.g., aging, seasoning).
Uniform: HFI enables reliable, consistent, inclusive skills develop­
ment (like following a recipe) through capitalizing digital skills (e.g.,multimedia, extended reality) and reduces boundaries through open
access HFI and associated knowledge. This includes the democrati­
zation of the process of cooking and the use of ingredients fromdifferent parts of the world, which would otherwise not be accessible
due to geographical constraints or lack of knowledge.
Transformational: HFI is to support transformation towards reachingstrategic global goals (e.g., global societal problems such as foodwaste), but also to new food systems, habits, behaviors, and attitudes
to improve acceptability and adoption. Change takes time, and HFIneeds to facilitate that change.
11International Journal of Human - Computer Studies 183 (2024) 103197

F.‘. Mueller et al.

contemporary high-end restaurant ingredient but is now widely avail­able and even served in fast food restaurants. We also point out that we
see the identified challenges not necessarily as immediate problems thatdemand a quick fix, but rather as deserving closer investigations andresearch. Therefore, we believe that our challenges are only starting
points that need to be developed and critiqued further by others,
including academics and practitioners.

Alexander, J., Roudaut, A., Steimle, J., Hornbæk, K., Bruns Alonso, M., Follmer, S.,
Merritt, T., 2018. Grand challenges in shape-changing interface research. In:
Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM,
pp. 1–14.
Altarriba Bertran, F., Duval, J., Isbister, K., Wilde, D., Márquez Segura, E., GarciaPañella, O., Badal León, L., 2019a. Chasing play potentials in food culture to inspire
technology design. Extended Abstracts. In: Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on
Computer-Human Interaction in Play Companion Extended Abstracts, pp. 829–834.
Altarriba Bertran, F., Jhaveri, S., Lutz, R., Isbister, K., Wilde, D., 2019b. Making sense ofhuman-food interaction. In: Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems. ACM, p. 678.
Altarriba, F., Lanzani, S.E., Torralba, A., Funk, M., 2017. The grumpy bin: reducing foodwaste through playful social interactions. In: Proceedings of the ACM Conference
Companion Publication on Designing Interactive Systems, pp. 90–94.
Andres, J., Semertzidis, N., Li, Z., Wang, Y., Mueller, F., 2022. Integrated Exertion –Understanding the Design of Human–Computer Integration in an Exertion Context.
In: ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interactions. ACM, pp. 1–30.
Arnold, P., Khot, R.A., Mueller, F., 2018. You Better Eat to Survive: Exploring
Cooperative Eating in Virtual Reality Games. TEI. Long paper. ACM, pp. 398–408.
Arza, E.S., Kurra, H., Khot, R.A., Mueller, F.F., 2018. Feed the Food Monsters!: Helping
Co-diners Chew their Food Better with Augmented Reality. Abstracts (CHI PLAY).
ACM, pp. 391–397.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2013). Overweight and Obesity. Retrieved from htt
p://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/33C64022ABB5ECD5CA257B8200
179437?opendocument.
Barden, P., Comber, R., Green, D., Jackson, D., Ladha, C., Bartindale, T., et al., 2012.
Telematic dinner party: designing for togetherness through play and performance.
In: Proceedings of the Designing Interactive Systems Conference, pp. 38–47.
Bassig, M. (2019). Restaurant social media statistics. Retrieved from https://www.
reviewtrackers.com/blog/restaurant-social-media-statistics/.
Baudisch, P., & Mueller, S. (2017). Personal fabrication. Foundations and Trends® in
Human–Computer Interaction, 10(3–4), 165–293.
Baumer, E.P., Khovanskaya, V., Matthews, M., Reynolds, L., Schwanda Sosik, V., Gay, G.,2014. Reviewing reflection: on the use of reflection in interactive system design. In:
Proceedings of the Conference on Designing Interactive Systems, pp. 93–102.
Belkin, N.J., 2008. Some (what) grand challenges for information retrieval. ACM SIGIR
Forum. ACM New York, NY, USA, pp. 47–54.
Benford, S., Höök, K., Marshall, J., Mueller, F., Svanes, D., 2018. Body-Centric
Computing (Dagstuhl Reports 17392). Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum fuer
Informatik, pp. 2192–5283.
Bertran, F.A., Jhaveri, S., Lutz, R., Isbister, K., Wilde, D., 2018. Visualising the landscapeof human-food interaction research. In: Proceedings of the ACM Conference
Companion Publication on Designing Interactive Systems. Hong Kong, China. ACM,
pp. 243–248. https://doi.org/10.1145/3197391.3205443.
Bertran, F.A., Segura, E.M., Duval, J., Isbister, K., 2019a. Chasing play potentials:
towards an increasingly situated and emergent approach to everyday play design. In:
Proceedings of the on Designing Interactive Systems Conference. San Diego, CA,
USA. ACM, pp. 1265–1277. https://doi.org/10.1145/3322276.3322325.
Bertran, F.A., Wilde, D., Berezvay, E., Isbister, K., 2019b. Playful human-food interaction
research: state of the art and future directions. In: Proceedings of the Annual
Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play. Barcelona, Spain. ACM,
pp. 225–237. https://doi.org/10.1145/3311350.3347155.
Brillat-Savarin, J.A., 2009. The Physiology of taste: Or Meditations on Transcendental
Gastronomy. Vintage.
Carlos, V., Marianna, O., 2020. Multisensory Experiences: Where the Senses MeetTechnology. Oxford University Press.
Ceccaldi, E., Huisman, G., Volpe, G., Mancini, M., 2020. Guess who’s coming to dinner?
Surveying digital commensality during Covid-19 outbreak. Companion Publication.
In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Multimodal Interaction,
pp. 317–321.
Cheng, H.F., Wang, R., Zhang, Z., O’Connell, F., Gray, T., Harper, F.M., Zhu, H., 2019.
Explaining decision-making algorithms through UI: strategies to help non-expert
stakeholders. In: Proceedings of the Chi Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems, pp. 1–12.
Choe, H., 2019. Eating together multimodally: collaborative eating in mukbang, aKorean livestream of eating. Lang. Soc. 48 (2), 171–208.
Choi, J.H., Linehan, C., Comber, R., & McCarthy, J. (2012). Food for thought: designingfor critical reflection on food practices.
Choi, J.H., Foth, M., Hearn, G., 2014. Eat, Cook, Grow: Mixing Human-Computer
Interactions With Human-Food Interactions. MIT Press.
Christakis, N.A., Fowler, J.H., 2007. The spread of obesity in a large social network over
32 years. N. Engl. J. Med. 357 (4), 370–379.
Clear, A.K., Comber, R., Friday, A., Ganglbauer, E., Hazas, M., Rogers, Y., 2013. Greenfood technology: ubiComp opportunities for reducing the environmental impacts offood. In: Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous
Computing Adjunct Publication, pp. 553–558.
Comber, R., Thieme, A., 2017. BinCam: evaluating persuasion at multiple scales.
Behavior Change Research and Theory. Elsevier, pp. 181–194.
Comber, R., Ganglbauer, E., Choi, J.H., Hoonhout, J., Rogers, Y., O’hara, K., Maitland, J.,
2012. Food and interaction design: designing for food in everyday life. In:
Proceedings of the CHI’12 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing
Systems, pp. 2767–2770.
Corbellini, S., Vallan, A., 2014. Arduino-based portable system for bioelectrical
impedance measurement. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on
Medical Measurements and Applications (MeMeA). IEEE, pp. 1–5.

11. Conclusions
In this paper, we identified and described 10 grand challenges thatthe human-food interaction field is facing. Although current contribu­
tions already demonstrate the benefits the field can be making, we
believe that finding solutions to these challenges will help HFI systems
reach their full potential. We identified 4 groupings (technology, users,
design and ethics) across the grand challenges. We note that our paper
focused on the scientific challenges of HFI and only briefly touched upon
considerations such as commercialization, biosecurity, world hunger,
agriculture and social inclusion. Further work will be needed to better
understand and tackle those issues.
We point out that the challenges we identified are both technicallyand conceptually complex, hence addressing them will require tech­nical, epistemological, and social contributions from across a range of
research communities. For example, challenges like those in the ethics
grouping depend on knowledge from food science and represent a
reframing of ongoing and important challenges in material HCI. Others,
such as grand challenges from grouping “technology” are more technicalin nature and call for contributions from adjacent communities such as
sensory integration and hardware design. Furthermore, challenges
related to the social aspects of eating (grouping “users”) share links towork in social computing. As a result, addressing these challenges re­quires interdisciplinary collaboration. This does not only need to involve
researchers from scientific disciplines, but also practitioners such as
chefs, food designers, and restaurateurs who can bring domain expertiseto the table as a way to confront broader concerns and turn them into
solutions that affect the lives of everyone who eats, that is, all people.
Such links will allow HFI to not only benefit from active research inthese adjacent areas but also help contribute compelling use cases inkitchens, restaurants, and canteens that enrich all eating experiences.
Taken together, we hope that this article will bring the growing HFI
community together, open new discussions, inform research goals, help
researchers new to HFI, and provide a coherent view to outside stake­holders, such as industry corporations and funding agencies. HFI offers
tremendous potential to enhance and enrich our food experiences.
Addressing the challenges laid forth here will enable us to realize thispotential and help introduce innovative advancements in this exciting
field.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
No data was used for the research described in the article.

References
Abowd, G.D., Dey, A.K., Brown, P.J., Davies, N., Smith, M., Steggles, P., 1999. Towards a
Better Understanding of Context and Context-Awareness. Springer Berlin
Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 304–307.
Adamatzky, A., 2021. Handbook of Unconventional Computing (In 2 Volumes). World
Scientific.

12International Journal of Human - Computer Studies 183 (2024) 103197

F.‘. Mueller et al.
Darabi, M.A., Khosrozadeh, A., Wang, Q., Xing, M., 2015. Gum sensor: a stretchable,
wearable, and foldable sensor based on carbon nanotube/chewing gum membrane.
ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 7 (47), 26195–26205.
Davis, H., Wilde, D., Altarriba Bertran, F., Dolejsova, M., 2020. Fantastic (e) ating food
futures. In: Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems.
De Freitas, J., Censi, A., Walker Smith, B., Di Lillo, L., Anthony, S.E., Frazzoli, E., 2021.
From driverless dilemmas to more practical commonsense tests for automatedvehicles. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 118 (11), e2010202118.
Deng, J., Mueller, F., 2023. The “Logic Bonbon”: A Computable Food, Or an Eatable
Computer? Companion Publication of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems
Conference. DIS. Arts. ACM, pp. 77–80.
Deng, J., Wang, Y., Velasco, C., Altarriba Altarriba Bertran, F., Comber, R., Obrist, M.,
et al., 2021. The future of human-food interaction. In: Proceedings of the Extended
Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–6.
Deng, J., Olivier, P., “Floyd”Mueller, F., 2021. Design of cyber food: beginning tounderstand food as computational artifact. Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, pp. 1–6.
Deng, J., Altarriba Bertran, F., Yao, L., Obrist, M., Narumi, K., Yang, H., et al., 2022.
Mapping FoodHCI Futures. CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Extended Abstracts. ACM 1–5.
Deng, J., Olivier, P., Andres, J., Ellis, K., Wee, R., Floyd Mueller, F., 2022. Logic bonbon:
exploring food as computational artifact. In: Proceedings of the CHI Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–21.
Deng, J., Yang, H., Saini, A., Gaudenz, U.D., Yao, L., Olivier, P., Mueller, F., 2023. In:
Dancing Delicacies: Designing Computational Food for Dynamic Dining Trajectories.
Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference,
pp. 244–262.
Deng, J., Bertran, F., Obrist, M., Wang, Y., Mueller, F., Velasco, C., 2023. Sketching the
Future of Human-Food Interaction: Emerging Directions for Future
PracticeInternational Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science, 31, 1–29.
Deng, J., Olivier, P., Mueller, F., 2023. Exploring Tasty Fluidics for Designing Food as
Computational ArtifactInternational Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science, 31,
1–21.
Desjardins, A., Wakkary, R., Odom, W., 2015. Investigating genres and perspectives in
HCI research on the home. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 3073–3082.
DiSalvo, C., Sengers, P., & Brynjarsdóttir, H. (2010). Mapping the landscape ofsustainable HCI.
Doering, T., Sylvester, A., Schmidt, A., 2013. A design space for ephemeral userinterfaces. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Tangible,
Embedded and Embodied Interaction. Barcelona, Spain. ACM, pp. 75–82. https://doi.org/10.1145/2460625.2460637.
Dolejšová, M., Khot, R.A., Davis, H., Ferdous, H.S., & Quitmeyer, A. (2018). Designingrecipes for digital food futures.
Dolejšová, M., Altarriba Bertran, F., Wilde, D., Davis, H., 2019. Crafting and tasting
issues in everyday human-food interactions. Companion Publication. In: Proceedingsof the on Designing Interactive Systems Conference 2019 Companion, pp. 361–364.
Dunne, A., Raby, F., 2013. Speculative Everything: Design, Fiction, and Social Dreaming.
MIT Press.
Edwards. (2014). Alphabet soup. Retrieved from https://triviahappy.com/articles/alphabet-soup-is-150-years-old-this-is-how-we-started-spelling-with-our-food.
Ens, B., Bach, B., Cordeil, M., Engelke, U., Serrano, M., Willett, W., et al., 2021. Grandchallenges in immersive analytics. In: Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems. Yokohama, Japan. Association for Computing
Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3446866. Article 459. Retrieved
from.
Ferdous, H.S., 2015. Technology at mealtime: beyond the’ordinary’. In: Proceedings ofthe 33rd Annual ACM Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in
Computing Systems, pp. 195–198.
Foodchi. (2022). Foodchi. Retrieved from http://foodchi.urbaninformatics.net/.
Fox, S.E., Sobel, K., Rosner, D.K., 2019. Managerial Visions: stories of upgrading andmaintaining the public restroom with IoT. In: Proceedings of the CHI Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–15.
Frontiers. (2022). Computational commensality. Retrieved from https://www.front
iersin.org/research-topics/15476/computational-commensality.
Fuentes, S., Tongson, E., Viejo, C.G., 2021. Novel digital technologies implemented insensory science and consumer perception. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 41, 99–106.
Greenberg, S., Boring, S., Vermeulen, J., Dostal, J., 2014. Dark patterns in proxemic
interactions: a critical perspective. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Designing
Interactive Systems. ACM, pp. 523–532.
Grimes, A., Harper, R., 2008. Celebratory technology: new directions for food research in
HCI. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems. Florence, Italy. ACM, pp. 467–476. https://doi.org/10.1145/
1357054.1357130.
Grossi, M., Riccò, B., 2017. Electrical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) for biologicalanalysis and food characterization: a review. J. Sens. Sens. Syst. 6 (2), 303–325.
Hagger, D. (2018). Le Petit Chef. Retrieved from https://theworldlovesmelbourne.com/food-wine/1787-le-petit-chef-3d-mapping-dining-sensation-in-melbourne.html.
Hansson, L.Å.E.J., Cerratto Pargman, T., Pargman, D.S., 2021. A decade of sustainable
HCI: connecting SHCI to the sustainable development goals. In: Proceedings of the
CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–19.
Harrar, V., Spence, C., 2013. The taste of cutlery: how the taste of food is affected by theweight, size, shape, and colour of the cutlery used to eat it. Flavour 2 (1), 1–13.
Hashimoto, Y., Nagaya, N., Kojima, M., Ohtaki, J., Mitani, T., Yamamoto, A., et al., 2005.
Straw-like user interface. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGGRAPH Emerging
Technologies, 20-es.

Hashimoto, Y., Nagaya, N., Kojima, M., Miyajima, S., Ohtaki, J., Yamamoto, A., et al.,2006. Straw-like user interface: virtual experience of the sensation of drinking using
a straw. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI International Conference on Advances in
Computer Entertainment Technology, 50-es.
Hashimoto, Y., Inami, M., Kajimoto, H., 2008. Straw-like user interface (II): a new
method of presenting auditory sensations for a more natural experience. In:
Proceedings of the Haptics: Perception, Devices and Scenarios: 6th International
Conference, EuroHaptics 2008 Madrid, Spain, June 10-13, 2008 Proceedings 6.
Springer, pp. 484–493.
Herman, C.P., Polivy, J., 2008. External cues in the control of food intake in humans: thesensory-normative distinction. Physiol. Behav. 94 (5), 722–728.
Holmquist, L.E., 2012. Grounded Innovation: Strategies for Creating Digital Products.
Elsevier.
Joi, Y.R., Jeong, B.T., Kim, J.H., Park, J., Cho, J., Seong, E., et al., 2016. Interactive andconnected tableware for promoting children’s vegetable-eating and familyinteraction. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Interaction
Design and Children, pp. 414–420.
Ketelaar, P.E., Van Balen, M., 2018. The smartphone as your follower: the role ofsmartphone literacy in the relation between privacy concerns, attitude andbehaviour towards phone-embedded tracking. Comput. Hum. Behav. 78, 174–182.
Khot, R., Choi, J.H., 2018. Human-Food Interaction: special Issue. Multimodal Technol.
Interact. 2.
Khot, R.A., Mueller, F., 2019. Human-Food Interaction. Found. Trends Hum. Comput.
Interact. 12 (4), 238–415.
Khot, R.A., Lee, J., Munz, H., Aggarwal, D., Mueller, F.F., 2014. Tastybeats: making
mocktails with heartbeats. CHI ’14 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in
Computing Systems. ACM, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, pp. 467–470. https://doi.org/
10.1145/2559206.2574830.
Khot, R.A., Pennings, R., Mueller, F.F., 2015. EdiPulse: Turning Physical Activity Into
Chocolates. ACM, pp. 331–334. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702613.2725436.
Khot, R.A., Lee, J., Aggarwal, D., Hjorth, L., Mueller, F., 2015. TastyBeats: Designing
Palatable Representations of Physical Activity. ACM. 2933-2942. https://doi.org/
10.1145/2702123.2702197.
Khot, R.A., Lee, J., Hjorth, L., Mueller, F.F., 2015b. TastyBeats: Celebrating Heart Rate
Data with a Drinkable Spectacle. ACM, Stanford, California, USA, pp. 229–232.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2677199.2680545.
Khot, R.A., Pennings, R., Mueller, F.F., 2015b. In: EdiPulse: Supporting Physical Activity
with Chocolate Printed Messages. ACM, pp. 1391–1396, 10.1145/
2702613.2732761.
Khot, R., Stusak, S., Butz, A., Mueller, F., 2017. 10 Design Themes for Creating 3DPrinted Physical Representations of Physical Activity Data. Interact’17. Springer,
pp. 85–105.
Khot, R.A., Aggarwal, D., Pennings, R., Hjorth, L., Mueller, F., 2017. EdiPulse:
Investigating a Playful Approach to Self-monitoring through 3D Printed Chocolate
Treats. ACM. 6593-6607.
Khot, R.A., Hjorth, L., Mueller, F., 2020. Shelfie: A Framework for Designing Material
Representations of Physical Activity Data. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human
Interactions (TOCHI) 27 (3), 14.
Khot, R.A., Yi, J.Y., Aggarwal, D., 2020. SWAN: designing a companion spoon for
mindful eating. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Tangible,
Embedded, and Embodied Interaction, pp. 743–756.
Khot, R., Lupton, D., Dolejšová, M., Mueller, F. Future of Food In the Digital Realm. CHI
2017. Special Interest Group (SIG). Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference
Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1342-1345.
Kim, S. (2022). FoodInno: foodXMedicine. Retrieved from https://www.foodinno.
org/foodinno-2022.
Kittur, A., Nickerson, J.V., Bernstein, M., Gerber, E., Shaw, A., Zimmerman, J., et al.
(2013). The future of crowd work.
Koch, M., von Luck, K., Schwarzer, J., Draheim, S., 2018. The novelty effect in large
display deployments–experiences and lessons-learned for evaluating prototypes. In:
Proceedings of 16th European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative
Work-Exploratory Papers. European Society for Socially Embedded Technologies(EUSSET).
Kuznetsov, S., Santana, C.J., Long, E., Comber, R., & DiSalvo, C. (2016). The art ofeveryday food science: foraging for design opportunities.
Li, S., McAuley, J., 2020. Recipes for success: data science in the home kitchen. Harvard
Data Sci. Rev. 2.
Li, Z., Chen, W., Wang, Y., Hoang, T., Wang, W., Boot, M., et al., 2018a. HeatCraft:playing with Ingestible sensors via localised sensations. In: Proceedings of the CHI
PLAY ‘18. Melbourne, Australia. ACM.
Li, Z., Patibanda, R., Brandmueller, F., Wang, Y., Berean, K., Greuter, S., Mueller, F.,
2018b. The guts game: towards designing ingestible games. In: Proceedings of the
CHI PLAY ‘18. Melbourne, Australia. ACM, pp. 271–283. https://doi.org/10.1145/
3242671.3242681.
Li, Z., Wang, Y., Wang, W., Chen, W., Hoang, T., Greuter, S., Mueller, F., 2019. HeatCraft:
Designing Playful Experiences with Ingestible Sensors via Localized Thermal Stimuli.
ACM, pp. 1–12.
Li, Z., Wang, Y., Greuter, S., Mueller, F.F., 2020a. Ingestible sensors as design material
for bodily play. Extended Abstracts. In: Proceedings of the CHI Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–8.
Li, Z., Wang, Y., Sheahan, J., Jiang, B., Greuter, S., Mueller, F., 2020b. InsideOut:
Towards an Understanding of Designing Playful Experiences with Imaging Capsules.
Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS) ACM.
601–613.
Li, Z., Wang, Y., Greuter, S., Mueller, F.F., 2021. Playing with the interior body.
Interactions 28 (5), 44–49.

13

International Journal of Human - Computer Studies 183 (2024) 103197

F.‘. Mueller et al.
Li, Z., Wang, Y., Andres, J., Semertzidis, N., Greuter, S., Mueller, F., 2023. A Design
Framework for Ingestible Play. In: ACM Transactions on Computer-Human
Interaction (TOCHI), 2023. ACM, pp. 1–39.
Locher, J.L., Yoels, W.C., Maurer, D., Van Ells, J., 2005. Comfort foods: an exploratory
journey into the social and emotional significance of food. Food Foodways 13 (4),273–297.
Mancini, M., Gallagher, C.P., Niewiadomski, R., Huisman, G., Bruijnes, M., 2020.
Introducing artificial commensal companions. In: Proceedings of the International
Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces, pp. 1–3.
Marion Koelle, M.N., Shekhar Nittala, A., Teyssier, M., Steimle, J., 2022. Prototyping soft
devices with interactive bioplastics. In: Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on User
Interface Software and Technology UIST’2022. ACM.
Marshall, J., Jimenez-Pazmino, P., Metoyer, R., Chawla, N.V., 2022. A survey on healthy
food decision influences through technological innovations. ACM Trans. Comput.
Healthc. 3 (2), 1–27 (HEALTH).
Mehta, Y.D., Khot, R.A., Patibanda, R., Mueller, F., 2018. Arm-A-Dine: Towards
Understanding the Design of Playful Embodied Eating Experiences. In: Annual
Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play. ACM, Melbourne, VIC,
Australia, pp. 299–313. https://doi.org/10.1145/3242671.3242710.
Min, W., Jiang, S., Liu, L., Rui, Y., Jain, R., 2019. A survey on food computing. ACM
Comput. Surv. 52 (5), 1–36 (CSUR).
Mitsudo, Y., 2016. A food intake detection method using intra-body communication. In:
Proceedings of the IEEE 5th Global Conference on Consumer Electronics. IEEE,
pp. 1–3.
Mueller, F., Andres, J., Marshall, J., Svanaes, D., schraefel, M.C., Gerling, K., et al.,2018a. Body-centric computing: results from a weeklong Dagstuhl seminar in a
German castle. Interactions 25 (4), 34–39.
Mueller, F., Kari, T., Khot, R., Li, Z., Wang, Y., Mehta, Y., Arnold, P., 2018b. Towards
experiencing eating as a form of play. In: Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on
Computer-Human Interaction in Play Companion Extended Abstracts. Melbourne,
VIC, Australia. ACM, pp. 559–567. https://doi.org/10.1145/3270316.3271528.
Mueller, F., Li, Z., Byrne, R., Mehta, Y.D., Arnold, P., Kari, T., 2019. A 2nd Person Social
Perspective on Bodily Play. Scotland Uk. ACM, Glasgow, pp. 1–14. https://doi.org/
10.1145/3290605.3300868.
Mueller, F., Kari, T., Li, Z., Wang, Y., Mehta, Y.D., Andres, J., et al., 2020. Towards
Designing Bodily Integrated Play. Embodied Interaction (TEI). ACM, pp. 207–218.
Mueller, F., Matjeka, L., Wang, Y., Andres, J., Li, Z., Marquez, J., et al. (2020).
“Erfahrung & Erlebnis” Understanding the Bodily Play Experience through German
Lexicon. Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Tangible,
Embedded, and Embodied Interaction. 337-347.
Mueller, F., Lopes, P., Strohmeier, P., Ju, W., Seim, C., Weigel, M., et al., 2020a. Next
steps for human-computer integration. In: Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conferenceon Human Factors in Computing Systems. Honolulu, HI, USA. Association for
Computing Machinery, pp. 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376242.
Mueller, F., Wang, Y., Li, Z., Kari, T., Arnold, P., Mehta, Y.D., et al., 2020b. Towards
experiencing eating as play. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on
Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction, pp. 239–253.
Mueller, F., Lopes, P., Andres, J., Byrne, R., Semertzidis, N., Li, Z., et al., 2021. Towards
understanding the design of bodily integration. Int J Hum Comput Stud 152,
102643.
Mueller, F., Dwyer, T., Goodwin, S., Marriott, K., Deng, J.D., Phan, H., et al., 2021. Dataas Delight: Eating data. ACM, pp. 1–14.
Mueller, F., Semertzidis, N., Andres, J., Weigel, M., Nanayakkara, S., Patibanda, R., Li, Z.,
Strohmeier, P., Knibbe, J., Greuter, S., Obrist, M., Maes, P., Wang, D., Wolf, K.,
Gerber, L., Marshall, J., Kunze, K., Grudin, J., Reiterer, H., & Byrne, R. (2022),
Human–Computer Integration: Towards Integrating the Human Body with theComputational Machine, Foundations and Trends in Human-Computer Interaction.
16: 1, pp 1-64. Now publisher.
Mueller, F., Kaenel, J., Duckworth, J., Andres, J., 2023. Taking inspiration frombecoming “one with a bike” to design human-computer integration. In: HumanComputer Interaction, 1-26. Taylor & Francis.
Mueller, F., Semertzidis, N., Andres, J., Marshall, J., Benford, S., Li, X., Matjeka, L.,
Mehta, Y., 2023. Towards Understanding the Design of Intertwined Humancomputer Integrations. In: ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interactions(TOCHI). ACM, pp. 1–38.
Narumi, T., Nishizaka, S., Kajinami, T., Tanikawa, T., Hirose, M., 2011. MetaCookie+.
IEEE.
Navaf, M., Sunooj, K.V., Aaliya, B., Akhila, P.P., Sudheesh, C., Mir, S.A., George, J., 2022.
4D printing: a new approach for food printing; effect of various stimuli on 4D printed
food properties. A comprehensive review. Appl. Food Res., 100150
Norman, D.A., 2010. Natural user interfaces are not natural. Interactions 17 (3), 6–10.
Obrist, M., Marti, P., Velasco, C., Tu, Y., Narumi, T., Møller, N.L.H., 2018. The future ofcomputing and food. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Advanced
Visual Interfaces, pp. 1–3.
Obrist, M., Tu, Y., Yao, L., Velasco, C., 2019. Space food experiences: designing
passenger’s eating experiences for future space travel scenarios. Front. Comput. Sci.
1, 3.
Park, S.Y., Kim, S., Leifer, L., 2017. “Human Chef” to “Computer Chef”: Culinary
Interactions Framework for Understanding HCI in the Food Industry. Springer
International Publishing, Cham, pp. 214–233.
Pereira, T., Barroso, S., Gil, M.M., 2021. Food texture design by 3D printing: a review.
Foods 10 (2), 320.
Perelman, G., Serrano, M., Raynal, M., Picard, C., Derras, M., Dubois, E., 2016. DECO: adesign space for device composition. In: Proceedings of the ACM Conference on
Designing Interactive Systems, pp. 435–446.

Perkins, D.N., Drisse, M.N.B., Nxele, T., Sly, P.D., 2014. E-waste: a global hazard. Ann.
Glob. Health 80 (4), 286–295.
Petrini, C., 2003. Slow Food: The Case for Taste. Columbia University Press.
Phasha, L., Molelekwa, G.F., Mokgobu, M.I., Morodi, T.J., Mokoena, M.M., Mudau, L.S.,
2020. Influence of cultural practices on food waste in South Africa—a review.
J. Ethnic Foods 7 (1), 1–13.
Raturi, A., Norton, J., Tomlinson, B., Blevis, E., & Dombrowski, L. (2017). Designingsustainable food systems.
Rogers, E.M., Singhal, A., Quinlan, M.M., 2014. Diffusion of innovations. An Integrated
Approach to Communication Theory and Research. Routledge, pp. 432–448.
Rogers, Y., 2011. Interaction design gone wild: striving for wild theory. Interactions 18(4), 58–62.
Schaller, R.R., 1997. Moore’s law: past, present and future. IEEE Spectr. 34 (6), 52–59.
Semertzidis, N.A., Scary, M., Fang, X., Wang, X., Patibanda, R., Andres, J., et al., 2021.
SIGHInt: Special interest group for human-computer integration. Extended Abstractsof the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM 1–3.
Semertzidis, N.A., Fang, Z.X., Lopes, P., Kunze, K., Pangaro, P., Mueller, F.F., Maes, P.,
2022. What We Talk About When We Talk About Human-Computer Integration. CHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstracts. ACM 1-4.
Shaer, O., Hornecker, E., 2010. Tangible user interfaces: past, present, and future
directions. Found. Trends Hum. Comput. Interaction 3 (1–2), 1–137.
Shavitt, S., Stellner, W.H., 2011. What’s new? Novelty in consumer research. Adv.
Consum. Res. 39, 1–6.
Shin, G., Feng, Y., Jarrahi, M.H., Gafinowitz, N., 2019. Beyond novelty effect: a mixedmethods exploration into the motivation for long-term activity tracker use. JAMIA
Open 2 (1), 62–72.
Shneiderman, B., Plaisant, C., Cohen, M., Jacobs, S., Elmqvist, N., Diakopoulos, N., 2016.
Grand challenges for HCI researchers. Interactions 23 (5), 24–25.
Silva, B.M., Lopes, I.M., Rodrigues, J.J., Ray, P., 2011. SapoFitness: a mobile healthapplication for dietary evaluation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE 13th International
Conference on e-Health Networking, Applications and Services. IEEE, pp. 375–380.
Souto, A., Zhang, J., Aragón, A.M., Velikov, K.P., Coulais, C., 2022. Edible mechanicalmetamaterials with designed fracture for mouthfeel control. Soft Matter 18 (15),2910–2919.
Spence, C., Michel, C., Smith, B., 2014. Airplane noise and the taste of umami. Flavour 3(1), 1–4.
Spence, C., 2017. Gastrophysics: The New Science of Eating. Penguin, UK.
Spence, C., 2021. Sonic seasoning and other multisensory influences on the coffee
drinking experience. Front. Comput. Sci. 3, 644054.
Stanford d.school. (2018). Design thinking bootcamp bootleg. Retrieved from htt
ps://dschool.stanford.edu/resources/design-thinking-bootleg.
Symons, M., 1994. Simmel’s gastronomic sociology: an overlooked essay. Food
Foodways 5 (4), 333–351.
Tapus, A., Mataric, M.J., Scassellati, B., 2007. Socially assistive robotics [grandchallenges of robotics]. IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag. 14 (1), 35–42.
Thermomix. (2022). Thermomix. Retrieved from https://www.thermomix.com/.
Titiu, A., 2019. Designing a Gamified Application to Promote Food Waste Awareness inHousehold and Further Educate Consumers on Their Food Waste Behavior.
University of Twente.
Toast. (2017). Restaurant technology in 2017. Retrieved from https://pos.toasttab.com/resources/restaurant-technology-industry-report.
Tomlinson, B., Ross, J., Andre, P., Baumer, E., Patterson, D., Corneli, J., et al., 2012.
Massively distributed authorship of academic papers. CHI’12 Extended Abstracts on
Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM 11–20.
Troisi, J.D., Wright, J.W., 2017. Comfort food: nourishing our collective stomachs andour collective minds. Teach. Psychol. 44 (1), 78–84.
Troisi, J.D., Gabriel, S., Derrick, J.L., Geisler, A., 2015. Threatened belonging andpreference for comfort food among the securely attached. Appetite 90, 58–64.
US Census Bureau. (2018). U.S. Census bureau releases 2018 families and living
arrangements tables. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2018/families.html.
US Census Bureau. (2022). Number of single-person households in the U.S. from 1960 to
2021 (in millions). Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/242022/number-of-single-person-households-in-the-us/.
Vannucci, E., Altarriba, F., Marshall, J., & Wilde, D. (2018). Handmaking food ideals:
crafting the design of future food-related technologies.
Varshney, L.R., Pinel, F., Varshney, K.R., Bhattacharjya, D., Schörgendorfer, A., Chee, Y.
M., 2019. A big data approach to computational creativity: the curious case of Chef
Watson. IBM J. Res. Dev. 63 (1), 7: 1-7: 18.
Wang, X., Xu, W., Chatterjee, P., Lv, C., Popovich, J., Song, Z., et al., 2016. Foodmaterials-based edible supercapacitors. Adv. Mater. Technol. 1 (3), 1600059.
Wang, Y., Li, Z., Jarvis, R., Khot, R.A., Mueller, F.F., 2018. The Singing Carrot: Designing
Playful Experiences with Food Sounds. 2018 Annual Symposium on ComputerHuman Interaction in Play Companion Extended Abstracts. ACM, Melbourne, VIC,
Australia, pp. 669–676. https://doi.org/10.1145/3270316.3271512.
Wang, Y., Li, Z., Jarvis, R.S., Russo, A., Khot, R.A., Mueller, F.F., 2019a. Towards
understanding the design of playful gustosonic experiences with ice cream. In:
Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play.
Barcelona, Spain. ACM, pp. 239–251. https://doi.org/10.1145/3311350.3347194.
Wang, Y., Li, Z., Jarvis, R., Khot, R.A., Mueller, F.F., 2019b. iScream!: Towards the
Design of Playful Gustosonic Experiences with Ice Cream. Extended Abstracts of the2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Glasgow, Scotland
Uk. ACM, pp. 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290607.3313244.
Wang, Y., Li, Z., Jarvis, R.S., La Delfa, J., Khot, R.A., Mueller, F.F., 2020a. WeScream!
toward understanding the design of playful social gustosonic experiences with ice

14International Journal of Human - Computer Studies 183 (2024) 103197

F.‘. Mueller et al.
cream. In: Proceedings of the 2020 ACM on Designing Interactive Systems
Conference. ACM, pp. 951–963.
Wang, Y., Zhang, X., Li, Z., Khot, R.A., Mueller, F.F., 2020b. Towards a Framework for
Designing Playful Gustosonic Experiences. Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, pp. 1–9.
Wang, Y., Li, Z., Khot, R.A., & Mueller, F.F. (2021). Sonic Straws: a beverage-based
playful gustosonic system.
Wang, Y., Li, Z., Khot, R.A., Mueller, F.F., 2022. Toward understanding playful beveragebased gustosonic experiences. In: Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile,
Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies, 6, pp. 1–23.
Wiberg, M., 2018. The Materiality of Interaction: Notes on the Materials of Interaction
Design. MIT press.

Wood, M. (2019). How instagram changed the restaurant industry. Retrieved fromhttps://www.fundera.com/blog/instagram-restaurants.
Xu, W., Yang, H., Zeng, W., Houghton, T., Wang, X., Murthy, R., et al., 2017. Food-based
edible and nutritive electronics. Adv. Mater. Technol. 2 (11), 1700181.
Yurieeff, K. (2018). Restaurants rise to fame over Instagramable food. Retrieved fromhttps://edition.cnn.com/2018/10/10/tech/instagram-restaurant-industry/index.
html.
Zhu, D.H., Chang, Y.P., 2020. Robot with humanoid hands cooks food better? Effect ofrobotic chef anthropomorphism on food quality prediction. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp.
Manag. 32 (3), 1367–1383.

15