Are Digital Twins Becoming Our Personal (Predictive) Advisors?

‘Our Digital Mirror of Who We Were, Who We Are and Who We Will Become’
  • Christel De MaeyerEmail author
  • Panos MarkopoulosEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 12208)


In this paper we look at the notion of a Digital Twin and what it could entail for an aging population. A Digital Twin refers to a digital replica of potential and actual physical assets (physical twin), processes, people, places, systems and devices that can be used for various purposes. Today’s evolution of smart devices, mobile application used in different domains, could be ways of nurturing a Digital Twin. Moreover, these smart device and mobile applications are often equipped with NUI’s (Natural User Interfaces), which make them more affordable for an aging population in terms of usability. In this paper we focus on the affordance and appropriation of these assistive digital technologies. We first do a literature review on related work on ‘Aging in Place’ in combination with ‘Digital Twin’ theory. Furthermore, we conducted in-depth qualitative interviews with boomers (1946–1964) 60+ and 70+, mixed gender and mixed education, but predominately higher educated boomers living in Belgium. In addition we conducted in-depth interviews with stakeholders active in a medical environment.


Digital Twins Quantified Self Personal informatics Data selves Aging population 


  1. 1.
    Adams, S.: Digital ‘solutions’ to unhealthy lifestyle ‘problems’: the construction of social and personal risks in the development of eCoaches. Health Risk Soc. 17(7–8), 530–546 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    AI HLEG: Ethics Guidelines For Trustworthy AI, Brussels (2019).
  3. 3.
    Braun, V.: Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 3(2), 77–101 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Briggs, P.: Biometric daemons: authentication via electronic pets. In: Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Usability, Psychology, and Security (UPSEC 2008), San Francisco (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Broadbent, E.: Acceptance of healthcare robots for the older population: review and future directions. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 1(4), 319 (2009). Scholar
  6. 6.
    Broekens, J.: Assistive social robots in elderly care: a review. Gerontechnology 8, 94–103 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bruynseels, K.: Digital twins in health care: ethical implications of an emerging engineering paradigm. Front. Genet. 9, 31 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cavoukian, A.: Privacy by design, seven foundational principles (2009).
  9. 9.
    Choe, E.: Understanding quantified-selfers’ practices in collecting and exploring personal data. In: CHI 2014. ACM, Toronto (2014)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    De Maeyer, C.: Exploring quantified self attitudes. In: Biomedical Engineering Systems and Technologies (BIOSTEC 2018), pp. 253–260 (2018)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dohr, A.: The Internet of Things for ambient assisted living. In: Seventh International Conference on Information Technology: New Generations. IEEE (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    El Saddik, A.: Digital Twins: the convergence of multimedia technologies. IEEE Multimedia Comput. Soc. 25, 87–92 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Epstein: Beyond abandonment to next steps: understanding and designing for life after personal informatics tool use. In: CHI 2016, 07–12 May 2016, San Jose, CA, USA. ACM, San Jose (2016)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fogg, B.J.: A behavior model for persuasive design. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Persuasive Technology (Persuasive 2009) (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gibson, J.: The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception, 1st edn. Routledge, Abingdon (1986)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Giddens, A.: Agency, structure. In: Giddens, A. (ed.) Central Problems in Social Theory. Contemporary Social Theory. Palgrave, London (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gimpel, H.: Quantifying the quantified self: a study on the motivations of patients to track their own health. In: Thirty Fourth International Conference on Information Systems, Milan (2013)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Graybill, E.M.: Can aging in place be cost effective? A systematic review. PLoS One 9, e102705 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Grieves, M.: Digital Twin: Manufacturing Excellence through Virtual Factory Replication, USA (2014)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Himmel, S., Ziefle, M.: Smart home medical technologies: users’ requirements for conditional acceptance. i-com 15(1), 39–50 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hsu, Y.L.: Design and implementation of a smart home system using multisensor data fusion technology. Sensors (Basel) 17, 1631 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
  23. 23.
    iMec, et al.: Proact2020 (2016–2019).
  24. 24.
    Kanamori, M.M.: Evaluation of animal-assisted therapy for the elderly with senile dementia in a day care program. Am. J. Alzheimer’s Dis. Other Dementias 16(4), 234–239 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Karvonen, S., et al.: Who needs the sociology of health and illness? A new agenda for responsive and interdisciplinary sociology of health and medicine. Front. Sociol. 3, 4 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
  27. 27.
    Loos, E.: Generational Use of New Media. Ashgate, Farnham (2012)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lupton, D.: Self-tracking Modes: Reflexive Self-Monitoring and Data Practices. Imminent Citizenships: Personhood and Identity Politics in the Informatic Age (2014)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
  30. 30.
    Lupton, D.: The Quantified Self. Polity Press, Cambridge (2016)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lupton, D.: Data Selves. Polity Press, Cambridge (2019)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lyon, D.: Surveillance, power and everyday life. In: David, L. (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Information and Communication Technologies, Oxford (2009)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Marshall, B.: How Old Am I? Digital Culture and Quantified Ageing. DCS (Digital Culture and Society), vol. 2, issue 1 (2017)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Martin, B.: Universal Methods of Design. Rockport Publishers (2012)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Moyle, W., Cooke, M., Beattie, E., et al.: Exploring the effect of companion robots on emotional expression in older adults with dementia: a pilot randomized controlled trial. J. Gerontol. Nurs. 39(5), 46–53 (2013). Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mynatt, E.D.: Increasing the opportunities for aging in place. In: Proceedings on the 2000 Conference on Universal Usability (CUU 2000), pp. 65–71. ACM, New York (2000)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Norman, D.: Things That Make Us Smarter. Diversion Books, New York (1993)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Norman, D.: Living with Complexity. MIT Press, Cambridge, London (2010)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    O’Neil, C.: Weapons of Math Destruction. Penguin Books, New York (2016)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
  41. 41.
  42. 42.
  43. 43.
    Ruckenstein, M., Pantzar, M.: Beyond the quantified self: thematic exploration of a dataistic paradigm. New Media Soc. 19(3), 401–418 (2017). Scholar
  44. 44.
    Saracco, R.: can-we-have-a-digital-twin/. (2017).
  45. 45.
    Schwanda, V.: Side effects and ‘gateway’ tools: advocating a broader look at evaluating persuasive systems. In: CHI 2011. ACM, Vancouver (2011)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Sloane, M., Moss, E.: AI’s social sciences deficit. Nat. Mach. Intell. 1, 330–331 (2019). Scholar
  47. 47.
    Smith, J.G.D.: Surveillance, data and embodiment: on the work of being watched. Body Soc. 22(2), 108–139 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Stojkoska, B.R.: Internet of Things framework for home care systems. Wirel. Commun. Mob. Comput. 2017, 1–10 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Sharon, T.: Self-tracking for health and the quantified self: re-articulating autonomy, solidarity, and authenticity in an age of personalized healthcare. Philos. Technol. 30(1), 93–121 (2017). Scholar
  50. 50.
    Turkle, S.: Reclaiming conversation. Penguin Press, New York (2015)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Wiles, J.L., et al.: The meaning of “aging in place” to older people. The Gerontologist 52(3), 357–366 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    World Health Organisation: World report on ageing and health 2015. World Health Organisation (2015)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department Graphical and Digital MediaArtevelde University of Applied ScienceGhentBelgium
  2. 2.Department of Industrial DesignEindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations