Leveraging multimodal generative AI for enhancing digital well-being and addressing the economy of attention in public health


Abstract

Amid rising concerns over digital well-being and the socio-cognitive impact of the attention economy, exploring innovative technologies for healthier human-digital interactions is critical. The advancement of multimodal generative AI offers a transformative opportunity to reshape public health strategies. By developing AI systems capable of integrating visual, linguistic, and structured data, researchers can create personalized interventions, adaptive content moderation, and context-aware feedback to mitigate digital overstimulation and information overload. However, current methods often suffer from shallow cross-modal integration, modality-specific encoders, and poor semantic and topological alignment, limiting their generalizability. To address this, we propose ManiGen, a novel geometry-aware multimodal generative framework that unifies manifold-aligned latent spaces with a prompt-driven synthesis strategy. ManiGen’s non-Euclidean generative backbone respects the geometric nature of modality data, enabling missing-modality reconstruction and cross-domain translation. Its GeoPrompt-driven synthesis generalizes prompt learning to semantic anchors in Riemannian latent spaces, supporting adaptive generation with sparse inputs and intentional control. Extensive evaluations across public health datasets demonstrate ManiGen’s superior performance in semantic alignment, multi-input inference, and personalized, low-supervision generation, offering a principled path to integrate generative AI into digital well-being initiatives.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ Computer Science does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].