You are presented with multiple paper abstracts, alongside the associated literature review and chapter titles. Given the provided information, you are going to do a literature review. Please generate a coherent literature review that synthesizes the content, draws connections between different works, highlights major findings, and identifies any gaps in the existing research.

Literature Review Title: Designing Wearable Systems for Sports: A Review of Trends and Opportunities in Human–Computer Interaction 
Chapter Title:  B. Selection Criteria 
1. Abstract of Cited Paper (BIB001):  Wearable technologies are increasingly evolving into omnipresent companions. They become smaller and less obtrusive while at the same time their list of features constantly expands. Companies such as Samsung, Jawbone and Apple have driven the technological progress, yet information and feedback on how these devices work in real-life settings, what challenges users are facing, and where they see potentials for improvement, remain somewhat under-explored. This paper therefore wants to highlight the need for more 'in the wild' user studies so as to better understand and consequently define the design space for wearable technology.

Literature Review:
The corpus has been refined by checking the appropriateness of each paper to the following criteria. 1) The papers had to address a sport, in the strict sense of an intentional and specific physical activity conducted for its own sake. Wearables for fitness were included in this definition. However, we excluded all those wearables specifically aimed at promoting health goals (e.g., losing weight), as well as those explicitly designed for physical activity that could be conducted while performing other tasks, e.g., pedometers measuring the steps taken while going to work or shopping. 2) The papers had to present an interactive artifact, that is, a device providing an interface purposefully designed for being interacted with end users in the sports domain (e.g., athletes, coaches, and audience). With this criterion, we excluded all the works pertaining to human activity recognition, as this research field focuses on the devices' sensing capabilities, rather than on their "human aspects"; even though such works may provide data visualizations, these are not specifically designed for end users in the sports domain. 3) The papers had to present a study with end users. This criterion was included to ensure that the review pertained to the field of HCI. The corpus was divided into four parts, and each part was assigned to one of the authors of this paper. Each author evaluated her/his assigned papers by reading the title, the keywords, and the abstract, thus discarding those not corresponding to the above criteria. This first selection produced a corpus of 112 papers. The great diminution from 3186 to 112 papers was due to the fact that the majority of them investigated activity recognition techniques rather than interactive artifacts. After this selection, the remaining papers have been carefully read by all the authors and discussed. This thorough reading allowed for the identification of those papers that did not fully satisfy the three selection criteria, which were thus discarded. Moreover, whenever the corpus presented more than one paper by the same authors and on the same project, we selected the most complete one for our analysis while discarding the others. Eventually, our corpus includes 57 papers. However, among the discarded papers, four were retained in a separate folder because they were considered inspirational and useful for understanding the topic BIB001 - BIB002 . These comply with at least two selection criteria.