MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3196090512 · doi:10.2196/30672

Active Video Gaming Using an Adapted Gaming Mat in Youth and Adults With Physical Disabilities: Observational Study

2021· article· en· W3196090512 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Laurie A. Malone, Ganisher Davlyatov, Sangeetha Padalabalanarayanan, Mohanraj Thirumalai

Notice bibliographique

RevueJMIR Serious Games · 2021
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesNational Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research
Mots-clésObservational studyVideo gamePsychologyPhysical activityApplied psychologySet (abstract data type)MultimediaComputer sciencePhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: A common leisure-time activity amongst youth and adults in the United States is video gameplay. Playing video games is typically a sedentary endeavor; however, to encourage an increased level of physical activity in an engaging and enjoyable way, active video gaming has become popular. Unfortunately, the accessibility of gaming controllers is often an issue for persons with disabilities. A commercial off-the-shelf (OTS) gaming mat was adapted to facilitate use by individuals with mobility impairments to address this issue. OBJECTIVE: Our study aimed to examine energy expenditure, enjoyment, and gameplay experience in youth and adults with mobility impairment during active video gaming using an OTS and adapted versions of a gaming mat. METHODS: The study used an observational design. During visit 1, physical function was assessed, and participants were given a familiarization period with the gaming system. For visit 2, based on observation during the physical function tests and discussion with the participant, it was decided whether the participant would play in a standing or seated position. For standing gameplay, the mat was placed on the floor, and for seated play, the mat was placed on a height-adjustable and tilt-adjustable tabletop. Metabolic data were collected during a 20-minute baseline and four 10-minute bouts of Wii Fit Plus gameplay, with 2 bouts on each of the mats (adapted and OTS). During gameplay, the research staff observed and rated participants' ability to use the game controller (mat) and the quality of gameplay. At the end of each game set, participants reported their rating of perceived exertion on a scale from 0 to 10. During rest, participants completed the physical activity enjoyment scale. Participants also answered additional questions regarding the system's usability with each controller (adapted mat and OTS mat). Statistical analyses were computed using Stata 16 (version 16.1; StataCorp). Linear mixed-effects maximum likelihood regression was performed separately for individuals who could play standing and for those who played seated. RESULTS: A convenience sample of 78 individuals with mobility impairments between the ages of 12 and 60 years (mean 39.6, SD 15.8) participated in the study. Of the sample, 48 participants played the video games in a seated position, while 30 played the games standing. Energy expenditure and heart rate tended to be higher in the OTS mat condition for seated players, while values were similar for both conditions among standing players. However, seated participants reported greater gameplay experience, and both groups exhibited a higher quality of gameplay during the adapted mat condition. CONCLUSIONS: Active video gaming using an adapted gaming mat provided an enjoyable exercise activity for individuals with mobility impairments. The use of the adapted controller provides a means by which this population can engage in light to moderate intensity active video gaming, thereby reducing sedentary leisure time. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02994199; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02994199.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,020
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,574

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,051
Tête enseignante GPT0,328
Écart entre enseignants0,278 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations12
Publié2021
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJMIR Serious GamesMême sujetStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryTravaux en français237 207