MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1817493136 · doi:10.11575/prism/35530

Is movement better?: comparing sedentary and motion-based game controls for older adults

2013· article· en· W1817493136 on OpenAlex
Kathrin Gerling, Kristen Dergousoff, Regan L. Mandryk

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueLincoln Repository (University of Lincoln) · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTechnology Use by Older Adults
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMotion (physics)Video gameCognitionGame designPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychologyFocus (optics)Computer scienceVariety (cybernetics)Cognitive psychologyMultimediaMedicineArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Providing cognitive and physical stimulation for older adults is critical for their well-being. Video games offer the opportunity of engaging seniors, and research has shown a variety of positive effects of motion-based video games for older adults. However, little is known about the suitability of motion-based game controls for older adults and how their use is affected by age-related changes. In this paper, we present a study evaluating sedentary and motion-based game controls with a focus on differences between younger and older adults. Our results show that older adults can apply motion-based game controls efficiently, and that they enjoy motion-based interaction. We present design implications based on our study, and demonstrate how our findings can be applied both to motion-based game design and to general interaction design for older adults.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.210 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it