MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011852950 · doi:10.1109/embc.2014.6944402

Usability testing of gaming and social media applications for stroke and cerebral palsy upper limb rehabilitation

2014· article· en· W2011852950 on OpenAlexaff
Bulmaro A. Valdés, Courtney G. E. Hilderman, Navid Shirzad, H. F. Machiel Van der Loos

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUsabilityCerebral palsyRehabilitationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationComputer scienceSocial mediaStroke (engine)Human–computer interactionPhysical therapyMedicineWorld Wide WebEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As part of the FEATHERS (Functional Engagement in Assisted Therapy Through Exercise Robotics) project, two motion tracking and one social networking applications were developed for upper limb rehabilitation of stroke survivors and teenagers with cerebral palsy. The project aims to improve the engagement of clients during therapy by using video games and a social media platform. The applications allow users to control a cursor on a personal computer through bimanual motions, and to interact with their peers and therapists through the social media. The tracking applications use either a Microsoft Kinect or a PlayStation Eye camera, and the social media application was developed on Facebook. This paper presents a usability testing of these applications that was conducted with therapists from two rehabilitation clinics. The "Cognitive Walkthrough" and "Think Aloud" methods were used. The objectives of the study were to investigate the ease of use and potential issues or improvements of the applications, as well as the factors that facilitate and impede the adoption of technology in current rehabilitation programs.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations43
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207