Engaging Older Adults with Dementia in Creative Occupations Using Artificially Intelligent Assistive Technology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Engagement in creative occupations has been shown to promote well-being for older adults with dementia. Providing access to such occupations is often difficult, as successful participation requires face-time with a person who is knowledgeable in facilitating engagement as well as access to any required resources, such as an arts studio. In response, a computer-based device, the Engaging Platform for Art Development (ePAD), was created to with the aim of enabling more independent access to art creation, ePAD is a an artificially intelligent touch-screen device that estimates a client's level of engagement and provides prompts to encourage engagement if the client becomes disengaged. ePAD is customizable such that an art therapist can choose themes and tools that they feel reflect their client's needs and preferences. This article presents a mixed-methods study that evaluated ePAD's usability by six older adult (with mild-to-moderate dementia) and art therapist dyads. Usability measures suggest that all participants found ePAD engaging but did not find prompts effective. Future development of ePAD includes improving the prompts, implementing the recommendations made by participants in this research, and long-term testing in more naturalistic art therapy contexts.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".