Attitudes of older adults toward shooter video games: An initial study to select an acceptable game for training visual processing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A computer-based 'Useful Field of View' (UFOV) training program has been shown to be effective in improving visual processing in older adults. Studies of young adults have shown that playing video games can have similar benefits; however, these studies involved realistic and violent 'first-person shooter' (FPS) games. The willingness of older adults to play such games has not been established. OBJECTIVES: To determine the degree to which older adults would accept playing a realistic, violent FPS-game, compared to video games not involving realistic depiction of violence. METHODS: Sixteen older adults (ages 64-77) viewed and rated video-clip demonstrations of the UFOV program and three video-game genres (realistic-FPS, cartoon-FPS, fixed-shooter), and were then given an opportunity to try them out (30 minutes per game) and rate various features. RESULTS: The results supported a hypothesis that the participants would be less willing to play the realistic-FPS game in comparison to the less violent alternatives (p's<0.02). After viewing the video-clip demonstrations, 10 of 16 participants indicated they would be unwilling to try out the realistic-FPS game. Of the six who were willing, three did not enjoy the experience and were not interested in playing again. In contrast, all 12 subjects who were willing to try the cartoon-FPS game reported that they enjoyed it and would be willing to play again. A high proportion also tried and enjoyed the UFOV training (15/16) and the fixed-shooter game (12/15). DISCUSSION: A realistic, violent FPS video game is unlikely to be an appropriate choice for older adults. Cartoon-FPS and fixed-shooter games are more viable options. Although most subjects also enjoyed UFOV training, a video-game approach has a number of potential advantages (for instance, 'addictive' properties, low cost, self-administration at home). We therefore conclude that non-violent cartoon-FPS and fixed-shooter video games warrant further investigation as an alternative to the UFOV program for training improved visual processing in seniors.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".