MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154469833 · doi:10.1145/2724729

Designing Wheelchair-Based Movement Games

2015· article· en· W2154469833 on OpenAlexafffund
Kathrin Gerling, Regan L. Mandryk, Matthew K. Miller, Michael R. Kalyn, Max V. Birk, Jan David Smeddinck

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Accessible Computing · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTechnology Use by Older Adults
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsWheelchairMotion (physics)LimitingWork (physics)Human–computer interactionComputer sciencePhysical medicine and rehabilitationVideo gamePsychologyMultimediaApplied psychologySimulationEngineeringArtificial intelligenceMedicineWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

People using wheelchairs have access to fewer sports and other physically stimulating leisure activities than nondisabled persons, and often lead sedentary lifestyles that negatively influence their health. While motion-based video games have demonstrated great potential of encouraging physical activity among nondisabled players, the accessibility of motion-based games is limited for persons with mobility disabilities, thus also limiting access to the potential health benefits of playing these games. In our work, we address this issue through the design of wheelchair-accessible motion-based game controls. We present KINECT Wheels , a toolkit designed to integrate wheelchair movements into motion-based games. Building on the toolkit, we developed Cupcake Heaven, a wheelchair-based video game designed for older adults using wheelchairs, and we created Wheelchair Revolution, a motion-based dance game that is accessible to both persons using wheelchairs and nondisabled players. Evaluation results show that KINECT Wheels can be applied to make motion-based games wheelchair-accessible, and that wheelchair-based games engage broad audiences in physically stimulating play. Through the application of the wheelchair as an enabling technology in games, our work has the potential of encouraging players of all ages to develop a positive relationship with their wheelchair.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: Other design
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations30
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on Accessible ComputingSame topicTechnology Use by Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207