MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2255131466 · doi:10.3109/17483107.2015.1129457

Envisioning future cognitive telerehabilitation technologies: a co-design process with clinicians

2016· article· en· W2255131466 on OpenAlexafffund
Tuck-Voon How, Amy Hwang, Robin Green, Alex Mihailidis

Bibliographic record

VenueDisability and Rehabilitation Assistive Technology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTechnology Use by Older Adults
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsTelerehabilitationCognitionComputer scienceCognitive rehabilitation therapyProcess (computing)Context (archaeology)RehabilitationWearable computerTelemedicineHuman–computer interactionPsychologyMedicineHealth carePhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose Cognitive telerehabilitation is the concept of delivering cognitive assessment, feedback, or therapeutic intervention at a distance through technology. With the increase of mobile devices, wearable sensors, and novel human-computer interfaces, new possibilities are emerging to expand the cognitive telerehabilitation paradigm. This research aims to: (1) explore design opportunities and considerations when applying emergent pervasive computing technologies to cognitive telerehabilitation and (2) develop a generative co-design process for use with rehabilitation clinicians. Methods We conducted a custom co-design process that used design cards, probes, and design sessions with traumatic brain injury (TBI) clinicians. All field notes and transcripts were analyzed qualitatively. Results Potential opportunities for TBI cognitive telerehabilitation exist in the areas of communication competency, executive functioning, emotional regulation, energy management, assessment, and skill training. Designers of TBI cognitive telerehabilitation technologies should consider how technologies are adapted to a patient's physical/cognitive/emotional state, their changing rehabilitation trajectory, and their surrounding life context (e.g. social considerations). Clinicians were receptive to our co-design approach. Conclusion Pervasive computing offers new opportunities for life-situated cognitive telerehabilitation. Convivial design methods, such as this co-design process, are a helpful way to explore new design opportunities and an important space for further methodological development. Implications for Rehabilitation Designers of rehabilitation technologies should consider how to extend current design methods in order to facilitate the creative contribution of rehabilitation stakeholders. This co-design approach enables a fuller participation from rehabilitation clinicians at the front-end of design. Pervasive computing has the potential to: extend the duration and intensity of cognitive telerehabilitation training (including the delivery of 'booster' sessions or maintenance therapies); provide assessment and treatment in the context of a traumatic brain injury (TBI) patient's everyday life (thereby enhancing generalization); and permit time-sensitive interventions. Long-term use of pervasive computing for TBI cognitive telerehabilitation should take into account a patient's changing recovery trajectory, their meaningful goals, and their journey from loss to redefinition.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.310
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.016
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations37
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDisability and Rehabilitation Assistive TechnologySame topicTechnology Use by Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207