MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

A User Experience Survey for a Mind-Motor Exercise Intervention Smartphone Application - HealtheBrain

2015· article· en· W2471873319 on OpenAlexaff
Erin M. Shellington, Tina Felfeli, Dawn P. Gill, Ryosuke Shigematsu, Robert J. Petrella

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUsabilitySmartphone appIntervention (counseling)PopulationPsychologyApplied psychologyComputer scienceMedicineHuman–computer interactionPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Square Stepping Exercise (SSE) was designed to improve mobility and balance in older adults. Preliminary evidence shows SSE may also improve cognitive functioning. SSE can be described as a visuospatial working memory task with a stepping response. There are over 200 stepping patterns that progress from beginner to advanced. SSE has been developed into a smartphone application (app) called HealtheBrain to extend the reach of SSE to rural and remote communities. PURPOSE: To determine if a mind-motor exercise app (HealtheBrain) is feasible and usable in an older adult population. METHODS: A questionnaire was developed to assess the design, usability and feasibility of HealtheBrain. Participants were recruited from previous exercise intervention studies involving older adults. The HealtheBrain app is available on the Apple Store and therefore ownership of an Apple device was required for participation. Participants were asked to use HealtheBrain for 2 to 3 weeks and then complete an online questionnaire about their experiences with the app. RESULTS: Of 83 participants contacted, 9 were eligible and have completed the study to date and 33 did not have an Apple device. About two-thirds of participants reported they were ‘satisfied’ or felt ‘neutral’ about the HealtheBrain app. The majority of participants liked the design features of the app: 89% responded the flow was sensible and 75% liked the colour and font. Participants found the app to be feasible - 75% indicated they would recommend and continue to use it. Usability of the app was varied; 50% of participants indicated that HealtheBrain was ‘very or somewhat helpful’ and 37% reported ‘don’t know’ regarding whether they felt the app could improve memory or balance. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that further development of the HealtheBrain app will be crucial to target older adults. Participants found the app to be feasible but struggled with its usability. A limitation with using technology in older adults is the lack of smartphone ownership. In future studies, it will be important to target younger individuals who are more likely to have smartphones and be at the critical age for intervening to prevent cognitive decline. Targeting remote and rural regions with limited programs may show increased engagement of HealtheBrain.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.319 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery→French-language works237,207→