System Development Guidelines From a Review of Motion-Based Technology for People With Dementia or MCI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the population ages and the number of people living with dementia or mild cognitive impairment (MCI) continues to increase, it is critical to identify creative and innovative ways to support and improve their quality of life. Motion-based technology has shown significant potential for people living with dementia or MCI by providing opportunities for cognitive stimulation, physical activity and participation in meaningful leisure activities, while simultaneously functioning as a useful tool for research and development of interventions. However, many of the current systems created using motion-based technology have not been designed specifically for people with dementia or MCI. Additionally, the usability and accessibility of these systems for these populations has not been thoroughly considered. This paper presents a set of system development guidelines derived from a review of the state of the art of motion-based technologies for people with dementia or MCI. These guidelines highlight three overarching domains of consideration for systems targeting people with dementia or MCI: (i) cognitive, (ii) physical, and (iii) social. We present the guidelines in terms of relevant design and use considerations within these domains and the emergent design themes within each domain. Our hope is that these guidelines will aid in designing motion-based software to meet the needs of people with dementia or MCI such that the potential of these technologies can be realized.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".