Serious Gaming Technology in Upper Extremity Rehabilitation: Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Serious gaming has increasingly gained attention as a potential new component in clinical practice. Specifically, its use in the rehabilitation of motor dysfunctions has been intensively researched during the past three decades. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this scoping review was to evaluate the current role of serious games in upper extremity rehabilitation, and to identify common methods and practice as well as technology patterns. This objective was approached via the exploration of published research efforts over time. METHODS: The literature search, using the PubMed and Scopus databases, included articles published from 1999 to 2019. The eligibility criteria were (i) any form of game-based arm rehabilitation; (ii) published in a peer-reviewed journal or conference; (iii) introduce a game in an electronic format; (iv) published in English; and (v) not a review, meta-analysis, or conference abstract. The search strategy identified 169 relevant articles. RESULTS: The results indicated an increasing research trend in the domain of serious gaming deployment in upper extremity rehabilitation. Furthermore, differences regarding the number of publications and the game approach were noted between studies that used commercial devices in their rehabilitation systems and those that proposed a custom-made robotic arm, glove, or other devices for the connection and interaction with the game platform. A particularly relevant observation concerns the evaluation of the introduced systems. Although one-third of the studies evaluated their implementations with patients, in most cases, there is the need for a larger number of participants and better testing of the rehabilitation scheme efficiency over time. Most of the studies that included some form of assessment for the introduced rehabilitation game mentioned user experience as one of the factors considered for evaluation of the system. Besides user experience assessment, the most common evaluation method involving patients was the use of standard medical tests. Finally, a few studies attempted to extract game features to introduce quantitative measurements for the evaluation of patient improvement. CONCLUSIONS: This paper presents an overview of a significant research topic and highlights the current state of the field. Despite extensive attempts for the development of gamified rehabilitation systems, there is no definite answer as to whether a serious game is a favorable means for upper extremity functionality improvement; however, this certainly constitutes a supplementary means for motivation. The development of a unified performance quantification framework and more extensive experiments could generate richer evidence and contribute toward this direction.
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 | 0.010 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".