Effects of a Personalized Fitness Recommender System Using Gamification and Continuous Player Modeling: System Design and Long-Term Validation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Gamification and persuasive games are effective tools to motivate behavior change, particularly to promote daily physical activities. On the one hand, studies have suggested that a one-size-fits-all approach does not work well for persuasive game design. On the other hand, player modeling and recommender systems are increasingly used for personalizing content. However, there are few existing studies on how to build comprehensive player models for personalizing gamified systems, recommending daily physical activities, or the long-term effectiveness of such gamified exercise-promoting systems. OBJECTIVE: This paper aims to introduce a gamified, 24/7 fitness assistant system that provides personalized recommendations and generates gamified content targeted at individual users to bridge the aforementioned gaps. This research aims to investigate how to design gamified physical activity interventions to achieve long-term engagement. METHODS: We proposed a comprehensive model for gamified fitness recommender systems that uses detailed and dynamic player modeling and wearable-based tracking to provide personalized game features and activity recommendations. Data were collected from 40 participants (23 men and 17 women) who participated in a long-term investigation on the effectiveness of our recommender system that gradually establishes and updates an individual player model (for each unique user) over a period of 60 days. RESULTS: =15.0; P<.001), suggesting that both gamification and personalization have positive effects on the levels of motivation, satisfaction, and preference. Furthermore, qualitative results revealed that a customized storyline was the most requested feature, followed by a multiplayer mode, more quality recommendations, a feature for setting and tracking fitness goals, and more location-based features. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of these results and drawing from the gamer modeling literature, we conclude that personalizing recommendations using player modeling and gamification can improve participants' engagement and motivation toward fitness activities over time.
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 | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".