Perception of Game-Based Rehabilitation in Upper Limb Prosthetic Training: Survey of Users and Researchers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Serious games have been investigated for their use in multiple forms of rehabilitation for decades. The rising trend to use games for physical fitness in more recent years has also provided more options and garnered more interest for their use in physical rehabilitation and motor learning. In this study, we report the results of an opinion survey of serious games in upper limb prosthetic training. Objective This study investigates and contrasts the expectations and preferences for game-based prosthetic rehabilitation of people with limb difference and researchers. Methods Both participant groups answered open and closed questions as well as a questionnaire to assess their user types. The distribution of the user types was compared with a Pearson chi-square test against a sample population. The data were analyzed using the thematic framework method; answers fell within the themes of usability, training, and game design. Researchers shared their views on current challenges and what could be done to tackle these. Results A total of 14 people with limb difference and 12 researchers participated in this survey. The open questions resulted in an overview of the different views on prosthetic training games between the groups. The user types of people with limb difference and researchers were both significantly different from the sample population, with χ25=12.3 and χ25=26.5, respectively. Conclusions We found that the respondents not only showed a general willingness and tentative optimism toward the topic but also acknowledged hurdles limiting the adoption of these games by both clinics and users. The results indicate a noteworthy difference between researchers and people with limb difference in their game preferences, which could lead to design choices that do not represent the target audience. Furthermore, focus on long-term in-home experiments is expected to shed more light on the validity of games in upper limb prosthetic rehabilitation.
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 | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".