Immersion Experiences in a Tablet-Based Markerless Augmented Reality Working Memory Game: Randomized Controlled Trial and User Experience Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In recent years, augmented reality (AR), especially markerless augmented reality (MAR), has been used more prevalently to create training games in an attempt to improve humans' cognitive functions. This has been driven by studies claiming that MAR provides users with more immersive experiences that are situated in the real world. Currently, no studies have scientifically investigated the immersion experience of users in a MAR cognitive training game. Moreover, there is an observed lack of instruments on measuring immersion in MAR cognitive training games. OBJECTIVE: This study, using two existing immersion questionnaires, investigates students' immersion experiences in a novel MAR n-back game. METHODS: The n-back task is a continuous performance task that taps working memory (WM) capacity. We compared two versions of n-back training. One was presented in a traditional 2D format, while the second version used MAR. There were 2 experiments conducted in this study that coordinated with 2 types of immersion questionnaires: the modified Immersive Experiences Questionnaire (IEQ) and the Augmented Reality Immersion (ARI) questionnaire. Two groups of students from two universities in China joined the study, with 60 participants for the first experiment (a randomized controlled experiment) and 51 participants for the second. RESULTS: Both groups of students experienced immersion in the MAR n-back game. However, the MAR n-back training group did not experience stronger immersion than the traditional (2D) n-back control group in the first experiment. The results of the second experiment showed that males felt deeply involved with the AR environment, which resulted in obtaining higher levels of immersion than females in the MAR n-back game. CONCLUSIONS: Both groups of students experienced immersion in the MAR n-back game. Moreover, both the modified IEQ and ARI have the potential to be used as instruments to measure immersion in MAR game settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: UMIN Clinical Trials Registry UMIN000045314; https://upload.umin.ac.jp/cgi-open-bin/ctr_e/ctr_view.cgi?recptno=R000051725.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".