MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3209083966 · doi:10.2196/26629

An Immersive and Interactive Platform for Cognitive Assessment and Rehabilitation (bWell): Design and Iterative Development Process

2021· article· en· W3209083966 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Vincent Gagnon Shaigetz, Catherine Proulx, Anne Cabral, Nusrat Choudhury, Mark Hewko, Elicia Kohlenberg, Melanie Segado, Michael S. Smith, Patricia Debergue

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVirtual Reality Applications and Impacts
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceProcess (computing)Iterative designHuman–computer interactionCognitionAffordanceAgile software developmentUsabilityDomain (mathematical analysis)Process managementSoftware engineeringEngineeringMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Immersive technologies like virtual reality can enable clinical care that meaningfully aligns with real-world deficits in cognitive functioning. However, options in immersive 3D environments are limited, partly because of the unique challenges presented by the development of a clinical care platform. These challenges include selecting clinically relevant features, enabling tasks that capture the full breadth of deficits, ensuring longevity in a rapidly changing technology landscape, and performing the extensive technical and clinical validation required for digital interventions. Complicating development, is the need to integrate recommendations from domain experts at all stages. OBJECTIVE: The Cognitive Health Technologies team at the National Research Council Canada aims to overcome these challenges with an iterative process for the development of bWell, a cognitive care platform providing multisensory cognitive tasks for adoption by treatment providers. METHODS: The team harnessed the affordances of immersive technologies while taking an interdisciplinary research and developmental approach, obtaining active input from domain experts with iterative deliveries of the platform. The process made use of technology readiness levels, agile software development, and human-centered design to advance four main activities: identification of basic requirements and key differentiators, prototype design and foundational research to implement components, testing and validation in lab settings, and recruitment of external clinical partners. RESULTS: bWell was implemented according to the findings from the design process. The main features of bWell include multimodal (fully, semi, or nonimmersive) and multiplatform (extended reality, mobile, and PC) implementation, configurable exercises that pair standardized assessment with adaptive and gamified variants for therapy, a therapist-facing user interface for task administration and dosing, and automated activity data logging. bWell has been designed to serve as a broadly applicable toolkit, targeting general aspects of cognition that are commonly impacted across many disorders, rather than focusing on 1 disorder or a specific cognitive domain. It comprises 8 exercises targeting different domains: states of attention (Egg), visual working memory (Theater), relaxation (Tent), inhibition and cognitive control (Mole), multitasking (Lab), self-regulation (Butterfly), sustained attention (Stroll), and visual search (Cloud). The prototype was tested and validated with healthy adults in a laboratory environment. In addition, a cognitive care network (5 sites across Canada and 1 in Japan) was established, enabling access to domain expertise and providing iterative input throughout the development process. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing an interdisciplinary and iterative approach considering technology maturity brought important considerations for the development of bWell. Altogether, this harnesses the affordances of immersive technology and design for a broad range of applications, and for use in both cognitive assessment and rehabilitation. The technology has attained a maturity level of prototype implementation with preliminary validation carried out in laboratory settings, with next steps to perform the validation required for its eventual adoption as a clinical tool.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.864
Threshold uncertainty score0.689

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.333 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations37
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive TechnologiesSame topicVirtual Reality Applications and ImpactsFrench-language works237,207