MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4231028452 · doi:10.2196/preprints.18209

Impacts of Motion-Based Technology on Balance, Movement Confidence, and Cognitive Function Among People With Dementia or Mild Cognitive Impairment: Protocol for a Quasi-Experimental Pre- and Posttest Study (Preprint)

2020· preprint· en· W4231028452 on OpenAlexaffabout
Erica Dove, Rosalie H. Wang, Karl Zabjek, Arlene Astell

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaCognitionVerbal fluency testBalance (ability)PsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMontreal Cognitive AssessmentPopulationCognitive impairmentMedicineNeuropsychologyPsychiatryDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND While exercise can benefit the health and well-being of people with dementia or mild cognitive impairment, many exercise programs offered to this population are passive, unengaging, and inaccessible, resulting in poor adherence. Motion-based technologies are increasingly being explored to encourage exercise participation among people with dementia or mild cognitive impairment. However, the impacts of using motion-based technologies with people with dementia or mild cognitive impairment on variables including balance, movement confidence, and cognitive function have yet to be determined. OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study is to examine the impacts of a group motion-based technology intervention on balance, movement confidence, and cognitive function among people with dementia or mild cognitive impairment. METHODS In this quasi-experimental pre- and posttest design, we will recruit 24 people with dementia or mild cognitive impairment from 4 adult day programs and invite them to play Xbox Kinect bowling in a group setting, twice weekly for 10 weeks. We will require participants to speak and understand English, be without visual impairment, and be able to stand and walk. At pretest, participants will complete the Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test (Mini-BESTest) and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). We will video record participants during weeks 1, 5, and 10 of the intervention to capture behavioral indicators of movement confidence (eg, fluency of motion) through coding. At posttest, the Mini-BESTest and MoCA will be repeated. We will analyze quantitative data collected through the Mini-BESTest and the MoCA using an intent-to-treat analysis, with study site and number of intervention sessions attended as covariates. To analyze the videos, we will extract count and percentage data from the coded recordings. RESULTS This study will address the question of whether a group motion-based technology intervention, delivered in an adult day program context, has the potential to impact balance, movement confidence, and cognitive function among people with dementia or mild cognitive impairment. The project was funded in 2019 and enrollment was completed on February 28, 2020. Data analysis is underway and the first results are expected to be submitted for publication in 2021. CONCLUSIONS This study will assess the feasibility and potential benefits of using motion-based technology to deliver exercise interventions to people with dementia or mild cognitive impairment. This work can also be used as the basis for developing specific software and future exercise programs using motion-based technology for people with dementia or mild cognitive impairment, as well as understanding some of the conditions in which these programs can be delivered. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT DERR1-10.2196/18209

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: Non-randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.171

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0510.010

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery→French-language works237,207→