MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285331942 · doi:10.2196/34983

A Mixed Reality Cognitive Orthosis to Support Older Adults in Achieving Their Daily Living Activities: Focus Group Study With Clinical Experts

2022· article· en· W4285331942 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Amel Yaddaden, Guillaume Spalla, Charles Gouin-Vallerand, Patricia Briskie-Semeniuk, Nathalie Bier

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAugmented Reality Applications
Canadian institutionsCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-MontréalUniversité de SherbrookeUniversité de MontréalInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFocus groupMixed realityActivities of daily livingPsychologyVirtual realityCognitionPopulationQualitative researchIndependent livingIndependence (probability theory)Psychological interventionAugmented realityGerontologyApplied psychologyMedicineComputer scienceHuman–computer interactionSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Mixed reality is an emerging technology that allows us to blend virtual objects into the actual user's environment. This can be realized using head-mounted displays. Many recent studies have suggested the possibility of using this technology to support cognition in people with neurodegenerative disorders (NDs). However, most studies have explored improvements in cognition rather than in independence and safety during the accomplishment of daily living activities. Therefore, it is crucial to document the possibility of using mixed reality to support the independence of older adults in their daily lives. OBJECTIVE: This study is part of a larger user-centered study of a cognitive orthosis using pure mixed reality to support the independence of people living with NDs. This study aimed to explore (the difficulties encountered by older adults with NDs in their daily life to ensure that pure mixed reality meets their needs, (the most effective interventions with this population to determine what types of assistance should be provided by pure mixed reality technology, how the pure mixed reality technology should provide assistance to promote aging in place, and the main facilitators of and barriers to the use of this technology. METHODS: We conducted a descriptive, qualitative study. A total of 5 focus groups were completed with occupational therapists who had expertise in the disease and its functional impacts (N=29) to gather information. Each focus group met once for a 1-hour period. All sessions were held over a 3-month period. A semistructured interview guide was used. All group interviews were audiotaped with the consent of each participant to facilitate the data analysis. We conducted inductive qualitative analysis in four stages using a thematic analysis approach: full transcription of the audio recordings, first-order coding of the transcribed data, second-order coding from the first-order code list, and data reduction and matrix development. RESULTS: The results suggested that the main difficulties encountered by this population were in remembering to complete tasks, initiating the tasks, and planning the tasks. Several interventions are used to improve the independence of this population, such as prevention, simplification or facilitation, adaptation, and compensation. The use of pure mixed reality in older adults with NDs to promote independence and safety at home is promising and may respond to several clinical functions identified by the participants. Finally, pure mixed reality has good potential for use in this population and involves certain facilitators and obstacles, such as resources, technical aspects, and social considerations. CONCLUSIONS: The cognitive orthosis that will be developed in light of this study will act as a proof of concept for the possibility of supporting people with NDs using pure mixed reality.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations11
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive TechnologiesSame topicAugmented Reality ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207