Developing Serious Video Games to Treat Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: Tutorial Guide
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Video game-based therapeutic interventions have demonstrated some effectiveness in decreasing the symptoms of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Compared with more traditional strategies within the multimodal treatment of ADHD, video games have certain advantages such as being comfortable, flexible, and cost-efficient. However, establishing the most appropriate type(s) of video games that should be used for this treatment remains a matter of debate, including the commercial existing video games or serious video games that are specifically constructed to target specific disorders. This guide represents a starting point for developing serious video games aimed at treating ADHD. We summarize the key points that need to be addressed to generate an effective and motivating game-based treatment. Following recommendations from the literature to create game-based treatments, we describe the development stages of a serious video game for treating ADHD. Game design should consider the interests of future users; game mechanics should be based on cognitive exercises; and therapeutic mechanisms must include the control of difficulty, engagement, motivation, time constraints, and reinforcement. To elaborate upon this guide, we performed a narrative review focused on the use of video games for the treatment of ADHD, and were inspired by our own experience during the development of the game "The Secret Trail of Moon."
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 it