Employing Immersive Technologies To Develop Fitness-Related Outcomes In Children And Youth: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Technologies that immerse users in virtual and augmented realities are becoming more common in physical activity and sport settings. Immersive technologies may be an effective tool for developing fitness-related outcomes in children and youth. Purpose: To compile peer-reviewed empirical articles and report on the effectiveness of immersive technologies in developing fitness-related outcomes in children and youth. Methods: Education resources information centre (ERIC), SPORTDiscus, and Child Development & Adolescent Studies databases were searched using keywords for immersive technologies (i.e., augmented reality, virtual reality) and the outcomes of interest (i.e., skill- and health-related components of fitness, physical activity, exercise). Pertinent information from the relevant articles (e.g., study design, findings) was charted and emerging themes were summarized. Results: The database search yielded 19 relevant articles. 15 reported positive effects of immersive technologies on fitness-related outcomes and four articles reported no effect. Charting of these articles revealed considerable variability in the technologies considered to be immersive. Many of the articles used low- or non-immersive technologies such as Xbox Kinect and Nintendo Wii as interventions. Charting also revealed frequent use of immersive technologies in developing skill-related components of fitness in children and youth with motor and cognitive impairments. Articles that studied non-impaired children and youth most often evaluated the effectiveness of immersive technologies in improving daily physical activity behaviours. Charting further revealed a paucity of, and considerable need for research on whether immersive technologies are effective in developing skill-related components of fitness in non-impaired children. Conclusions: Immersive technologies can be effective in developing fitness-related outcomes in children and youth; however, more research is required to evaluate the effectiveness of high and full immersion technologies in developing skill-related components of fitness in non-impaired children and youth.
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 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".