A Web and Nonimmersive VR Approach for Reminiscence Therapy: A Caregiver Perspective Comparison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reminiscence therapy (RT) is a multi-sensory treatment that uses a combination of sight, touch, taste, smell, and sound to help persons with dementia (PWD) remember events, people, and places from their past lives. Currently, RT relies on in-person sessions where albums, memorabilia, and media such as pictures and music are brought by the caregivers. However, such sessions have been negatively impacted by physical distancing and restricted access to institutionalized facilities with the goal of reducing exposure and potential outbreaks. Due to such restrictions, digital technologies such as mobile applications and immersive solutions including virtual and augmented reality, have started gaining momentum as supplementary tools for RT. This paper presents a caregiver perspective comparative study between a web RT application and its nonimmersive Virtual Reality counterpart to understand the limitations and opportunities both platforms present for facilitating engaging experiences for people with dementia towards recalling memories while easing the therapy process for the caregivers.
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".