MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313987249 · doi:10.2196/38484

Usability of the GAIMplank Video Game Controller for People With Mobility Impairments: Observational Study

2023· article· en· W4313987249 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Laurie A. Malone, Christen J. Mendonca, Sangeetha Mohanraj, Samuel R Misko, Joseph O. Moore, James Michael Brascome, Mohanraj Thirumalai

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Serious Games · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTechnology Use by Older Adults
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAdministration for Community LivingUniversity of Alabama at BirminghamNational Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation ResearchUniversity of AlabamaU.S. Department of Health and Human Services
KeywordsUsabilityVideo gameJoystickSession (web analytics)MultimediaApplied psychologyPsychologyComputer scienceObservational studyHuman–computer interactionSimulationMedicineWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Replacing sedentary behaviors during leisure time with active video gaming has been shown to be an enjoyable option for increasing physical activity. However, most off-the-shelf active video gaming controllers are not accessible or usable for individuals with mobility impairments. To address this requirement, a universal video game controller (called the GAIMplank) was designed and developed. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the usability of the GAIMplank video game controller for playing PC video games among individuals with mobility impairments. Measures of enjoyment, perceived exertion, and qualitative data on the user experience were also examined. METHODS: Adults (aged 18-75 years) with a mobility impairment were recruited to participate in a single testing session in the laboratory. Before testing began, basic demographic information, along with minutes of weekday and weekend physical activity, minutes of weekday and weekend video game play, and video game play experience were collected. The GAIMplank was mapped to operate as a typical joystick controller. Depending on their comfort and functional ability, participants chose to play seated in a chair, standing, or in their own manual wheelchair. Leaning movements of the trunk created corresponding action in the game (ie, lean right to move right). The participants played a total of 5 preselected video games for approximately 5 minutes each. Data were collected to assess the usability of the GAIMplank, along with self-efficacy regarding execution of game play actions, rating of perceived exertion and enjoyment for each game, and overall qualitative feedback. RESULTS: A total of 21 adults (n=15, 71% men; n=6, 29% women) completed the usability testing, with a mean age of 48.8 (SD 13.8; range 21-73) years. Overall, 38% (8/21) of adults played while standing, 33% (7/21) of adults played while seated in a chair, and 29% (6/21) played in their own manual wheelchair. Scores from the System Usability Scale indicated above average (74.8, SD 14.5) usability, with scores best for those who played seated in a chair, followed by those standing, and then individuals who played seated in their own wheelchairs. Inconsistencies in the responsiveness of the controller and general feedback for minor improvements were documented. Rating of perceived exertion scores ranged from light to moderate intensity, with the highest scores for those who played seated in a chair. Participants rated their experience with playing each game from above average to very enjoyable. CONCLUSIONS: The GAIMplank video game controller was found to be usable and accessible, providing an enjoyable option for light-to-moderate intensity exercise among adults with mobility impairments. Minor issues with inconsistencies in controller responsiveness were also recorded. Following further development and refinement, the next phase will include a pilot exercise intervention using the GAIMplank system.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.337
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Serious GamesSame topicTechnology Use by Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207