The Usability of a Touchpad Active Video Game Controller for Individuals With Impaired Mobility: Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Video games are a popular sedentary activity among people with impaired mobility; however, active video game hardware typically lacks accessibility and customization options for individuals with mobility impairments. A touchpad video game system can elicit moderate physical activity in healthy adults; however, it is unclear if this system is usable by adults with impaired mobility. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the usability of a touchpad video game controller system adapted for adults with impaired mobility. Additional outcomes explored were enjoyment, perceived exertion, self-efficacy, participant feedback, and researcher observations of gameplay. METHODS: Participants played several video game titles for 20 minutes with a touchpad video game controller as they stood or sat in a chair or their wheelchair. Usability was assessed with the System Usability Scale (SUS) and the Health Information Technology Usability Evaluation Scale (Health-ITUES) surveys after gameplay. After each video game, participants reported enjoyment using a visual analog scale (0 to 100 mm) and a rating of perceived exertion using the OMNI 0 to 10 scale. Self-efficacy was measured before and after gameplay. Participants provided feedback at the end of their session. RESULTS: In total, 21 adults (6 females and 15 males) with a mean age of 48.8 (SD 13.8) years with various mobility impairments participated in this study. The touchpads received mean usability scores on the SUS 80.1 (SD 18.5) and Health-ITUES 4.23 (SD 0.67). CONCLUSIONS: The SUS scores reported suggest the touchpad system is "usable"; however, the Health-ITUES scores were slightly below a suggested benchmark. Participants reported moderate to high enjoyment but perceived the exertion as "somewhat easy." Self-efficacy was moderate to high and did not differ pre- to postgame play. The participants regarded the touchpads as novel, fun, and entertaining. The generalizability of our results is limited due to the heterogenous sample; however, our participants identified several areas of improvement for future iteration.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".