MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385673318 · doi:10.2196/42117

Using Augmented Reality Toward Improving Social Skills: Scoping Review

2023· article· en· W4385673318 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gloria Mittmann, Vanessa Zehetner, Stefanie Hoehl, Beate Schrank, Adam Barnard, Kate Woodcock

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Serious Games · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicAutism Spectrum Disorder Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAugmented realityPsychologyComputer scienceHuman–computer interaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Augmented reality (AR) has emerged as a promising technology in educational settings owing to its engaging nature. However, apart from applications aimed at the autism spectrum disorder population, the potential of AR in social-emotional learning has received less attention. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aims to map the range of AR applications that improve social skills and map the characteristics of such applications. METHODS: In total, 2 independent researchers screened 2748 records derived from 3 databases in December 2021-PubMed, IEEE Xplore, and ACM Guide to Computing Literature. In addition, the reference lists of all the included records and existing reviews were screened. Records that had developed a prototype with the main outcome of improving social skills were included in the scoping review. Included records were narratively described for their content regarding AR and social skills, their target populations, and their outcomes. Evaluation studies were assessed for methodological quality. RESULTS: A total of 17 records met the inclusion criteria for this study. Overall, 10 records describe applications for children with autism, primarily teaching about reading emotions in facial expressions; 7 records describe applications for a general population, targeting both children and adults, with a diverse range of outcome goals. The methodological quality of evaluation studies was found to be weak. CONCLUSIONS: Most applications are designed to be used alone, although AR is well suited to facilitating real-world interactions during a digital experience, including interactions with other people. Therefore, future AR applications could endorse social skills in a general population in more complex group settings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.077
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.081

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.077
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.005
Bibliometrics0.0190.016
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations20
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Serious GamesSame topicAutism Spectrum Disorder ResearchFrench-language works237,207