Effect of exergames by using Xbox 360 Kinect on cognition of older adults with mild cognitive impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To determine the effects of exergames by using Xbox 360 Kinect on cognition in older adults with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Methodology: This randomized control trial included 56 MCI older adults who were randomly divided into experimental group (n=28) and control group (n=28), using coin and toss method. The experimental group performed X-box 360 Kinect games while the control group received stretching and strength training exercises of upper and lower extremity. The intervention was of 30 min per day/5 days per week for six weeks. Mini-mental state examination, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, Trail making Test A and B, Verbal fluency (Semantic/ Phenomic) were used as outcome measures at baseline and after six weeks of intervention. Data were analyzed by SPSS 26. Results: Final analysis included 51 subjects, out of which 26 were in experimental group with mean age 62.85±5.56 yrs.,16 (61.5%) males and 10 (38.5%) females. In control, there were 25 subjects with mean age 63.24±5.12 yrs., 15 (60.0%) males and 10 (40.0%) females. Inter-group analysis showed significant improvement in outcomes measures after six weeks of intervention in experimental group (p<0.05). Conclusion: Exergames showed positive effects on cognitive domains in older adults with MCI.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".