MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401215981 · doi:10.1080/10447318.2024.2384136

AR Dancee: An Augmented Reality-Based Mobile Persuasive Intervention for Promoting Physical Activity Through Dancing

2024· article· en· W4401215981 on OpenAlexaff
Ifeanyi Odenigbo, Alaa Alslaity, Gerry Chan, Rita Orji

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMoodIntervention (counseling)Augmented realityAffect (linguistics)PsychologyPhysical activityAnxietyPersuasive technologyApplied psychologyWork (physics)Clinical psychologySocial psychologyComputer scienceHuman–computer interactionEngineeringPhysical therapyMedicinePersuasion

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The importance of physical activity (PA) for overall health and well-being cannot be overstated, especially in today’s fast-paced and sedentary society. Engaging in enjoyable activities like dancing can significantly enhance PA levels and positively affect one’s mood. Advances in technology have the potential to increase individuals’ engagement in more physical activities. This work explores the effectiveness of augmented reality-driven persuasive intervention in enhancing users’ physical activity and mood. To achieve our goal, we developed AR Dancee, a mobile-driven intervention combining Augmented Reality, Machine Learning, and persuasive technology to encourage adults to increase their PA through dancing, ultimately improving their mood. A 15-day user study with 104 participants showed that the intervention effectively increased PA levels, with equal effectiveness across genders and a stronger impact on younger adults. The results also show that the intervention improved participants’ mood while reducing anxiety levels, demonstrating its potential for stress management. Overall, the contribution of this work to the HCI fields is threefold: (1) the design and development of an AR-driven persuasive mobile app, (2) providing design recommendations, and (3) pinpointing limitations and providing suggestions for future work.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.384 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Human-Computer InteractionSame topicPhysical Activity and HealthFrench-language works237,207