Exploring the Psychological Effects and Physical Exertion of Using Different Movement Interactions in Casual Exergames That Promote Active Microbreaks: Quasi-Experimental Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prolonged sedentary behavior, such as sitting or reclining, has consistently been identified as a stand-alone risk factor for heightened cardiometabolic risk and overall mortality. Conversely, interrupting sedentary periods by incorporating short, active microbreaks has been shown to mitigate the negative effects of sedentary behavior. Casual exergames, which mix elements of casual gaming with physical activity, are one prospective intervention to reduce sedentary behavior because they require physical exertion. Casual exergames have shown promise in fostering emotional and physical advantages when played in specific circumstances. However, little research exists on how different types of movement interactions impact the psychological effects as well as the physical exertion of playing casual exergames. OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of this work was to explore the psychological effects and physical exertion of playing casual exergames lasting 2 minutes. More precisely, the investigation focused on comparing upper body and full body movement interactions. In addition, the work examined variations in body positions, considering both standing and seated positions during upper body movement interactions. METHODS: Two casual exergames were developed and investigated through 2 quasi-experimental studies. In study 1, we investigated how players' perceptions of control, exertion, and immersion were affected by using upper body as opposed to full body exergame controllers when playing casual exergames. In study 2, we investigated differences in positive affect, performance, enjoyment, and exertion when playing casual exergames with upper body movement interactions in seated and standing positions. RESULTS: Study 1 showed that perceived control was significantly higher for upper body movement interactions than for full body movement interactions (P=.04), but there were no significant differences regarding perceived exertion (P=.15) or immersion (P=.66). Study 2 showed that positive affect increased significantly for both standing (P=.003) and seated (P=.001) gameplay. The participants in the standing gameplay group showed slightly higher actual exertion; however, there were no differences between the groups in terms of positive affect, perceived exertion, enjoyment, or performance. CONCLUSIONS: Casual exergames controlled by upper body movement interactions in seated gameplay can produce similar psychological effects and physical exertion as upper body movement interactions in standing gameplay and full body movement interactions. Therefore, upper body and seated casual exergames should not be overlooked as a suitable microbreak activity.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".