Feasibility, usability, and effects of the leisure-based cognitive training using a fully immersive virtual reality system in older adults: Pilot single-arm pre-post study (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND Cognitive training has been shown to improve cognitive function in older adults, with the inclusion of leisure activities such as gardening potentially enhancing both its effectiveness and enjoyment. Although fully immersive virtual reality (VR) training has demonstrated positive outcomes, research integrating leisure activities with VR for older adults remains sparse. We developed a VR system incorporating gardening to enhance cognitive function in community-dwelling older adults. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to assess the feasibility, usability, and preliminary effectiveness of leisure-based VR cognitive training for community-dwelling older adults. METHODS The fully immersive VR system used a head-mounted display for leisure-based cognitive training, featuring simulated gardening tasks (planting, fertilizing, harvesting) to enhance cognitive function. Participants trained twice weekly for 1 hour over 8 weeks. Feasibility and usability were assessed by older adults and professionals. Outcome measures were the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST), Word List subtests and Spatial Span subtests of the Wechsler Memory Scale (WMS-WL and WMS-SS), and the Stroop Color and Word Test (SCWT), with assessments conducted before and after training. RESULTS The study recruited 41 elderly participants, all of whom completed the 16 VR training sessions with 100% attendance. Acceptance of the VR experience (PU, PE, UE, ITU) was above average, with a usability score of 68, rated "average." After training, significant improvements were seen in MoCA (p= 0.004), DSST (p= 0.049), WMS-WL (p< 0.001), and SCWT (p= 0.002), but no significant change was found for WMS-SS (p= 0.29). CONCLUSIONS Our findings show that the leisure-based VR cognitive training system is feasible, usable, and effective in enhancing cognitive function in community-dwelling older adults. Future studies should include control groups to confirm these results. CLINICALTRIAL ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT05227495. (01/04/2021)
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".