MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404163889 · doi:10.2196/57297

Exploring Virtual Reality and Exercise Simulator Interventions in Patients With Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: Comprehensive Literature Review

2024· review· en· W4404163889 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gurdeep Sarai, Prem Prakash Jayaraman, Oren Tirosh, Nilmini Wickramasinghe

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Serious Games · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionPsychologyVirtual realityCognitionAttention deficit hyperactivity disorderApplied psychologyInclusion (mineral)Human–computer interactionComputer scienceClinical psychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: This review explores virtual reality (VR) and exercise simulator-based interventions for individuals with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Past research indicates that both VR and simulator-based interventions enhance cognitive functions, such as executive function and memory, though their impacts on attention vary. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to contribute to the ongoing scientific discourse on integrating technology-driven interventions into the management and evaluation of ADHD. It specifically seeks to consolidate findings on how VR and exercise simulators may support individuals with ADHD, acknowledging associated challenges and implications inherent in both technological approaches. METHODS: This research looks at existing literature to examine the potential efficacy of VR and exercise simulator-based interventions for individuals with ADHD. It evaluates the capacity of these interventions to address specific challenges along with an emphasis on the adjustments for accommodating unique user behaviors. Additionally, it underscores the limited exploration of user perceptions of exercise simulator-based interventions and the undervalued role of motor function in both ADHD assessment and symptom management. RESULTS: The findings of this scoping review reveal that, while these interventions enhance user motivation and enjoyment, certain challenges resist modification through technology. Furthermore, this study explores the intricate complexities involved in customizing these technologies to accommodate the diverse aspects of user behavior and highlights the potential limitations in the use of VR. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review contributes to the ongoing research on enhancing interventions to support individuals with ADHD. It advocates for participant-centric approaches that aim to optimize both cognitive and motor outcomes while prioritizing the enhancement of user experiences. This study emphasizes the need for a comprehensive approach to interventions, recognizing the relationship between cognitive and motor abilities, and calls for improving technological interventions to address the varied needs of individuals with ADHD.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.770
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.089
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations12
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Serious GamesSame topicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderFrench-language works237,207