MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405224283 · doi:10.2196/51771

Real-Time Digitized Visual Feedback in Exercise Therapy for Lower Extremity Functional Deficits: Qualitative Study of Usability Factors During Prototype Testing

2024· article· en· W4405224283 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Klaus Widhalm, Lukas Maul, Sebastian Durstberger, Peter Pütz, Carissa Klupper, Franz Werner

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Serious Games · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUsabilityVisual feedbackPhysical medicine and rehabilitationComputer scienceHuman–computer interactionPsychologyPhysical therapyMedicineArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis is one of the most common degenerative diseases of the musculoskeletal system and can ultimately lead to the need for surgery, such as total knee or hip arthroplasty. Functional movement deficits can be a prognostic factor for osteoarthritis in the lower extremities. Thus, training physiological movement patterns may help in the treatment of such functional deficits. Motivation to exercise frequently is of utmost importance and can be promoted by using digital real-time feedback. OBJECTIVE: This qualitative study aims to gather user recommendations for prototype feedback visualizations in a real-time exercise-feedback system called homeSETT for the treatment of functional deficits. The system provides real-time feedback to participants while performing exercises that focus on functional deficits, such as lateral trunk lean, pelvic drop, and valgus thrust. The findings of this study should help to optimize the prototype feedback visualizations. Thus, the main research questions were how patients, physiotherapists, and physicians evaluate the presented, current state of prototype feedback visualizations for selected functional exercises, and what improvements and variations would be recommended. METHODS: Testing of the prototype feedback visualizations took place at a movement laboratory using a 3D optoelectronic movement analysis system. Data on usability factors were acquired using the thinking aloud method during and semistructured interviews after prototype testing. Transcribed audio recordings of semistructured interviews as well as scribing logs of the thinking aloud method were examined using qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Data were analyzed from 9 participants, comprising 2 (22%) patients, 2 (22%) physicians, and 5 (56%) physiotherapists. The mean age of the participants was 45 (SD 9) years and the mean work experience among the participating physiotherapists and physicians was 22 (SD 5) years. Each participant tested 11 different exercise-feedback combinations. Overall, results indicated that participants enjoyed the prototype feedback visualizations and believed that they could be used in therapeutic settings. Participants appreciated the simplicity, clarity, and self-explanatory nature of the feedback visualizations. While most participants quickly familiarized themselves, some struggled to recognize the feedback goals and connect the visualizations to their movements. Recommendations for improvement included optimizing color schemes, sensitivity, and difficulty adjustments. Adding instructional information and game design elements, such as repetition counting and reward systems, was deemed useful. The main study limitations were the small sample size and the use of feedback on performance as the sole feedback modality. CONCLUSIONS: The prototype feedback visualizations were positively perceived by the participants and were considered applicable in therapy settings. Insights were gathered on improving the color scheme, sensitivity, and recognizability of the feedback visualizations. The implementation of additional gamification and instructional elements was emphasized. Future work will optimize the prototype feedback visualizations based on study results and evaluate the homeSETT system's efficacy in eligible patient populations.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.351
Threshold uncertainty score0.693

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.321 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Serious GamesSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207