MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411683549 · doi:10.2196/70372

Personalized Interactive Music Systems for Physical Activity and Exercise: Exploratory Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2025· article· en· W4411683549 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Andrew Danso, Tiia Kekäläinen, Friederike Koehler, Keegan Knittle, Patti Nijhuis, Iballa Burunat, Pedro Neto, Anastasios Mavrolampados, William L. Randall, Niels Chr. Hansen, Alessandro Ansani, Timo Rantalainen, Vinoo Alluri, Martín Hartmann, Rebecca Schaefer, Johanna K. Ihalainen, Rebekah Rousi, Kat Agres, Jennifer MacRitchie, Petri Toiviainen, Suvi Saarikallio, Sébastien Chastin, Geoff Luck

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Human Factors · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInnovative Human-Technology Interaction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreprintMeta-analysisPhysical activityComputer sciencePeer reviewApplied psychologyPsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineWorld Wide WebPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Personalized Interactive Music Systems (PIMSs) are emerging as promising devices for enhancing physical activity and exercise outcomes. By leveraging real-time data and adaptive technologies, PIMSs align musical features, such as tempo and genre, with users' physical activity patterns, including frequency and intensity, enhancing their overall experience. Objective: This exploratory systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the effectiveness of PIMSs across physical, psychophysical, and affective domains. Methods: Searches across 9 databases identified 18 eligible studies, of which 6 (comprising 17 intervention arms) contained sufficient data for meta-analysis. Random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regression were performed to assess outcomes for physical activity levels, physical exertion, ratings of perceived exertion, and affective valence. Results: Results showed significant improvements in physical activity levels (g=0.49, CI 0.07 to 0.91, P=.02, k=4) and affective valence (g=1.65, CI 0.35 to 2.96, P=.01, k=4), with faster music tempo identified as a significant moderator (P=.03). No significant effects were observed for ratings of perceived exertion (g=0.72, CI -0.13 to 1.58, P=.10, k=3) or physical exertion (g=0.78, CI -0.55 to 2.11, P=.25, k=5). Conclusions: Substantial heterogeneity and limited study quality indicate the need for more robust, randomized controlled trials to establish the efficacy of PIMSs in diverse 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.686
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Human FactorsSame topicInnovative Human-Technology InteractionFrench-language works237,207