Facilitating fitness for wheelchair users: exploring safety and usability of a standing active arm passive leg exercise device
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Exercising upright can promote rehabilitation and reduce the risk of cardiorespiratory and musculoskeletal complications from prolonged sitting. Seated Active Arm Passive Leg Exercise (AAPLE) offers cardiovascular benefits; however, no commercially available device currently enables fully supported, upright AAPLE. The AAPLEwalk device transitions wheelchair users from sitting to standing, facilitating gait-like movements at varying intensities. An iterative development process incorporating user feedback refined the design from version 1 (v1) to version 2 (v2), which had yet to be formally evaluated.Purpose (1) To assess the perceptions of non-disabled users and wheelchair users regarding the safety, usability, and functionality of AAPLEwalk™ v2. (2) To compare user experiences between v1 and v2 among a sub-sample who tested both.Materials and Methods Participants were fitted to the AAPLEwalk. Before wheelchair users, non-disabled users initially tested the device to ensure skin and pressure safety. We explored comfort, usability, and design modifications through informal discussions, formal semi-structured interviews, and measured System Usability Scale (SUS) scores. RESULTS: Fourteen non-disabled and six wheelchair users participated. Respectively, average SUS scores were 70 (non-disabled) and 72 (wheelchair), ranking in the 50th and 80th percentiles. Three themes emerged: (1) A good workout, (2) Feeling secure, (3) Maximizing independence. Users reported physical, mental, and emotional benefits, finding AAPLEwalk v2 safe, comfortable, and feasible for independent use with practice.Conclusion The AAPLEwalk appears to be a promising device for enabling upright APPLE for wheelchair users. Future research should assess the device’s physiological impact and long-term fitness benefits.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".