MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414836344 · doi:10.1145/3748596

Looking through the Lens: Contextualizing and Operationalizing Design Recommendations for Rehabilitation Games for Young People

2025· article· en· W4414836344 on OpenAlexaff
Maria Aufheimer, Kathrin Gerling, T.C. Nicholas Graham, André Rodrigues, Zeynep Yıldız

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEducational Games and Gamification
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOperationalizationGame designRehabilitationResearch designPhysical activityDesign elements and principlesSerious gameUser Research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Games for physical therapy can motivate patients, and HCI research has provided various recommendations for their design. However, such recommendations often remain at a high level: They are rarely reviewed with patients or appraised through application to game design and analysis. We address this gap by refining and operationalizing existing lessons for therapeutic games for young people. First, we report on semi-structured interviews with young people (aged 7–16) and parents, reviewing the lessons. Second, we operationalize them using an established collection of game design patterns to provide concrete guidance for game design and analysis. We critically appraise our approach through application to two games for physical therapy, Liberi and Wii Fit. Results show that high-level design implications can be made actionable using existing game design patterns, and we contribute a practical approach for the analysis and design of games for physical therapy.

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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.476
Threshold uncertainty score0.407

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer InteractionSame topicEducational Games and GamificationFrench-language works237,207