A Technology-Aided Program to Help People With Intellectual and Multiple Disabilities Access Leisure Stimuli and Engage in Cognitive and Physical Activity: Development and Usability Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: People with moderate to severe intellectual disability can have difficulties accessing leisure stimuli and engaging in basic cognitive and physical activity independently. These difficulties may be even more marked in individuals with a combination of intellectual disability and sensory or sensory-motor impairments. OBJECTIVE: This study assessed a new program relying on touch screen technology, which was set up to support access to leisure stimuli and the performance of a simple form of cognitive activity and basic physical exercise for adults with intellectual or intellectual and hearing disabilities, lack of functional speech, and poor motor dexterity. METHODS: The program alternated access to preferred stimuli (ie, songs, comic sketches, or cartoons) with cognitive activity (ie, matching-to-sample tasks) and physical exercise (ie, body movements). The touch screen technology was modified to ensure that people with poor motor dexterity would be effective in their responding regardless of the accuracy of their responses. The program was implemented with 7 participants. Its impact was assessed through the use of single-case research methodology. RESULTS: During the baseline (when standard technology was used), the mean percentage of songs, comic sketches, or cartoons accessed; match-to-sample responses provided; and body movements performed correctly and independent of research assistants' help was 0% for all participants with a single exception. During the intervention (when the new program with modified touch screen technology was used), the participants' mean percentage of songs, comic sketches, or cartoons accessed correctly and independent of research assistants' help per session was virtually 100%. Their mean percentage for correct match-to-sample responses provided and correct body movements performed independent of research assistants' help was within the 90% to 100% range. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that the program may constitute a useful tool for helping people with intellectual and multiple disabilities access leisure stimuli and engage in cognitive and physical activity.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".