MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416136539 · doi:10.3389/frvir.2025.1655981

Feasibility and acceptability of an immersive puzzle-based virtual reality activity for community-dwelling older adults

2025· article· en· W4416136539 on OpenAlex
Yongseop Kim, Junhyoung Kim, J.-H. Kim, Chungsup Lee, Marcia G. Ory

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Virtual Reality · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVirtual Reality Applications and Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUsabilityVirtual realityPsychological interventionCognitionDementiaScale (ratio)Intervention (counseling)Cognitive Intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background With the global rise in dementia prevalence, there is a growing interest in accessible, engaging, and preventive interventions for cognitive decline in older adults. Immersive virtual reality (VR) technologies have shown promise for delivering cognitively stimulating activities, yet limited research has examined the feasibility and acceptability of puzzle-based VR interventions among older adults. Objective This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility, usability, and acceptability of an immersive puzzle-based virtual reality (IPVR) intervention using VR Cubism among older adults, including those with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Methods A single-arm feasibility study was conducted with 14 community-dwelling older adults (mean age = 72.3 years, SD = 5.3; 85.7% female) recruited from senior centers in Texas. Participants completed eight sessions of the IPVR program over 4 weeks. Cognitive screening was conducted using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), with a cutoff score of ≤18 used for exclusion. Usability, acceptability, and technology acceptance were evaluated using the System Usability Scale (SUS), Technology Acceptance and Attitudes Scale (TAAS), and Senior Technology Acceptance Model (STAM), respectively. Results Participants had MoCA scores ranging from 22 to 28 (M = 25.5, SD = 1.9); 50% scored in the normal cognitive range and 50% in the MCI range. The mean SUS score was 71.61 (SD = 15.8), indicating good usability. TAAS scores averaged 5.54/7, reflecting strong acceptability. The mean STAM score was 3.91/5, suggesting moderate to high technology acceptance, although some hesitancy and anxiety were reported. Participants expressed strong interest in using VR for future leisure activities and reported high enjoyment levels during the intervention. Conclusion Findings demonstrate that an immersive puzzle-based VR activity is feasible, usable, and acceptable for community-dwelling older adults, including those with MCI. This study supports the integration of engaging, technology-based interventions to promote cognitive health in aging populations. Practically, VR puzzle programs could be implemented in community centers, senior services, and clinical rehabilitation settings as accessible, enjoyable tools to encourage cognitive stimulation. These results highlight the potential of VR not only as a preventive wellness activity but also as a scalable adjunct to traditional cognitive health programs, warranting further evaluation in larger controlled trials.

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.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.876
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.287 · 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