Effect of an immersive virtual reality serious game to promote physical activity and cognition among older adults.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: To halt functional and cognitive decline that tends to augment with the age, there are increasing needs for new rehabilitation methods such as virtual reality (VR). Methods: A dozen of older adults (age>65 years) were recruited and asked to wear a fitness tracker watch for three consecutive weeks. During the first and third week, participants were instructed not to use immersive VR devices. During the second week, they were required to autonomously interact with a self-adaptive immersive VR serious game, for at least 15 minutes per day. ANOVA repeated measures tests were undertaken to compare participants’ number of steps, distance covered and number of consumed calories between week one, two and three. Older adults’ cognition and reaction time was also evaluated using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment and a smartphone application. Results: Older adults did not significantly improved their number of steps, distance covered and number of consumed calories between week one, two and three (p>0.05). Cognition was improved between baseline and week 2 (p=0.026), and between baseline and week 3 (p=0.046) whereas no between weeks difference was found for reaction time (p=0.814). Conclusion: One week of interaction with a self-adaptive serious game in immersive VR seems to enhance cognition with a retention at one-week post-intervention but does not lead to an improved activity nor reaction time among older adults.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".