Feasibility and Acceptability of Collaborative Augmented Reality for Older Adults and Companions: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Loneliness and social isolation are common among older adults and are associated with dire consequences. Studies using interactive communication technology (ICT) interventions with older adults have yielded mixed results. Advancements in collaborative head-mounted display augmented reality (HMD-AR) can provide older adults who are geographically distant from their families with a more diverse range of interactive activities, thus offering greater potential to enhance social connection. OBJECTIVE: We examined the feasibility and acceptability of cocreated collaborative HMD-AR activities and 2D ICT (eg, Zoom) activities among older adults and their family members and close friends. METHODS: In total, 8 pairs of older adults and their designated companion (family or friend) from the greater Nashville area were randomized to the HMD-AR or 2D ICT groups. Eligibility criteria for older adults included being 60 years or older, being able to tolerate HMD-AR, being cognitively and physically able to participate, and having a companion willing to participate. For long-term care settings, participants must have been a resident for at least 3 months. All participants lived within a 1-hour driving distance from the investigators' university. Each older adult-companion pair participated in eight 30-minute sessions over 4 weeks. Participants randomized to the HMD-AR group had photorealistic avatars created; they participated in collaborative activities (ie, fireplace decoration, checkers) that were cocreated in an earlier study. Those randomized to the 2D ICT group had the opportunity to play virtual checkers or house décor games. Engineers remained on-site for all participants to assist as needed. The primary outcome was the feasibility of the study processes (ie, recruitment, retention, and data collection) and the technology (ie, viability, usability, comfort, ease of use, and acceptability). The study used face-to-face questionnaires and observations to collect data. RESULTS: Funding was received from the National Institute on Aging in August 2022 and from the National Science Foundation in October 2022. This study was approved by the local institutional review board. Following the initial design and testing of the HMD-AR activities, recruitment and data collection for the feasibility and acceptability study began in April 2024 and were completed in May 2025. Of the 8 enrolled older-companion pairs, 8 (100%) completed all sessions. The final data acquisition has been completed, and data cleaning is currently ongoing. Results are intended to be published in 2026. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this study is the first collaborative augmented reality study using photorealistic avatars between older adults and their family members or friends. Our study will determine whether the use of HMD-AR is feasible, and the results of this pilot study will inform a full-scale randomized controlled trial evaluating the efficacy of the intervention to reduce loneliness among older adults. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06179225; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06179225. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/83864.
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 | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".