| Title |
On the Effect of Previous Technological Experience on the Usability of a Virtual Rehabilitation Tool for the Physical Activation and Cognitive Stimulation of Elders
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Medical Systems, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10916-015-0297-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Alberto L. Morán, Cristina Ramírez-Fernández, Victoria Meza-Kubo, Felipe Orihuela-Espina, Eloísa García-Canseco, Ana I. Grimaldo, Enrique Sucar |
| Abstract |
We present and discuss our findings on the identified causes for the differences of the results of two usability studies on the borrowed use of Gesture Therapy, a virtual rehabilitation tool for the cognitive stimulation and physical activation of elders. The studies focused on usability aspects including perceived usefulness, ease of use, intention of use and user experience. In the first study, we used self-report techniques to gather data, and found that previous technological experience had a significant effect on the perceived anxiety of elders; while on the second study, we used indirect observation techniques to gather data, and found that previous technological experience had a significant effect on the perceived enjoyment of elders. After a further analysis of the video recordings of the playing sessions, we identified that elders developed two different approaches to their using the application (explore-and-learn and score-and-compete), which could be related to their previous technological experience, and explain the identified differences. We observed that in the presence of problems, the response of participants was different depending on the adopted behavior. Based on this evidence, we distilled a set of preliminary guidelines to foster or inhibit certain behaviors and outcomes related to the effect of previous experience that were observed during our evaluation studies of virtual tools for the cognitive stimulation and physical activation of the elderly. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 170 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 167 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 22 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 20 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 19 | 11% |
| Researcher | 17 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 9% |
| Other | 33 | 19% |
| Unknown | 44 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 25 | 15% |
| Computer Science | 20 | 12% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 17 | 10% |
| Psychology | 17 | 10% |
| Sports and Recreations | 11 | 6% |
| Other | 31 | 18% |
| Unknown | 49 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 August 2015.
All research outputs
#20,286,650
of 22,821,814 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Systems
#999
of 1,149 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#221,541
of 264,494 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Systems
#21
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,821,814 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,149 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,494 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.