| Title |
Effects of Performance Versus Game-Based Mobile Applications on Response to Exercise
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Annals of Behavioral Medicine, September 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12160-015-9730-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Arielle S. Gillman, Angela D. Bryan |
| Abstract |
Given the popularity of mobile applications (apps) designed to increase exercise participation, it is important to understand their effects on psychological predictors of exercise behavior. This study tested a performance feedback-based app compared to a game-based app to examine their effects on aspects of immediate response to an exercise bout. Twenty-eight participants completed a 30-min treadmill run while using one of two randomly assigned mobile running apps: Nike + Running, a performance-monitoring app which theoretically induces an associative, goal-driven state, or Zombies Run!, an app which turns the experience of running into a virtual reality game, theoretically inducing dissociation from primary exercise goals. The two conditions did not differ on primary motivational state outcomes; however, participants reported more associative attentional focus in the performance-monitoring app condition compared to more dissociative focus in the game-based app condition. Game-based and performance-tracking running apps may not have differential effects on goal motivation during exercise. However, game-based apps may help recreational exercisers dissociate from exercise more readily. Increasing the enjoyment of an exercise bout through the development of new and innovative mobile technologies is an important avenue for future research. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 19% |
| Finland | 3 | 19% |
| Australia | 1 | 6% |
| Canada | 1 | 6% |
| Brazil | 1 | 6% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 6 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 50% |
| Scientists | 6 | 38% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 6% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 153 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 152 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 26 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 24 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 16 | 10% |
| Researcher | 15 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 7% |
| Other | 21 | 14% |
| Unknown | 41 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 31 | 20% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 18 | 12% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 12% |
| Sports and Recreations | 10 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 7 | 5% |
| Other | 24 | 16% |
| Unknown | 45 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 07 November 2016.
All research outputs
#2,113,779
of 22,828,180 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Behavioral Medicine
#245
of 1,388 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,293
of 267,781 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Behavioral Medicine
#3
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,828,180 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,388 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
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 267,781 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.