↓ Skip to main content

Competitive and cooperative arm rehabilitation games played by a patient and unimpaired person: effects on motivation and exercise intensity

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
121 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
287 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Competitive and cooperative arm rehabilitation games played by a patient and unimpaired person: effects on motivation and exercise intensity
Published in
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12984-017-0231-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maja Goršič, Imre Cikajlo, Domen Novak

Abstract

People with chronic arm impairment should exercise intensely to regain their abilities, but frequently lack motivation, leading to poor rehabilitation outcome. One promising way to increase motivation is through interpersonal rehabilitation games, which allow patients to compete or cooperate together with other people. However, such games have mainly been evaluated with unimpaired subjects, and little is known about how they affect motivation and exercise intensity in people with chronic arm impairment. We designed four different arm rehabilitation games that are played by a person with arm impairment and their unimpaired friend, relative or occupational therapist. One is a competitive game (both people compete against each other), two are cooperative games (both people work together against the computer) and one is a single-player game (played only by the impaired person against the computer). The games were played by 29 participants with chronic arm impairment, of which 19 were accompanied by their friend or relative and 10 were accompanied by their occupational therapist. Each participant played all four games within a single session. Participants' subjective experience was quantified using the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory questionnaire after each game, as well as a final questionnaire about game preferences. Their exercise intensity was quantified using wearable inertial sensors that measured hand velocity in each game. Of the 29 impaired participants, 12 chose the competitive game as their favorite, 12 chose a cooperative game, and 5 preferred to exercise alone. Participants who chose the competitive game as their favorite showed increased motivation and exercise intensity in that game compared to other games. Participants who chose a cooperative game as their favorite also showed increased motivation in cooperative games, but not increased exercise intensity. Since both motivation and intensity are positively correlated with rehabilitation outcome, competitive games have high potential to lead to functional improvement and increased quality of life for patients compared to conventional rehabilitation exercises. Cooperative games do not increase exercise intensity, but could still increase motivation of patients who do not enjoy competition. However, such games need to be tested in longer, multisession studies to determine whether the observed increases in motivation and exercise intensity persist over a longer period of time and whether they positively affect rehabilitation outcome. The study is not a clinical trial. While human subjects are involved, they participate in a single-session evaluation of a rehabilitation game rather than a full rehabilitation intervention, and no health outcomes are examined.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 287 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Unknown 284 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 44 15%
Student > Master 41 14%
Student > Bachelor 41 14%
Researcher 23 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 6%
Other 42 15%
Unknown 79 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 57 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 28 10%
Psychology 19 7%
Computer Science 18 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 6%
Other 56 20%
Unknown 91 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 02 November 2018.
All research outputs
#4,199,598
of 22,961,203 outputs
Outputs from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#245
of 1,288 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,328
of 309,217 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#6
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,961,203 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,288 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 309,217 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.