ArticleNeuroscience insights2021
Do Older and Young Adults Learn to Integrate Geometry While Navigating in an Environment of a Serious Game?
Article in Neuroscience insights, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We evaluated the outcomes of an intervention using a serious game designed to be played on iPads for improving spatial reorientation by training users to integrate geometry of the environment, instead of relying solely on featural cues. Using data logged online through a clinical study of using this game, the effect of training among 16 older adults (69.3 ± 6.4 years, 4 males), who played the game repeatedly (self-administered) over a period of 8 weeks, was investigated. The game contains a hexagonal room with 3 objects, textured walls, and grids on the floor, which are removed one by one as the participant played the game. In each level, the room also rotates such that the viewpoint of the user is different from that of the previous level. Participants cannot play a higher level unless they make no mistake during the trials of the lower test level. In addition to data of older adults available from that clinical trial, we recruited 16 young adults (27.3 ± 5.6 years, 4 males) to play the game for 5 sessions and compared their results with those of the older adults. We evaluated the error type made in each test level and the scores for each session among older adults. Further, we compared the frequency of each error type between young and older adults during the test levels that a landmark adjacent to the target was removed over the first 5 sessions. The results of older adults' performance suggest they learned to make fewer mistakes over the sessions. Also, both young and older adults learned to integrate the geometrical cues rather than relying on the landmark cue adjacent to the target to find the target. Overall, the results indicate the designed hexagonal room game can enhance spatial cognition among all age groups of adults.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.