| Literature DB >> 31938075 |
Manuela Adcock1, Floriana Sonder1, Alexandra Schättin1, Federico Gennaro1, Eling D de Bruin1,2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Aging is often accompanied by a decline in sensory, motor and cognitive functions. These age- and lifestyle-related impairments may lead to reduced daily life functioning including gait disturbances, falling and injuries. Most daily life activities, e.g. walking, are tasks which require the concurrent interplay of physical and cognitive functions. Promising options for combined physical-cognitive training are video game-based physical exercises, so-called exergames. This study aimed to [i] determine the usability of a newly developed multicomponent exergame and [ii] explore its effects on physical functions, cognition and cortical activity.Entities:
Keywords: Elderly; Exergame; Fall prevention; Game experience; Healthy aging; Older adults; Physical-cognitive intervention; Usability
Year: 2020 PMID: 31938075 PMCID: PMC6955093 DOI: 10.1186/s11556-019-0233-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur Rev Aging Phys Act ISSN: 1813-7253 Impact factor: 3.878
Fig. 1Set up of the Active@Home exergame training. Participants wore four IMUs at wrists and ankles for movement evaluation. On the TV screen, a virtual instructor presented the training exercise which had to be imitated by the participant. Written consent was obtained from the participant in the picture allowing the usage of the picture for scientific publication
Demographic characteristics and screeing values
| Participant characteristics | |
|---|---|
| Age in years | 71.4 ± 6.1 (65–91) |
| Weight [kg] | 69.7 ± 19.5 (42–122) |
| Height [cm] | 169.9 ± 8.8 (150–181) |
| BMI [kg/m2] | 24.3 ± 5.0 (17–37) |
| Daily physical activitya | 7410 ± 2079 (4605–12,247) |
| MOCA Score | 28.1 ± 1.4 (26–30) |
| Female [n, %] | 10 (52.6) |
| Education [n, %] | |
| Primary school | 1 (5.3) |
| Upper school | 0 (0.0) |
| Apprenticeship | 9 (47.4) |
| Gymnasium | 2 (10.5) |
| University | 7 (36.8) |
| Fear of falling [n, %] | |
| Never | 14 (73.7) |
| Sometimes | 5 (26.3) |
| Often | 0 (0.0) |
| Always | 0 (0.0) |
| Number of falls during last monthb [n, %] | |
| Never | 17 (89.5) |
| Once | 2 (10.5) |
| More than once | 0 (0.0) |
| Self-evaluation of health state [n, %] | |
| Very good | 4 (21.1) |
| Good | 14 (73.7) |
| Medium | 1 (5.3) |
| Bad | 0 (0.0) |
| Self-evaluation of balance [n, %] | |
| Very good | 5 (26.3) |
| Good | 8 (42.1) |
| Medium | 6 (31.6) |
| Bad | 0 (0.0) |
| Self-evaluation of muscle strength [n, %] | |
| Very good | 0 (0.0) |
| Good | 18 (94.7) |
| Medium | 0 (0.0) |
| Bad | 1 (5.3) |
Data are mean values ± standard deviation (range) or number of participants per category (absolute and relative frequency) as indicated. MoCA Montreal Cognitive Assessment. aAverage steps per day measured with a StepWatch. bSelf-stated.
Fig. 2Study flow chart. Screening of participants for eligibility included an assessment of cognitive and health state. Physical and cognitive functions as well as brain activity were measured at pre- and post-measurement. Questionnaires assessing usability and game experience were filled in at between- and post-measurement
Results of questionnaire ratings
| Questionnaires | T2 ( | T3 ( | z | p | r |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| System Usability Scale (SUS) | 75.0 (67.5; 87.5) | 75.0 (70.0; 85.0) | −0.240 | .823 | 0.04 |
| Game Experience Quesionnaire (GEQ) | |||||
| Competence | 2.5 (2.2; 2.7) | 2.3 (2.2; 3.0) | −0.081 | .945 | 0.01 |
| Immersion | 1.9 (1.5; 2.5) | 2.3 (1.5; 2.7) | −0.881 | .395 | 0.14 |
| Flow | 1.3 (0.7; 1.8) | 1.0 (0.7; 1.5) | −1.281 | .210 | 0.21 |
| Tension | 0.2 (0.0; 0.5) | 0.2 (0.0; 0.3) | −1.279 | .229 | 0.21 |
| Challenge | 1.2 (1.0; 1.5) | 1.2 (0.7; 1.5) | −1.455 | .157 | 0.24 |
| Negative Affect | 0.2 (0.0; 0.6) | 0.5 (0.2; 0.8) | −3.134 | .001* | 0.51 |
| Positive Affect | 2.8 (2.4; 3.2) | 2.8 (2.0; 3.3) | −0.569 | .590 | 0.09 |
Data are median values (interquartile range). T2 = after three training sessions (between-measuement), T3 = after training intervention (post-measurement). *p < .05, p-values are exact sig. Two-tailed. T2-T3 differences were evaluated using Wilcoxon signed-rank test (n = 19). An effect size of r = 0.10 indicates a small effect, r = 0.30 a medium effect, and r ≥ 0.50 a large effect [86]. SUS scale ranges from 0 to 100. GEQ scale ranges from 0 = “not at all” to 4 = “extremly”. Two categories of the GEQ (tension, negative affect) have to be evaluated reversely which means a low score is favorable.
Summary of usability protocol with supervisors’ observations and participants’ feedback
| Criteria | Positive aspects | Negative aspects |
|---|---|---|
| Functionality and interaction with the system | − Good and stable connection of laptop (with system software) to TVa | − Technical issues (as system crashes or frozen pictures on the screen)a,b |
| − Simple set upb | − Unstable (Bluetooth) connection of IMUs to the systema,b | |
| − Easy usable game compositionb | − Navigation via laptop keyboard instead by IMUs (as cursors)a | |
| − Inaccurate evaluation of movements by IMUs (evaluation algorithms)a | ||
| IMUs | − Comfortable to wear (participants did not notice them during training)b | − Suboptimal material of IMU cover (cover expanded after heating up while charging)a |
| − Suboptimal material of IMU fixation strap (difficult to clean the Velcro fixation, material sticks to some clothes)a,b | ||
| − Difficulties to attach the IMUs with the Velcro fixation (especially at wrists)a,b | ||
| Design | − Exciting game story of travelling around Europe to different citiesb | − No variation in musicb |
| − Pleasant musicb | − No explanation about feedback system (colour code, performance score)b | |
| − Helpful cues (arrows) to prepare the next movementb | ||
| − Virtual instructor guiding through exercisesb | ||
| − Helpful indication of number of exercise repetitionsb | ||
| Training principles | − Visual feedback with colour code (green, orange, red) during exercisingb | − No specific feedback regarding exercise execution and single body part movementsa,b |
| − Performance score as feedback after exercisingb | − Training load and progression determined by supervisors (no automatic progression)a | |
| − Low variability in exercisesa,b | ||
| − Training load even in high levels not exhausting1,2 | ||
| Exercises | − Clear structure of exercise levelsb | − No proper introduction of exercises (just start copying the movements of the virtual instructor)a,b |
| − Complex exercises with additional arm movements provide more fun than simple (boring) movementsb | − Only frontal view of exercises (side view missing)b | |
| − No further information about exercise (e.g. muscles involved)b | ||
| Emotions | − General enjoyment and funa,b | − Frustrated and displeased by technical issues and inaccurate evaluation of movementsa,b |
| − Increased motivation through virtual instructor (better than train alone)b | − Missing challenge due to easy exercisesa,b | |
| − Happy when seeing a progress or achieving higher performance scorea,b | − Bored of low training variabilitya,b |
IMU Inertial measurement unit. asupervisors’ observations, bparticipants’ feedback.
Results of pre- and post-measurements of physical and cognitive functions and cortical acitivty
| Assessed by | Pre (T1) | Post (T3) | z | p | r | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Physical functions | Gait analysis | |||||
| Speed [m/s] | ||||||
| ST walking | 1.42 (1.36; 1.61) | 1.52 (1.36; 1.62) | −0.684 | .515 | 0.11 | |
| DT walking | 1.26 (1.17; 1.46) | 1.31 (1.22; 1.51) | −2.012 | .045* | 0.33 | |
| DT costs in % | 6.4 (5.1; 17.6) | 8.4 (3.0; 18.2) | −1.449 | .156 | 0.24 | |
| Cadence [steps/min] | ||||||
| ST walking | 117.2 (114.6; | 120.7 (115.1; 126.1) | −1.529 | .134 | 0.25 | |
| DT walking | 125.7) | 113.2 (109.5; 120.4) | −1.690 | .096 | 0.27 | |
| DT costs in % | 111.7 (105.4; 116.9) 4.0 (1.8; 8.7) | 3.5 (1.0; 9.0) | −1.046 | .312 | 0.17 | |
| Stride length [m] | ||||||
| ST walking | 1.48 (1.41; 1.56) | 1.47 (1.41; 1.56) | −0.402 | .709 | 0.07 | |
| DT walking | 1.36 (1.28; 1.50) | 1.36 (1.33; 1.49) | −1.610 | .113 | 0.26 | |
| DT costs in % | 3.8 (2.1; 10.3) | 4.2 (0.0; 9.2) | −1.006 | .332 | 0.16 | |
| Minimal toe clearance [cm] | ||||||
| ST walking | 2.3 (2.1; 3.1) | 2.9 (2.0; 3.4) | −1.891 | .060 | 0.31 | |
| DT walking | 2.2 (1.7; 2.7) | 2.7 (1.6; 3.2) | −1.248 | .225 | 0.20 | |
| DT costs in % | 3.9 (−4.9; 16.6) | 6.7 (−7.1; 19.3) | −0.241 | .829 | 0.04 | |
| Extended SPPB | ||||||
| Total score | 14 (13; 15) | 14 (13; 15) | −0.266 | .797 | 0.04 | |
| Balance score | 6 (6; 8) | 7 (5; 7) | −0.134 | .947 | 0.02 | |
| 4 m-gait score | 4 (4; 4) | 4 (4; 4) | 0.000 | 1.000 | < 0.01 | |
| 4 m-gait time [s] | 3.3 (2.9; 3.7) | 3.2 (2.8; 3.6) | −1.449 | .153 | 0.24 | |
| 5-chair rises score | 4 (3; 4) | 4 (3; 4) | −0.816 | .750 | 0.13 | |
| 5-chair rises time [s] | 10.5 (8.3; 12.8) | 8.8 (7.3; 12.3) | −2.853 | .003* | 0.46 | |
| Cognitive functions | Test of Attentional Performance | |||||
| Working memory | ||||||
| RT [ms] | 741 (597; 843) | 677 (603; 840) | −0.348 | .742 | 0.06 | |
| Errors | 3 (0; 6) | 3 (1; 5) | −0.416 | .696 | 0.07 | |
| Omissions | 3 (2;4) | 3 (1; 4) | −1.719 | .088 | 0.28 | |
| Divided attention | ||||||
| RT auditory [ms] | 652 (584; 769) | 594 (580; 714) | −2.495 | .011* | 0.40 | |
| RT visual [ms] | 893 (822; 948) | 881 (834; 945) | −0.080 | .945 | 0.01 | |
| Errors | 1 (0; 3) | 1 (0; 2) | −0.641 | .541 | 0.10 | |
| Omissions | 1 (0; 3) | 1 (1; 2) | −1.388 | .190 | 0.23 | |
| Selective attention | ||||||
| RT [ms] | 454 (397; 487) | 468 (396; 504) | −0.543 | .602 | 0.09 | |
| Errors | 1 (0; 2) | 0 (0; 2) | −0.265 | .848 | 0.04 | |
| Omissions | 0 (0; 0) | 0 (0; 0) | −1.890 | .125 | 0.31 | |
| Mental flexibility | ||||||
| RT [ms] | 932 (798; 1124) | 848 (786; 1018) | −1.610 | .113 | 0.26 | |
| Errors | 3 (1; 9) | 3 (1; 4) | −1.163 | .258 | 0.19 | |
| Cortical activity | Resting state EEG | |||||
| Peak alpha frequency [Hz] | 9.3 (8.4; 9.9) | 9.3 (8.7; 10.0) | −1.274 | .232 | 0.26 | |
| Center of gravity [Hz] | 9.2 (8.5; 9.7) | 9.3 (8.4; 9.6) | −1.013 | .340 | 0.20 | |
| Alpha spectral power [μV2] | 20.5 (16.1; 35.7) | 27.0 (16.8; 46.9) | −0.078 | .970 | 0.02 | |
Data are median values (interquartile range). n = 19. *p < .05, p-values are exact sig. Two-tailed. Pre-post differences were evaluated using Wilcoxon signed-rank test. An effect size of r = 0.10 indicates a small effect, r = 0.30 a medium effect, and r ≥ 0.50 a large effect [86]. ST single-task, DT dual-task. DT costs are calculated as (ST – DT)/ST × 100. SPPB Short Physical Performance Battery. RT reaction time