The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Development and Evaluation of a Cognitive Training Game for Older People: A Design-based Approach
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01837 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ming-Hsin Lu, Weijane Lin, Hsiu-Ping Yueh |
| Abstract |
In the research field of cognitive aging, games have gained attention as training interventions to remediate age-related deficits. Cognitive training games on computer, video and mobile platforms have shown ample and positive support. However, the generalized effects are not agreed upon unanimously, and the game tasks are usually simple and decontextualized due to the limitations of measurements. This study adopted a qualitative approach of design-based research (DBR) to systematically review and pragmatically examine the regime, presentation and feedback design of a cognitive training game for older adults. An overview of the literature of cognitive aging and training games was conducted to form the theoretical conjectures of the design, and an iterative cycle and process were employed to develop a mobile game for older adults who are homebound or receiving care in a nursing home. Stakeholders, i.e., elderly users and institutional administrators, were invited to participate in the design process. Using two cycles of design and evaluation, a working prototype of an iPad-based app that accounted for the needs of elderly adults in terms of form, appearance and working function was developed and tested in the actual contexts of the participants' homes and an assisted living facility. The results showed that the cognitive training game developed in this study was accepted by the participants, and a high degree of satisfaction was noted. Moreover, the elements of the interface, including its size, layout and control flow, were tested and found to be suitable for use. This study contributes to the literature by providing design suggestions for such games, including the designs of the cognitive training structure, interface, interaction, instructions and feedback, based on empirical evidence collected in natural settings. This study further suggests that the effectiveness of cognitive training in mobile games be evaluated through field and physical testing on a larger scale in the future. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 4 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 160 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 160 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 28 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 20 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 10% |
| Researcher | 15 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 6% |
| Other | 20 | 13% |
| Unknown | 52 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 22 | 14% |
| Computer Science | 22 | 14% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 8% |
| Neuroscience | 9 | 6% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 6% |
| Other | 24 | 15% |
| Unknown | 61 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 17 October 2017.
All research outputs
#14,956,098
of 23,005,189 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#16,265
of 30,245 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#193,306
of 326,537 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#437
of 610 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,005,189 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,245 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 326,537 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 610 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.