背景:尽管已经在广泛的设置中研究了全身坐姿练习(即,homes,医院,和日托中心),他们很少被转换成坐式运动游戏。此外,关于沉浸式虚拟现实(iVR)基于全身姿势的站立游戏的研究越来越多,但是坐姿运动的适用性和实用性在很大程度上仍未被探索。
目的:本研究旨在评估基于全身姿势的iVR站立运动游戏和坐姿运动游戏在游戏性能方面的差异,内在动机,和晕动病。
方法:共有52名参与者完成了实验。游戏模式(站立和坐着)的顺序是平衡的。游戏性能通过动作或手势完成时间和错过手势的数量来评估。运动通过平均心率(HR)百分比(AvgHR%)来衡量,增加HR%,燃烧的卡路里,和博格6-20问卷。用内在动机量表(IMI)评估内在动机,而晕动病是通过运动病评估问卷(MSAQ)进行评估的。此外,我们使用10点Likert量表问卷测量了跌倒的恐惧。
结果:坐姿游戏中的玩家比站立游戏中的玩家错过了更多的手势,但整体漏检率较低(2.3/120,1.9%)。分析得出的AvgHR%明显更高,增加HR%,燃烧的卡路里,和Borg6-20对坐姿运动运动的感知运动值的评分(所有P<.001)。坐姿运动在外围疾病(P=.02)和与sopite相关的疾病(MSAQ)(P=.004)上的评分明显高于站立运动运动。据报道,坐姿游戏的IMI子量表“价值/有用性”的得分高于站立游戏。就内在动机(兴趣/享受,P=.96;感知能力,P=.26;压力/张力,P=.42)和对跌倒的恐惧(P=.25)。
结论:坐式iVR全身基于手势的运动游戏可以是站立运动游戏的宝贵补充。坐着的运动游戏有可能导致更高的运动,为玩家提供更高的价值,与站立运动相比,更适用于狭小的空间。然而,坐姿运动游戏的手势需要精心设计,以尽量减少晕动病,与站立运动游戏相比,应该给用户更多的时间在坐运动游戏中执行手势。
BACKGROUND: Although full-body seated exercises have been studied in a wide range of settings (ie, homes, hospitals, and daycare centers), they have rarely been converted to seated
exergames. In addition, there is an increasing number of studies on immersive virtual reality (iVR) full-body gesture-based standing exergames, but the suitability and usefulness of seated
exergames remain largely unexplored.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the difference between playing a full-body gesture-based iVR standing exergame and seated exergame in terms of gameplay performance, intrinsic motivation, and motion sickness.
METHODS: A total of 52 participants completed the experiment. The order of the game mode (standing and sitting) was counterbalanced. Gameplay performance was evaluated by action or gesture completion time and the number of missed gestures. Exertion was measured by the average heart rate (HR) percentage (AvgHR%), increased HR%, calories burned, and the Borg 6-20 questionnaire. Intrinsic motivation was assessed with the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI), whereas motion sickness was assessed via the Motion Sickness Assessment Questionnaire (MSAQ). In addition, we measured the fear of falling using a 10-point Likert scale questionnaire.
RESULTS: Players missed more gestures in the seated exergame than in the standing exergame, but the overall miss rate was low (2.3/120, 1.9%). The analysis yielded significantly higher AvgHR%, increased HR%, calories burned, and Borg 6-20 rating of perceived exertion values for the seated exergame (all P<.001). The seated exergame was rated significantly higher on peripheral sickness (P=.02) and sopite-related sickness (MSAQ) (P=.004) than the standing exergame. The score of the subscale \"value/usefulness\" from IMI was reported to be higher for the seated exergame than the standing exergame. There was no significant difference between the seated exergame and standing exergame in terms of intrinsic motivation (interest/enjoyment, P=.96; perceived competence, P=.26; pressure/tension, P=.42) and the fear of falling (P=.25).
CONCLUSIONS: Seated iVR full-body gesture-based exergames can be valuable complements to standing
exergames. Seated exergames have the potential to lead to higher exertion, provide higher value to players, and be more applicable in small spaces compared with standing
exergames. However, gestures for seated exergames need to be designed carefully to minimize motion sickness, and more time should be given to users to perform gestures in seated exergames compared with standing
exergames.