Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 52 references

Integrating Artificial Intelligence as Assistive Technology for Older Adult Gamers: A Pilot Study

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that an iteratively refined survey for older adult gamers is ready for a larger parent study, and that preliminary data show usability-design issues—especially tutorials, menus, and text legibility—are the key obstacles…

desk verdict Useful survey-iteration pilot for older adult gamers, but the challenge-ranking conclusion rests on a pre-selected list with low absolute scores. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.07830 v1 pith:UWIJH4AF submitted 2025-06-09 cs.HC

Yichi Zhang , Brandon Lyman , Celia Pearce , Miso Kim , Casper Harteveld , Leanne Chukoskie , Bob De Schutter This is my paper
classification cs.HC
keywords digitalgamesvideoage-friendlydesignlifelongplayolderadultgamersAIassistancegameusabilitysurvey
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper is a pilot study with two intertwined goals: build a survey that older adult gamers can complete comfortably, and use that survey for a first look at how this demographic plays, what blocks them, and what they think about AI in games. The authors report that four rounds of iterative revision produced a refined instrument ready for a larger, more representative parent study. The preliminary data indicate that usability design issues—tutorial quality, menu usability, and text legibility—are the obstacles older gamers report most often. The same data show a nearly even split between optimism and caution about AI in games: it is welcomed as practical assistance but distrusted when it adds complexity or removes player control. If these findings hold in the parent study, game designers would have a concrete target list for age-inclusive, AI-supported design.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the iterative survey-design loop. After each round, the authors reviewed responses against five criteria—questionnaire usability, question clarity, accuracy, depth of response, and completion time—then revised wording, format, and length, such as converting fatigue-prone open-ended questions to multiple choice and replacing abstract terms like 'assistive technologies' with concrete examples. The second central object is the nine-challenge taxonomy drawn from prior literature and presented as Likert-scale items on frequency and extent, with an open write-in channel that surfaced a tenth challenge, the difficulty curve. The taxonomy carries the paper's main empirical result, while the iteration loop carries the claim that the final instrument is trustworthy enough for the parent study.

What would settle it

Run the finalized survey on a large, demographically representative sample of gamers aged 50 and older and compare the frequency and extent rankings with Table 4: if tutorial quality, menu usability, and text legibility are no longer among the top-rated obstacles, the paper's central preliminary conclusion about usability design would be falsified. A second check would be whether a representative sample still splits about evenly between positive and cautious views of AI in games, rather than shifting clearly positive or clearly negative.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the contribution is a tested instrument, not a demonstrated effect of AI on gameplay. After four survey iterations, the authors state that the questionnaire is ready for a larger parent study, and that pilot responses from 39 gamers aged 50–68 point to two preliminary conclusions. First, usability problems—especially low-quality tutorials, confusing menus, and hard-to-read text—are the challenges older gamers say they encounter and are harmed by most, which reaffirms and sharpens prior accessibility findings. Second, older gamers' attitudes toward AI in gaming are split: many describe concrete benefits such as smarter non-player characters, accessible assistance, and adaptive opponents, while others worry about poor content quality, unfair AI difficulty, and loss of autonomy. The paper treats these as early insights that motivate, rather than settle, the parent study.

Load-bearing premise

The entire preliminary picture rests on treating 39 self-selected online-recruited participants, mostly White and higher-income and aged 50–68, and their self-reported ratings, as a trustworthy window into older adult gamers generally.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The finalized survey enables a larger parent study to collect consistent, comparable responses instead of the uneven item counts produced by four different versions.
  • Game design for older players should prioritize tutorial quality, menu navigation, and text legibility before adding new features.
  • AI features that act as assistive tools—adaptive tutorials, visual or verbal scene cues, opponent balancing—match the practical benefits participants described.
  • AI features that appear to make decisions for the player or add complexity will meet resistance from a substantial share of older gamers.
  • The parent study should expand recruitment beyond the online panel used here, because the pilot sample skews White and higher-income and was not representative.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the finalized survey is run on a demographically representative sample, the rank order of challenges may shift: tutorial quality and menu usability topped this list, but memory load, time pressure, or online toxicity could dominate in a different group.
  • A direct extension would be to administer the same survey to younger gamers; comparing the two rank orders would separate age-related obstacles from general game-design problems.
  • The paper's observation that concrete examples helped participants answer abstract AI questions suggests the parent study could strengthen AI questions by using scenario-based vignettes rather than open-ended prompts.
  • The write-in 'difficulty curve' challenge names a new candidate taxonomy item; if it replicates, adaptive AI difficulty becomes a more concrete design target.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper describes an iterative pilot survey of older adult gamers (age 50+, playing at least weekly; n=39 recruited via Prolific across four iterations). The stated goals are to develop and refine a questionnaire for a larger parent study and to collect preliminary data on game preferences, gameplay challenges, and attitudes toward AI in games. The authors report top genres among favorite games, frequency and extent ratings of nine literature-derived challenges, and sentiment-coded open-ended responses about AI. They conclude that usability issues (tutorial quality, menu usability, text legibility) are key obstacles and that older gamers' perceptions of AI are shaped by both practical benefits and concerns about autonomy and complexity.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper's main contribution is methodological: Table 2 provides a detailed iteration log showing how a survey for older adult gamers was adapted (reducing open-ended questions, clarifying assistive-technology items, shortening length), and the authors are appropriately careful in labeling results as preliminary and in listing limitations. The paper does not provide machine-checked proofs or code; its value lies in an empirical pilot and a proposed instrument. For the field, the significance would be a tested starting point for a larger study and early design direction for age-inclusive, AI-assisted games. The strength of that design direction, however, depends on the validity of the challenge ranking and the reliability of the sentiment coding, which are the points of concern below.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.2, Table 4] The 'key obstacles' conclusion is based on ratings of nine challenges that the authors pre-selected from prior literature (Table 1), with no unprompted elicitation before the Likert items; the only open-ended 'additional challenges' prompt came after the ratings and yielded a single write-in. The paper's framing that the pilot 'affirms the applicability of known gameplay challenges' is therefore partly circular: the instrument was constructed from those same challenges. Moreover, the absolute means are low (frequency means near 2 on a 1-5 scale and extent means near 2.6 on a 1-7 scale), so even the top-ranked challenges are only mildly frequent or impactful in absolute terms, and the standard deviations overlap substantially. With n=20 for these items and the acknowledged inconsistent response counts across iterations, Section 5's claim that tutorial quality, menu usability, and text legibility are the most important obstacles is not empirically grounded as a ranking of this demographic's actual concerns. The authors should either add an open-ended elicitation phase (e.g., free-listing before ratings) or explicitly rephrase the finding as 'ratings of literature-derived challenges' and soften the design-priority conclusions.
  2. [Section 4.3, Figure 1] The sentiment classification of open-ended AI responses is described only as 'categorized as positive, neutral, or negative based on the underlying sentiment,' with no codebook, no statement of the number of coders, and no inter-rater reliability statistic. Since the paper's conclusion about older adults' perceptions of AI (practical benefits versus concerns about autonomy and complexity) rests on these counts (e.g., n=5 for enhanced NPCs, n=4 for technical issues), the interpretation is not independently verifiable. Please provide a coding scheme, at least two independent coders with agreement metrics, or a substantially larger set of verbatim excerpts so readers can assess the categories.
  3. [Sections 3.1 and 6] The sample is modest (n=39), restricted to Prolific users aged 50-68 (mean 55, sd 4.9), and skews White (79.49%) and higher income, as the authors acknowledge. The 'preliminary' framing is appropriate for the survey-design goal, but the Abstract and Discussion present 'key obstacles' and a demographic-level AI-attitude profile as findings, not only as instrument-development output. Given the sample composition, these statements should be further qualified (e.g., 'in this sample') or the design-direction recommendations should be scaled back until the parent study provides a more representative sample. This is a request to align the claims' generality with the acknowledged sample limitations, not a request for a different study.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.2] The sentence 'the challenges that negatively impacted gameplay experience the most were reported as ... menu usability (CH3, μ = 2.43, sd = 1.46)' cites CH3, but Table 4 shows CH3 as Input Challenges (extent 1.69) and CH4 as Menu Usability (extent 2.44). Please correct the code and value.
  2. [Section 3.2 and Table 2] The switch from a 5-point to a 7-point Likert scale for 'extent' is acknowledged as unintentional; because the frequency and extent scales have different ranges, the text should avoid any implicit comparison of their means without noting the scale difference.
  3. [References] Several references are incomplete in the bibliography (e.g., [1], [2], [38], [39], [41]), lacking authors, venues, or years. Please complete these entries for the camera-ready version.
  4. [Section 4.3 and Figure 1] The manuscript refers to Figure 1 for the sentiment distribution, but the figure's counts per sentiment category are not summarized in the body text, making it difficult to verify the claim of a 'nearly evenly distributed' split without the figure. A brief textual summary of the counts would help.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the pilot's findings are empirical self-reports; the literature-derived challenge list is a transparent instrument, not a fitted or definitional input.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are (1) an iteratively refined survey is ready for a parent study and (2) preliminary findings about older adult gamers' challenges and AI attitudes. No fitted parameters, no predicted quantities, and no equations appear. The challenge items in Section 4.2 are explicitly compiled from prior literature (Table 1), and the paper frames the outcome as 'affirms the applicability of known gameplay challenges' (Introduction), i.e., a confirmatory check rather than a derivation. Participants could and did rate items low; the absolute means are near 2 on a 1–5 frequency scale, and an open-ended write-in produced a new 'difficulty curve' challenge, showing the results were not forced by the instrument. The main risk—that the relative ranking of challenges is constrained by the supplied list—is a validity limitation, not a circular derivation; the paper acknowledges related limitations in Section 6 (inconsistent response counts, limited diversity). Self-citations (Pearce [22], De Schutter [13,18], Harteveld [7]) provide background, instrument precedent, and pilot-study motivation; none is used as an unverified uniqueness theorem or to forbid alternatives. The coding of open-ended AI attitudes in Section 4.3 is independent of the instrument's predefined categories. Therefore no circular step rises to the level defined in the review criteria.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The survey relies on standard domain assumptions about self-report, pre-selected challenge categories, sample representativeness, and coding reliability. No numerical free parameters or invented entities are introduced; the new 'difficulty curve' category is a descriptive label, not an invented construct.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Self-reported survey responses accurately capture gaming habits, challenges, and AI attitudes.
    Sections 4.1-4.3 treat Likert ratings and open-ended answers as valid measures of experience; no objective gameplay metrics or validation against behavior is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper The nine pre-selected challenge categories from prior literature are the relevant obstacle set for this demographic.
    Table 1 sources the categories externally, but Section 4.2 asks participants to rate only these, plus one write-in option, so unlisted challenges are systematically underrepresented.
  • domain assumption A Prolific-recruited sample of 39, mostly White and higher income, can yield preliminary insights about older adult gamers.
    Section 3.1 reports demographics; Section 6 admits limited diversity. The claim of general preliminary findings depends on this assumption.
  • ad hoc to paper Open-ended sentiment coding is reliable without inter-rater agreement.
    Section 4.3 categorizes responses as positive, neutral, or negative after excluding unclear ones; no coding scheme, inter-rater reliability, or audit trail is reported.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Integrating Artificial Intelligence as Assistive Technology for Older Adult Gamers: A Pilot Study." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UWIJH4AF

@misc{pith2026250607830,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Integrating Artificial Intelligence as Assistive Technology for Older Adult Gamers: A Pilot Study},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UWIJH4AF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.07830}
}
read the original abstract

With respect to digital games, older adults are a demographic that is often underserved due to an industry-wide focus on younger audiences' preferences and skill sets. Meanwhile, as artificial intelligence (AI) continues to expand into everyday technologies, its assistive capabilities have been recognized, suggesting its potential in improving the gaming experience for older gamers. To study this potential, we iteratively developed a pilot survey aimed at understanding older adult gamers' current gameplay preference, challenges they are facing, and their perspectives of AI usage in gaming. This article contributes an overview of our iterative survey-design workflow, and pilot results from 39 participants. During each iteration, we analyzed the survey's efficacy and adjusted the content, language, and format to better capture meaningful data, and was able to create a refined survey for a larger, more representative future parent study. At the same time, preliminary findings suggest that for older adult gamers, usability issues in gaming remain key obstacles, while this demographic's perceptions of AI are shaped by both its practical benefits and concerns about autonomy and complexity. These findings also offer early insights for the design of age-inclusive, AI-supported gaming experiences.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.07830 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Sentiment distribution from open-ended questions on opinions of AI [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Games Should Be Designed for Everyone

    Brittne Kakulla. Games Should Be Designed for Everyone

    work page

  2. [2]

    Gamers 50-Plus Are a Growing Force in the Tech Market

    Brittne Kakulla. Gamers 50-Plus Are a Growing Force in the Tech Market

    work page

  3. [3]

    Ageism: The issue never gets old

    Steven Peterson. Ageism: The issue never gets old

    work page

  4. [4]

    The Older Gamer in Games Studies: Marginalised or Idealised? 12(1):23–35

    Huan Wu and Chen Guo. The Older Gamer in Games Studies: Marginalised or Idealised? 12(1):23–35

    work page

  5. [5]

    Integrating generative adversarial networks with IoT for adaptive AI-powered personalized elderly care in smart homes

    Fawad Naseer, Abdullah Addas, Muhammad Tahir, Muhammad Nasir Khan, and Noreen Sattar. Integrating generative adversarial networks with IoT for adaptive AI-powered personalized elderly care in smart homes. 8

    work page

  6. [6]

    The Role of Smart Homes in Providing Care for Older Adults: A Systematic Literature Review from 2010 to 2023

    Arian Vrančić, Hana Zadravec, and Tihomir Orehovački. The Role of Smart Homes in Providing Care for Older Adults: A Systematic Literature Review from 2010 to 2023. 7(4):1502–1550

    work page 2010

  7. [7]

    The Importance of Pilot Studies for Gamified Research: Pre-Testing Gamettes to Study Supply Chain Decisions

    Omid Mohaddesi and Casper Harteveld. The Importance of Pilot Studies for Gamified Research: Pre-Testing Gamettes to Study Supply Chain Decisions. InExtended Abstracts of the 2020 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play, CHI PLAY ’20, pages 316–320. Association for Computing Machinery

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Diane G. Cope. Conducting pilot and feasibility studies. 42(2):196–197

    work page

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    Are you sure?

    Katherine V. Wild, Nora Mattek, Daniel Austin, and Jeffrey A. Kaye. “Are you sure?”: Lapses in Self-Reported Activities Among Healthy Older Adults Reporting Online. 35(6):627–641

  2. [10]

    Cognitive burden of survey questions and response times: A psycholinguistic experiment

    Timo Lenzner, Lars Kaczmirek, and Alwine Lenzner. Cognitive burden of survey questions and response times: A psycholinguistic experiment. 24(7):1003–1020

  3. [11]

    Farage, Kenneth W

    Miranda A. Farage, Kenneth W. Miller, Funmi Ajayi, and Deborah Hutchins. Design Principles to Accommodate Older Adults. 4(2):2–25

  4. [12]

    Vordenberg

    Kristie Rebecca Weir, Yehya Maitah, and Sarah E. Vordenberg. Older Adults’ Experiences With an Online Survey. 12(1):e65684

  5. [13]

    Never Too Old to Play: The Appeal of Digital Games to an Older Audience

    Bob De Schutter. Never Too Old to Play: The Appeal of Digital Games to an Older Audience. 6(2):155–170

  6. [14]

    Examining younger and older adults’ digital gaming habits and health measures

    Ulla Bunz, Juliann Cortese, and Nicholas Sellers. Examining younger and older adults’ digital gaming habits and health measures. 19(4):1–10

  7. [15]

    What Older People Like to Play: Genre Preferences and Acceptance of Casual Games

    Alvin Chesham, Patric Wyss, René Martin Müri, Urs Peter Mosimann, and Tobias Nef. What Older People Like to Play: Genre Preferences and Acceptance of Casual Games. 5(2):e7025

  8. [16]

    Blocker, T.J

    K.A. Blocker, T.J. Wright, and W.R. Boot. Gaming preferences of aging generations. 12(3):174–184

  9. [17]

    Digital Gaming Trends of Middle-Aged and Older Adults: A Sample from Turkey

    İlmiye Seçer and Elif Öykü Us. Digital Gaming Trends of Middle-Aged and Older Adults: A Sample from Turkey. 54(1):85–103

  10. [18]

    The Older Player of Digital Games: A Classification Based on Perceived Need Satisfaction

    Bob De Schutter and Steven Malliet. The Older Player of Digital Games: A Classification Based on Perceived Need Satisfaction. 39:67–88

  11. [19]

    Meaningful learning: Motivations of older adults in serious games

    Johnny Salazar Cardona, Jeferson Arango Lopez, Francisco Luis Gutiérrez Vela, and Fernando Moreira. Meaningful learning: Motivations of older adults in serious games. pages 1–16

  12. [20]

    Older people in the world of esport: A qualitative study

    Catherine Esnard, Marion Haza, and Rebeca Grangeiro. Older people in the world of esport: A qualitative study. 15

  13. [21]

    Older Adults’ Digital Gameplay: Patterns, Benefits, and Challenges

    David Kaufman, Louise Sauvé, Lise Renaud, Andrew Sixsmith, and Ben Mortenson. Older Adults’ Digital Gameplay: Patterns, Benefits, and Challenges. 47(4):465–489

  14. [22]

    The Truth About Baby Boomer Gamers: A Study of Over-Forty Computer Game Players

    Celia Pearce. The Truth About Baby Boomer Gamers: A Study of Over-Forty Computer Game Players. 3(2):142–174

  15. [23]

    Daniel L. Murman. The Impact of Age on Cognition. 36(3):111–121

  16. [24]

    Age and Gender Differences in Physical Capability Levels from Mid-Life Onwards: The Harmonisation and Meta-Analysis of Data from Eight UK Cohort Studies

    Rachel Cooper, Rebecca Hardy, Avan Aihie Sayer, and useprefix=true family=al., prefix=et. Age and Gender Differences in Physical Capability Levels from Mid-Life Onwards: The Harmonisation and Meta-Analysis of Data from Eight UK Cohort Studies. 6(11):e27899

  17. [25]

    Game Design for Older Adults: Effects of Age-Related Changes on Structural Elements of Digital Games

    Kathrin Maria Gerling, Frank Paul Schulte, Jan Smeddinck, and Maic Masuch. Game Design for Older Adults: Effects of Age-Related Changes on Structural Elements of Digital Games. In Marc Herrlich, Rainer Malaka, and Maic Masuch, editors,Entertainment Computing - ICEC 2012, pages...

    2012

  18. [26]

    Cognition, technology and games for the elderly: An introduction to ELDERGAMES Project

    Luciano Gamberini, Mariano Alcaniz, Giacinto Barresi, Malena Fabregat, Francisco Ibanez, and Lisa Prontu. Cognition, technology and games for the elderly: An introduction to ELDERGAMES Project. 4(3):285–308

  19. [27]

    In Jeff Johnson and Kate Finn, editors,Designing User Interfaces for an Aging Population, pages 223–228

    Appendix - Design Guidelines. In Jeff Johnson and Kate Finn, editors,Designing User Interfaces for an Aging Population, pages 223–228. Morgan Kaufmann

  20. [28]

    Digital game design for elderly users

    Wijnand Ijsselsteijn, Henk Herman Nap, Yvonne De Kort, and Karolien Poels. Digital game design for elderly users. InProceedings of the 2007 Conference on Future Play, Future Play ’07, pages 17–22. Association for Computing Machinery

    2007

  21. [29]

    Teixeira

    Ana Vasconcelos, Paula Alexandra Silva, João Caseiro, Francisco Nunes, and Luís F. Teixeira. Designing tablet-based games for seniors: The example of CogniPlay, a cognitive gaming platform. InProceedings of the 4th International Conference on Fun and Games, FnG ’12, pages 1–10...

  22. [30]

    Mobile Game Design Guide to Improve Gaming Experience for the Middle-Aged and Older Adult Population: User-Centered Design Approach

    Seyeon Lee, Hyunyoung Oh, Chung-Kon Shi, and Young Yim Doh. Mobile Game Design Guide to Improve Gaming Experience for the Middle-Aged and Older Adult Population: User-Centered Design Approach. 9(2):e24449

  23. [31]

    W. R. Boot, R. Andringa, E. R. Harrell, M. A. Dieciuc, and N. A. Roque. Older adults and video gaming for leisure: Lessons from the Center for Research and Education on Aging and Technology Enhancement (CREATE). 19(2):138–146. Manuscript submitted to ACM 10 Zhang et al

  24. [32]

    Mobile game design for the elderly: A study with focus on the motivation to play

    Túlio Teixeira Cota, Lucila Ishitani, and Niltom Vieira. Mobile game design for the elderly: A study with focus on the motivation to play. 51:96–105

  25. [33]

    Designing Serious Games for Elders

    Swati Gupta, Karl Fua, David Pautler, and Ilya Farber. Designing Serious Games for Elders

  26. [34]

    Nap, Y.A.W

    H.H. Nap, Y.A.W. De Kort, and W.A. IJsselsteijn. Senior gamers: Preferences, motivations and needs. 8(4):247–262

  27. [35]

    Jeroen H. M. Janssen, Evi M. Kremers, Minke S. Nieuwboer, Bas D. L. Châtel, Rense Corten, Marcel G. M. Olde Rikkert, and Geeske Peeters. Older Adults’ Views on Social Interactions and Online Socializing Games – A Qualitative Study. 66(2):274–290

  28. [36]

    Online Abuse and Age in Dota 2

    Topias Mattinen and Joseph Macey. Online Abuse and Age in Dota 2. InProceedings of the 22nd International Academic Mindtrek Conference, Mindtrek ’18, pages 69–78. Association for Computing Machinery

  29. [37]

    Aruguete, and Gábor Orosz

    Ágnes Zsila, Reza Shabahang, Mara S. Aruguete, and Gábor Orosz. Toxic behaviors in online multiplayer games: Prevalence, perception, risk factors of victimization, and psychological consequences. 48(3):356–364

  30. [38]

    Game Accessibility Guidelines – A straightforward reference for inclusive game design

  31. [40]

    Vision impairment and cognitive decline among older adults: A systematic review

    Niranjani Nagarajan, Lama Assi, V Varadaraj, Mina Motaghi, Yi Sun, Elizabeth Couser, Joshua R Ehrlich, Heather Whitson, and Bonnielin K Swenor. Vision impairment and cognitive decline among older adults: A systematic review. 12(1):e047929

  32. [41]

    Older Adults Express Mixed Views on Artificial Intelligence | NORC at the University of Chicago

  33. [42]

    New Horizons in artificial intelligence in the healthcare of older people

    Taha Shiwani, Samuel Relton, Ruth Evans, Aditya Kale, Anne Heaven, Andrew Clegg, Ageing Data Research Collaborative (Geridata) AI group, and Oliver Todd. New Horizons in artificial intelligence in the healthcare of older people. 52(12):afad219

  34. [43]

    Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Robotics in Elderly Healthcare: Enabling Independence and Quality of Life

    Srikanta Padhan, Avilash Mohapatra, Senthil Kumar Ramasamy, and Sanjana Agrawal. Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Robotics in Elderly Healthcare: Enabling Independence and Quality of Life. 15(8):e42905

  35. [44]

    Understanding Older Adults’ Perceptions and Challenges in Using AI-enabled Everyday Technologies

    Esha Shandilya and Mingming Fan. Understanding Older Adults’ Perceptions and Challenges in Using AI-enabled Everyday Technologies. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Symposium of Chinese CHI, Chinese CHI ’22, pages 105–116. Association for Computing Machinery

  36. [45]

    Butt, Hassan Ahmad, Muhammad A

    Asad H. Butt, Hassan Ahmad, Muhammad A. S. Goraya, Muhammad S. Akram, and Muhammad N. Shafique. Let’s play: Me and my AI-powered avatar as one team. 38(6):1014–1025

  37. [46]

    Examining The Attitudes of E-Sports Players Towards Artificial Intelligence Techologies

    Ozan Karakus, Mehmet Mustafa Yorulmazlar, Arif Cetin, and Damla Ozsoy. Examining The Attitudes of E-Sports Players Towards Artificial Intelligence Techologies

  38. [47]

    Sparrow, Ren Galwey, Dahlia Jovic, Taylor Hardwick, and Mahli-Ann Butt

    Lucy A. Sparrow, Ren Galwey, Dahlia Jovic, Taylor Hardwick, and Mahli-Ann Butt. Towards Ethical AI Moderation in Multiplayer Games. 8:344:1–344:30

  39. [48]

    Jones, and Julie Boron

    Marcia Shade, Changmin Yan, Valerie K. Jones, and Julie Boron. Evaluating Older Adults’ Engagement and Usability With AI-Driven Interventions: Randomized Pilot Study. 9:e64763

  40. [49]

    Exploring Older Adults’ Perspectives and Acceptance of AI-Driven Health Technologies: Qualitative Study

    Arkers Kwan Ching Wong, Jessica Hiu Toon Lee, Yue Zhao, Qi Lu, Shulan Yang, and Vivian Chi Ching Hui. Exploring Older Adults’ Perspectives and Acceptance of AI-Driven Health Technologies: Qualitative Study. 8(1):e66778

  41. [50]

    Jukka Vahlo and Juho Hamari.Five-Factor Inventory of Intrinsic Motivations to Gameplay (IMG)

  42. [51]

    Perneger, Delphine S

    Thomas V. Perneger, Delphine S. Courvoisier, Patricia M. Hudelson, and Angèle Gayet-Ageron. Sample size for pre-tests of questionnaires. 24(1):147–151

  43. [52]

    Landauer

    Jakob Nielsen and Thomas K. Landauer. A mathematical model of the finding of usability problems. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI ’93, pages 206–213. ACM Press

  44. [53]

    Initial validation of the general attitudes towards Artificial Intelligence Scale

    Astrid Schepman and Paul Rodway. Initial validation of the general attitudes towards Artificial Intelligence Scale. 1:100014. Received 4 June 2025; revised d mmm yyyy; accepted d mmm yyyy Manuscript submitted to ACM

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.