Dubois E., Gray P., Nigay L. (Eds.) The Engineering of Mixed Reality Systems

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

386 M. Biemans et al.

Fig. 19.3 Running

19.3.2 Measurement

The measurements combined qualitative methods such as focus group discus-

sions and quantitative methods such as surveys and loggings of system usage.

Information was gathered at three moments in time, i.e. pre-trial, during the trial and

post-trial.

Pre-trial: Four focus group discussions with trainers and runners (seven to eight

participants, duration of 2 h) were conducted to identify relevant training informa-

tion and motivational aspects and to explore other relevant issues about running.

A semi-structured focus group discussion protocol was used t o address all relevant

topics, to maintain sufﬁcient exploratory ﬂexibility and to allow for communica-

tive validation [9]. To ensure reliability, the focus group discussions were attended

by a second researcher. As is common in qualitative research, participants were

selected on the basis of diversity and maximum r epresentativeness within nor-

mal populations of runners, in relation to age and running level (characteristics

that may affect an individual’s experience of, and attitudes towards, a particu-

lar phenomenon) [10–12]. The focus group discussions took about 2 h and were

tape recorded. Before and during analysis, coding frameworks were constructed

based on the research objectives, the focus group discussion protocol and relevant

data.

The results of the focus group discussions were also used to design the pre-

survey. The pre-survey was constructed with Survey World and sent out by e-mail.

After 2 weeks, the non-respondents got a reminder to complete the survey. At

the start of the experiment, all participants provided their e-mail account to the

researchers. Whether they had daily and personal access to a PC was unknown.

However, having an e-mail address might indicate that they had access to and used

a PC before.

The pre-survey asked about people’s running and training habits and motivation

for r unning based on existing scales for intrinsic and extrinsic motivation [13].

19 MyCoach 387

During the trial: Usage information ( log data) from the web application was

analysed, and netnography data were used. The log data consisted of both the

amount of sessions people conducted on the web sites and the amount of uploads.

Netnography refers to ethnographic data derived from Internet sites [14]. In this

case, a Google search revealed that three people who participated in the MyCoach

group posted information about the MyCoach system on their personal web sites or

weblogs. These postings and the corresponding comments were also gathered and

analysed.

Post-trial: Focus group discussions were conducted. Two focus group discus-

sions were held with seven to eight participants. For some people who could not

attend the focus group discussions, i nterviews were conducted. The focus group

discussions and interviews aimed at experiences of the participants on running with

and without MyCoach. The post-survey was also constructed with Survey World

and aimed at the running experiences of MyCoach. It measured changes in moti-

vation and considered experiences, opinions and preferences regarding the virtual

training system.

19.4 Results

In the MyCoach group (mixed realities) 67 people participated (38 male and 29

female) and in the control group (physical trainer) 94 people participated (62 male

and 32 female). People in the MyCoach group were on average 44.1 years old (SD

= 9.4) and had on average 6.0 years of running experience (SD = 4.9). People in

the control group were on average 44.5 years old (SD = 8.5) and had 7.0 years of

running experience (SD = 4.4).

19.4.1 Pre-trial Results: Running and Training Habits

Pre-trial information was gathered about running and training habits by focus groups

and surveys. First, four focus group sessions with six to eight participants (runners

and trainers) each were conducted to discuss running and training habits [9]. Based

upon these i nsights, the surveys were designed. The surveys provide the quantita-

tive information (what happens), whereas the focus groups provide more detailed

qualitative information (why does it happen).

First, we were interested in why people like to exercise or train. From the focus

groups it became clear that many people have different reasons to go running or

to keep running: “healthcare reasons”, “I run to lose weight” “because my kids

run”, “running provides me with a feeling of freedom”, etc. In the pre-survey, these

questions were posed, based upon the Motives for Physical Activities Measure –

Revised (MPAM-R) [13]. Ryan et al. [13] identiﬁed ﬁve main constructs of intrin-

sic motivation and exercise adherence: social, appearance, enjoyment, competence

and ﬁtness. People had to score 30 questions on these constructs on a 7-point Likert

388 M. Biemans et al.

scale (see Fig. 19.4). The results reveal that ﬁtness (health and well-being), com-

petence and enjoyment were found most important, while social aspects (group)

and appearance (the looks) were found less important (although a score around

average). Experienced runners score higher on interest/enjoyment, i.e. a higher

intrinsic motivation, while ﬁtness is especially important for beginning runners. The

results suggest that a s uccessful training system should preferably aim at ﬁtness,

competence and enjoyment, and less at social aspects and appearance.

Social Appearance Interest/enjoyment Competence Fitness

Fig. 19.4 Reasons why people exercise (1–7 Likert scale)

Individual

attention

Questions Prescribe tasks Motivating Injuries Knowledge

Relevant aspects of

a trainer….

Fig. 19.5 Results on the relevance of a trainer (1–7 Likert scale)

Next to why people like to train or exercise, we were also interested in what

people want or expect from a (physical) trainer (Fig. 19.5). Based upon the aspects

mentioned in the focus groups and interviews, six aspects were identiﬁed. Again,

people had to score the relevance of each aspect on a 7-point Likert scale. The

identiﬁed aspects were “a trainer should” motivate and stimulate, answer questions,

prescribe running tasks, prevent injuries and overtraining, pay individual attention

19 MyCoach 389

and should be knowledgeable about all kinds of running aspects. The results reveal

that people found all aspects relevant for a trainer (scores above 5) and that being

knowledgeable was found most important.

We were also interested in the kinds of aspects people pay attention to dur-

ing t raining. Hence, these are the aspects trainers should focus on or at least pay

attention to (Fig. 19.6). Again, based upon the information gained in the focus

group discussions, the following aspects were identiﬁed: running technique, breath-

ing technique, heart rate, speed, elapsed time, adherence to scheme or nothing.

Remarkably, people indicate that most attention is paid during training to the one

aspect that cannot be taken care of by a system so far, i.e. running technique.

Nothing Breathing

technique

Scheme Speed Heart rate Time Running

technique

Attention is paid

during training..

Fig. 19.6 Overview of relevant aspects during t raining

Next to these trainer and training-related aspects, we were interested in the

devices people carry with them during running.

Half of the people (50%) wear a watch and heart rate device during running,

around 25% carries a mobile phone and less than 10% uses a GPS system. The heart

rate devices are mostly used by experienced and intrinsically motivated r unners.

19.4.2 During Trial Results: Use of the MyCoach System

During the trial we could observe the use of MyCoach by logging of data. Next to

the analysis of usage data, netnography (Online ethnography) [7] information was

available. During the trial, a Google scan showed that three people who participated

in the trial blogged about it on their personal web sites. We followed and analysed

these discussions on their web sites, without intervening. First, the results of the

usage data are described, next the nethography.

390 M. Biemans et al.

19.5 Usage Data

First, we were interested in whether people really used the MyCoach system.

Therefore, we looked at the amount of times people uploaded their exercise data

to the system (see Fig. 19.7). This ﬁgure indicates that about 20% of the people

were not able to upload exercise information at all.

Distribution of uploads over participants

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

1 to 5 5 to 10 10 to 20 20 to 40 >40

number of uploads

Fig. 19.7 Distribution of uploads over participants

Several reasons were given for this, ranging from injuries and personal cir-

cumstances to not being able to cope with the technology, usability aspects and,

mostly reported, failing technology (see Fig. 19.8). As stated in the previous sec-

tion, people who did not make any upload were excluded from the trial. However,

problems with usability are a valuable result for our evaluation. A detailed anal-

ysis showed that people having afﬁnity with mobile technology, measured by the

Reasons why people did not use the virtual coach during the trial

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Usability

Failing techology

Not able to cope with

technology

Injuries / personal

circumstances

Fig. 19.8 Reasons for not uploading exercise data during the trial period

19 MyCoach 391

personal innovativeness scale [15], value MyCoach consistently higher on func-

tionality, usability and fun. Around 80% of the people managed to upload exercise

information at least once. Studying those ﬁgures in depth indicated that 35% of the

original 91 people used the system two to three times a week.

Failing technology and not being able to cope with the technology were impor-

tant reasons for not using the system. Therefore, we asked people how often the

system worked properly for them (Fig. 19.9). From these results it can be derived

that some afﬁnity with (mobile) technology is required for MyCoach; people with

more afﬁnity with (mobile) technology report a higher success rate. And, there is

a large variation in the opinions of the f unctioning of the system. About 50% of

the people found it to function well, while the other 50% indicated that it did not

function properly.

30%

Almost always

(75–100%)

How often did MyCoach function 'properly'?

10%

15%

20%

25%

35%

Often

(50–75%)

Sometimes

(25–50%)

Hardly ever

(0–25%)

Fig. 19.9 Opinions about technical functioning of MyCoach

19.6 Netnography

In their weblogs, three people reported about using MyCoach. The information they

provided was rather fact based, fewer subjective experiences were described. They

reported that they were participating in the trial and what the mobile phone and

web application looked like (pictures): “this is an example of the starting screen”,

“the training button provides you detailed information about the selected training”,

“before you arrive at home, the data is on the web-site”, “it is easier to see data on

a watch than on a mobile phone” and “Personally, I am more focused on running

technique than on performance data”. They also reported that the system did not

always work properly: “the connection with the chest band has been broken”. Many

people – from outside the trial – commented to the postings and compared it to

their own wearable devices (Garmin) (“this interface looks nicer than my boring

Garmen”). The trend in this data was that they were curious about the system, so the

392 M. Biemans et al.

Web-Logger uploaded some more pictures. After a while, using the system was not

new anymore, so they did not report on it anymore and continued with their normal

postings.

So, in general it can be said from the nethography study that a lot of people –

outside the trial – were curious about the system; it looks new and fancy and some-

times it does not work properly. Real conclusions or other observations cannot be

derived.

19.6.1 Post-trial: Evaluation of MyCoach

From the perspective of the MyCoach system, the main difference between the

physical trainer and the mixed reality system is that the mixed reality group got

additional information about exercising. The additional information was available

at three moments:

Before the training: MyCoach (Web application) provides suggestions on when

and how long to exercise. This information was based on a model of healthiness and

not on a goal-oriented training scheme.

During training: MyCoach (mobile phone client) makes performance measures

more tangible, measuring and monitoring all kinds of physical (e.g. speed) and phys-

iological (e.g. heart rate) information. Besides, multimodal (visual and auditory)

coaching information can be provided to the runner.

After training: MyCoach (Web application) provides all kinds of information on

monitoring, capturing exercise and analysing progress (tangible).

First, the overall perception of the MyCoach system was measured on a 7-point

Likert scale (1–7). In general, it can be seen that the opinions of people differ a lot,

as standard deviations are rather high (Fig. 19.10). Obviously, the ease of use score

is rather low. This is in agreement with earlier observations of problems using the

system. The Mann–Whitney test of independent samples of non-parametric data

showed that experienced runners value usefulness and ease of use signiﬁcantly

higher (p<0.1)!

Average overall perception of MyCoach

234567

Effective

Useful

Exciting

Technically interesting

Easy to use

Fun

Valuable

Nice

Fig. 19.10 Overview of perceptions of MyCoach

19 MyCoach 393

Next, the value of the provided exercise information during training was mea-

sured on a 7-point Likert scale. Speed and calorie information are perceived as less

valuable. All other kinds of information are perceived as rather valuable, time and

heart beat as most valuable. Figure 19.11 provides an overview of the perceived

values during training.

Speed Calorie Location Distance Route Heart beat

Time

Value of exercise

information

during running

Fig. 19.11 Perceived values of exercise information during training (1–7 Likert scale) (mobile

phone)

During running, auditory coaching information was available. Although all par-

ticipants got the same manual at the start of the experiment, this functionality was

known by 70% of the participants after the trial; only 26% of them stated that they

used it. From the focus group discussions it became clear that the main reason for

not using it was that the coaching information delivered by the system did not adhere

Calorie Location Route Speed Time Distance Heart beat

Value of exercise

information after

running

Fig. 19.12 Perceived values of exercise information after training (1–7 Likert scale) (Web

application)

394 M. Biemans et al.

to their training scheme, delivered by their physical trainer. So, it could provide con-

ﬂicting information. They would like to stick to their old scheme and thus not use

the system. On the other hand, other people said that they often run too fast, so they

liked the “slow down, slow down” advice of MyCoach; in this way they were able

to keep a good and stable pace. Another person said during the focus group discus-

sions: “The virtual coach was very motivating and handy.” The appreciation (N =

62) of this feature is on average 2.97 (1–7 Likert scale) (SD = 1.98).

Not only during running, but also after having run, the performance measures

could be monitored and analysed. The value of the exercise information provided

after training was again measured on a 7-point Likert scale. Calorie and location

information were perceived as less valuable. All other kinds of information were

perceived as rather valuable, heart beat and distance as most valuable (Fig. 19.12).

Runners perceived the value of the various information items differently during

and after running: speed was valued low during running and high after running.

Route information was valuable during running and relatively less after running.

During focus group discussions some people indicated that they had problems

with the usability of the web application, although they liked the system concept:

“the web site was not very clear, especially the graphics per training were hard to

interpret. Therefore, I focused on the distance. You could easily see your progress.

That is what I really liked about the system. I use to write down my distances and

time. The s ystem makes it easier to see things.”

Motivation is a crucial aspect of a trainer. The motivation scores between the

mixed reality and the control group were pre- and post-trial measured and compared.

The Mann–Whitney test of independent samples of non-parametric data showed no

differences between the motivation scores of both groups (p≥0.013). This means

that MyCoach system has no effect on the motivation of the runners.

In short, the results of the evaluation are categorised:

Tangible aspects: MyCoach captures and measures performance data during

(mobile phone) and after r unning (web application). These aspects are valued and

appreciated by the runners. In this way, effort and progress can be viewed, during

and after exercise.

Care aspects: People liked the idea that someone was watching them or could

follow them during running. The training scheme is now based on healthy and

well-being aspects. Extending this to competence-based training schedules would

be valuable. Preferably, these training schedules could be uploaded by the physical

trainer; t his should improve the coordination between physical and virtual coach.

Fun aspects: The MyCoach system improved the running experience, as it is

state-of-the-art technology to play with.

Competition aspects: At this moment, the performance data provide opportuni-

ties to compete with oneself. Comparison with others should be a nice additional

feature.

Share aspects: Although social aspects are not a motivation to start exercising,

when people are used to running, they like the idea of sharing information. Real-time

information sharing provides the idea that people are not alone. Sharing schedules

19 MyCoach 395

and performance data with others could be a valuable enhanced feature once the

basic features covering the tangible aspects are satisfactorily realised.

Stay in touch aspects: The real-time aspect of the mobile phone provides a nice

feeling of safety. One safety button on the phone could improve this feeling. Being

always online and location sharing with others should be a nice additional feature.

19.7 Conclusions

A randomised controlled trial was performed to evaluate the differences between a

physical and a mixed reality running coach. Two different groups were involved:

one experimental group running exercise training with both a physical and a virtual

coach (MyCoach = mixed r eality group) and one control group running exercise

training with only a physical coach. Both groups trained for 3 months and several

pre- and post-measurements were conducted.

Our ﬁndings underline the relative value that users place on various support fea-

tures. We found that users’ primary concern is about monitoring and capturing their

exercise and analysing progress. The “tangibility” of exercise has a positive inﬂu-

ence on the motivation to exercise. However, the lack of usability of the mobile

client and the web application could have a negative effect on this. When compar-

ing the features of MyCoach with the key design requirements mentioned in [7] for

encouraging physical activity, we note that MyCoach focuses mainly on providing

awareness of activities. Some credit for reaching a higher level of ﬁtness is also

given. Social support currently mainly comes from the physical coaching, while

future enhanced features of MyCoach will focus also on social aspects like shar-

ing data and routes. Finally, the combination of a physical and virtual coach takes

practical constraints of runners for exercising into account.

Coaching is most valued when it is coupled to a personal goal-oriented training

schedule. At this moment, this means that the mixed reality system is preferred:

a coach provides a training scheme and focuses on running technique, and the

MyCoach system provides exercise data to monitor and analyse performance. The

speciﬁc real-time and sharing options of this particular virtual coaching system

could be of crucial importance to integrate the physical and virtual coach to become

a mixed reality system.

19.8 Further Development of MyCoach

Obvious extensions of the MyCoach system focus on the real-time aspect of the

system. Sharing – real-time – information with others is the most obvious one. For

personal coaches, real-time performance information could be useful to monitor and

coach the individual runner at a distance. In this way, the trainer can coach several

people at the same time, without physical location borders. Moreover, sharing exer-

cise data like heart rate or speed with “running buddies” in a community can evolve