CClinicalTrials.gg
Sign In
CompletedNCT05310279Updated Apr 23, 2026

Feasibility of An Active Video Gaming Intervention

An interventional study of GAIMplank in Physical Disability, sponsored by University of Alabama at Birmingham. Completed at 1 site in United States. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-04-23.

Sponsored by University of Alabama at Birmingham · Not applicable, Interventional, and Other

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
6
Allocation
Not applicable
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

Replacing sedentary behaviors during leisure time with active video gaming (AVG) has been shown to be an enjoyable option for increasing the amount of physical activity acquired each week. This project will examine the feasibility of an AVG intervention using the GAIMplank.

Read the detailed description

Replacing sedentary behaviors during leisure time with active video gaming (AVG) has been shown to be an enjoyable option for increasing the amount of physical activity acquired each week. A growing body of literature indicates that increases in energy expenditure can be achieved during AVG play in people with physical disabilities, including those with mobility impairments such as cerebral palsy (CP), spinal cord injury, stroke, and other neurological conditions. AVGs are particularly important for people with disabilities given the higher rate of inaccessible features in the built environment and the difficulty in finding activities they enjoy. Since AVG devices are relatively affordable, they also hold promise as a scalable product for promoting higher levels of physical activity and fitness among people with disabilities.

There continues to be a pressing need to make gaming controllers accessible to people who are unable to stand for long periods, cannot stand on a small platform due to poor balance or extreme obesity, or who are unable to stand and are full-time wheelchair users. The GAIMplank controller, was developed and tested for usability among people with mobility impairments. During usability testing, a sample of 21 adults were able to successfully access and play a series of standard PC video games using trunk/body movements to produce game play action. Using validated survey tools, participant usability scores and qualitative feedback indicated above average usability for the GAIMplank system. In addition, participants enjoyed the activity and reported game play as light to moderate intensity activity.

This project will examine the feasibility of an AVG intervention using the GAIMplank.

02

Conditions studied

  • Physical Disability

Browse trials for

Keywords

  • Exergaming, Physical activity
03

In context

Motor Activity

2,426 studies on the registry are indexed under Motor Activity; 1,161 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 6 is below the median of 60 across 2,118 interventional studies indexed under Motor Activity.

Browse Motor Activity studies →

Lead sponsor

University of Alabama at Birmingham is the lead sponsor of 1,396 studies on the registry; 284 are open to participants now.

Of its 156 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 124 (79%) have results posted.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

  • 18+ years of age
  • Self-reported physical disability that limits their mobility
  • Communicate in English

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Significant impairment in visual acuity that prevents seeing a 52" TV screen to follow exercise
  • Body weight >400 lbs
  • Cognitive or linguistic problems with understanding instructions or filling in self-administered outcome measures in English as determined by a score of \<17 on the telephone-version of the Mini-Mental State Exam
  • Any other conditions that would limit ability to play video games
  • Cardiovascular disease event within the past 6 months
  • Severe pulmonary disease or renal failure
  • Ongoing exacerbation of a health condition
05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Other
Allocation
Not applicable
Intervention model
Single group
Masking
None (open label)
Enrollment
6 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Active video gaming

    Participants will engage in 6 weeks of active video gaming (AVG), 2x/week

    Other: GAIMplank

Interventions

  • OtherGAIMplank

    The GAIMplank video game controller will be used to play active video games.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Level of physical activity from baseline to 6 weeks

    Physical Activity Scale for Individuals with Physical Disabilities (PASIPD)

    Time frame: 6 weeks

Secondary outcomes

  1. Physical Function from baseline to 6 weeks

    PROMIS Physical Function - Short Form 20a

    Time frame: 6 weeks

  2. Exercise Outcome Expectations from baseline to 6 weeks

    Multidimensional Outcome Exercise Expectations Scale (MOESS)

    Time frame: 6 weeks

Other outcomes

  1. Physical activity enjoyment

    Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale

    Time frame: Week 1

  2. Physical activity enjoyment

    Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale

    Time frame: Week 5

  3. Physical activity enjoyment

    Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale

    Time frame: Week 12

  4. Enjoyment of the video games (exergames)

    Exergame Enjoyment Questionnaire

    Time frame: Week 1

  5. Enjoyment of the video games (exergames)

    Exergame Enjoyment Questionnaire

    Time frame: Week 5

  6. Enjoyment of the video games (exergames)

    Exergame Enjoyment Questionnaire

    Time frame: Week 12

  7. Rating of game enjoyment for each game played

    Game enjoyment: Visual analog scale (0-10)

    Time frame: Day 1

  8. Rating of game enjoyment for each game played

    Game enjoyment: Visual analog scale (0-10)

    Time frame: Day 2

  9. Rating of game enjoyment for each game played

    Game enjoyment: Visual analog scale (0-10)

    Time frame: Day 3

  10. Rating of game enjoyment for each game played

    Game enjoyment: Visual analog scale (0-10)

    Time frame: Day 4

  11. Rating of game enjoyment for each game played

    Game enjoyment: Visual analog scale (0-10)

    Time frame: Day 5

  12. Rating of game enjoyment for each game played

    Game enjoyment: Visual analog scale (0-10)

    Time frame: Day 6

  13. Rating of game enjoyment for each game played

    Game enjoyment: Visual analog scale (0-10)

    Time frame: Day 7

  14. Rating of game enjoyment for each game played

    Game enjoyment: Visual analog scale (0-10)

    Time frame: Day 8

  15. Rating of game enjoyment for each game played

    Game enjoyment: Visual analog scale (0-10)

    Time frame: Day 9

  16. Rating of game enjoyment for each game played

    Game enjoyment: Visual analog scale (0-10)

    Time frame: Day 10

  17. Rating of game enjoyment for each game played

    Game enjoyment: Visual analog scale (0-10)

    Time frame: Day 11

  18. Rating of game enjoyment for each game played

    Game enjoyment: Visual analog scale (0-10)

    Time frame: Day 12

  19. Rating of game engagement for each game played

    Game engagement: Visual analog scale (0-10)

    Time frame: Day 1

  20. Rating of game engagement for each game played

    Game engagement: Visual analog scale (0-10)

    Time frame: Day 2

  21. Rating of game engagement for each game played

    Game engagement: Visual analog scale (0-10)

    Time frame: Day 3

  22. Rating of game engagement for each game played

    Game engagement: Visual analog scale (0-10)

    Time frame: Day 4

  23. Rating of game engagement for each game played

    Game engagement: Visual analog scale (0-10)

    Time frame: Day 5

  24. Rating of game engagement for each game played

    Game engagement: Visual analog scale (0-10)

    Time frame: Day 6

  25. Rating of game engagement for each game played

    Game engagement: Visual analog scale (0-10)

    Time frame: Day 7

  26. Rating of game engagement for each game played

    Game engagement: Visual analog scale (0-10)

    Time frame: Day 8

  27. Rating of game engagement for each game played

    Game engagement: Visual analog scale (0-10)

    Time frame: Day 9

  28. Rating of game engagement for each game played

    Game engagement: Visual analog scale (0-10)

    Time frame: Day 10

  29. Rating of game engagement for each game played

    Game engagement: Visual analog scale (0-10)

    Time frame: Day 11

  30. Rating of game engagement for each game played

    Game engagement: Visual analog scale (0-10)

    Time frame: Day 12

  31. Perceived exertion for each game played

    Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE)

    Time frame: Day 1

  32. Perceived exertion for each game played

    Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE)

    Time frame: Day 2

  33. Perceived exertion for each game played

    Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE)

    Time frame: Day 3

  34. Perceived exertion for each game played

    Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE)

    Time frame: Day 4

  35. Perceived exertion for each game played

    Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE)

    Time frame: Day 5

  36. Perceived exertion for each game played

    Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE)

    Time frame: Day 6

  37. Perceived exertion for each game played

    Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE)

    Time frame: Day 7

  38. Perceived exertion for each game played

    Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE)

    Time frame: Day 8

  39. Perceived exertion for each game played

    Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE)

    Time frame: Day 9

  40. Perceived exertion for each game played

    Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE)

    Time frame: Day 10

  41. Perceived exertion for each game played

    Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE)

    Time frame: Day 11

  42. Perceived exertion for each game played

    Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE)

    Time frame: Day 12

  43. Acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of the AVG intervention

    AIM-IAM-FIM survey

    Time frame: Week 6

  44. Participant feedback regarding the intervention

    Semi-structured interview

    Time frame: Week 6

07

Study locations

1 site
  • WHARF
    Homewood, Alabama 35209, United States
08

References and documents

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

No publications or documents are linked to this record.

09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Apr 23, 2026, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT05310279
Lead sponsor
University of Alabama at Birmingham
Responsible party
Laurie A Malone, PhD (Researcher, University of Alabama at Birmingham) — Principal investigator
First posted
Apr 4, 2022
Start date
Oct 12, 2023
Primary completion
Apr 30, 2024
Completion
Mar 11, 2025
Last update
Apr 23, 2026

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Apr 2026. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Other studies in this condition

Motor Activity→

Other studies from this sponsor

University of Alabama at Birmingham

Start the discussion