Human, Exergame, and Mixed Feedback During a Dynamometric Five Times Sit-to-Stand Test: Feasibility and Preliminary Differences in Muscular Performance in Young Adults

This pilot study examined feasibility and explored preliminary differences among three concurrent augmented feedback configurations—human, exergame-based, and mixed—incorporating temporal cueing but differing in sensory, social, and interface demands during the dynamometric execution of the five times sit-to-stand test in young adults. Thirty-six participants were randomly allocated to three groups and performed the test using functional electromechanical dynamometry under the assigned feedback condition. Feasibility was evaluated through indicators of recruitment, retention, autonomy, difficulty, compliance, and safety. Muscular performance outcomes included maximum and mean force, maximum and mean power, and work. Subjective perception of feedback was assessed using visual analog scales. The protocol met five of six feasibility criteria, including safety. Mixed feedback showed higher mean force and mean power compared with exergame-based feedback, whereas no differences were observed in subjective perception. These exploratory findings support feasibility and suggest preliminary performance differences among feedback configurations relevant to human–computer interaction-oriented functional assessment.