## 5 Discussion  
### Patients  
With regard to the results that were obtained from the data collected in the first questionnaire, as reflected in Table 1, the evaluated exergames have been well received by the patients, achieving a good overall score (most items obtained a value of 4 or greater) in all the dimensions. In the first block (activity perception), the patients considered the activity to be fun (INT1) and interesting (INT2). In addition, they considered that they tried to perform the activity well and that the learning with respect to the use of the system was simple (LEA). Most patients scored high on the cognitive load imposed by the activity (TD), since many of them, due to their condition, needed a high concentration to move the required limb. Furthermore, this implied that they were concentrated during the activity (E1, E2). However, several of the patients considered that the rehabilitation exercises were not complicated for them using this system (DD), since it helped them follow the movement that they had to perform. On the other hand, practically all of the patients would prefer to use this system at home, rather than having to attend rehabilitation centers (PREF), since most of them had difficulties in being able to move around, either due to the inability to drive a vehicle or to limited economic resources. However, this does not imply, from our point of view, replacing the role of the therapist or reducing \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Dimension** & **Item** & **Mean** & **Standard Deviation** & **Mode** \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{**TAM**} & 1. PEU1 & 4.50 & 0.83 & 5.00 \\  & 2. PU1 & 4.50 & 0.54 & 5.00 \\  & 3. PU2 & 3.33 & 1.03 & 4.00 \\  & 4. PU3 & **4.83** & 0.40 & 5.00 \\  & 5. ITU1 & 4.67 & 0.51 & 5.00 \\  & 6. ITU2 & 4.67 & 0.51 & 5.00 \\  & 7. ITU3 & **4.83** & 0.40 & 5.00 \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{**System perception**} & 8. MOT & 3.50 & 0.54 & 4.00 \\  & 9. CONST & 3.83 & 1.16 & 5.00 \\  & 10. IMP1 & **4.50** & 0.54 & 5.00 \\  & 11. IMP2 & 4.33 & 1.21 & 5.00 \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{**Game elements**} & 12. GE1 & 3.83 & 0.75 & 4.00 \\  & 13. GE2 & 4.33 & 0.81 & 5.00 \\ \cline{1-1}  & 14. GE3 & 4.17 & 0.98 & 5.00 \\ \cline{1-1}  & 15. GE4 & **4.50** & 0.54 & 5.00 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Descriptive statistics of the dimensions evaluated by therapists. the rehabilitation time spent in specialized centers, since they are of vital importance for patients in poor condition or for patients who begin to use rehabilitation systems. On the contrary, the exergames that are generated from PEL sentences can help those patients with good progression, but who present certain logistic difficulties, such as those previously mentioned. On the other hand, most patients considered that the tested system would motivate them (CONS, PSA) to do more exercises because of its game aspect (GAM). This aspect is significant, since one of the drawbacks in the rehabilitation process is the patients' lack of motivation. As for the game mechanics, the patients satisfactorily evaluated the avatar design and decorative elements (GE1, GE5). In addition, the information about the repetitions and score achieved in the activity were positively evaluated (GE2, GE3). In these cases, the use of gamification techniques can generate a healthy competition, where patients themselves compete with each other to achieve maximum scores. The element that obtained the highest score was the virtual trajectory composed of 3D spheres that indicate the path the patient should follow (GE4). They found it to be intuitive and helped them to execute the required exercise correctly. However, the description of the activity to be performed did not have a significant score, which may indicate that its design needs to be improved (GE5). In relation to the last part of the questionnaire, the patients believed that the system is easy to use (PEU) and considered that it can help them improve their physical rehabilitation (PU).