## 3 Results
### Feasibility and User Experience in an Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility
#### 3.1.3 User Experience Surveys  
We next assessed the system's overall user experience during IRF use by analyzing participant responses to surveys of the system's usability, satisfaction, and intrinsic motivation. We performed a one-tailed, one-sample \(t\)-test to compare the mean participant SUS scores to the accepted threshold of 68 for system usability. Mean participant SUS scores (80.1 \(\pm\) 13.8) were significantly higher than the acceptable threshold (90% CI = [75.8, 84.3], \(t\)(29) = 4.80, \(p\) < 0.001), demonstrating acceptable usability of the system in the IRF (Figure 5B). Similarly, we used one-tailed, one-sample \(t\)-test to compare the mean QUEST score to the mid-point threshold value of 3, which separates positive from negative assessments. The mean QUEST score (4.52 \(\pm\) 0.46) was significantly higher than the threshold (90% CI = [4.38, 4.66], \(t\)(29) = 6.23, \(p\) < 0.001), suggesting that the system and its delivery were satisfying among stroke survivors in the IRF (Figure 5C). Of the 12 items from which users were to select the three of most importance to them for determining satisfaction, ease of use, comfort, and effectiveness were selected most often, whereas troubleshooting and dimensions were selected least often in the IRF (Figure 6).  
Figure 4: **(A)** Paired average response rates across days for each participant. Pre-cue includes the 5 s of activity prior to cue delivery, and post-cue includes the 5 s following cue delivery. Black dots and lines indicate the overall mean and SEM. **(B)** Average response rates across all days within all participants for cues 1 through 180. See Supplementary Materials for supporting data tables (S4).  
For each of the categories of the IMI, we completed a one-tailed, one-sample \(t\)-test to compare the mean IMI category score to the midpoint threshold value of 4. The mean IMI scores for value/usefulness (6.2 \(\pm\) 0.9), perceived choice (6.0 \(\pm\) 0.9), perceived competence (5.8 \(\pm\) 1.0), effort/importance (5.4 \(\pm\) 1.4), and interest/enjoyment (4.9 \(\pm\) 1.3) all significantly exceeded the threshold value (value/usefulness: 90% CI = [5.95, 6.50], _l_(29) = 13.60, \(p\) < 0.001, perceived choice: 90% CI = [5.73, 6.32], _l_(29) = 11.75, \(p\) < 0.001; perceived competence: 90% CI = [5.53, 6.14], _l_(29) = 10.20, \(p\) < 0.001; effort/importance: 90% CI = [4.96, 5.85],  
Figure 5: Survey responses provided after system use; dashed lines indicate thresholds for passable scores. Mean scores and SEM are represented by colored horizontal and vertical bars, respectively. (**A**) Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI) completed in the IRF. All scores met passable criteria on average, with value/importance rated highest on average. (**B**) System Usability Scale (SUS) completed in IRF and home setting is labeled going from left to right. Dashed lines in figures (**A–C**) indicate passable cut-off scores for the IMI, SUS, and QUEST surveys, respectively. Mean scores are represented by horizontal bars, and SEM is represented by vertical bars. See Supplementary Materials for supporting data tables (S4).  
Figure 6: Categories of the Quebec User Experience and Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST) users identified as most important for promoting a positive user experience. Ease of use, comfort, and effectiveness were identified most frequently out of the categories in both the IRF and home settings. See Supplementary Materials for supporting data tables (S4).  
t(29) = 5.34, \(p\) < 0.001; interest/enjoyment: 90% CI = [4.44, 5.27], \(t\)(29) = 3.51, \(p\) < 0.001) (Figure 5A). The mean score for the category of pressure/tension (2.8 \(\pm\) 1.0) was significantly lower than the threshold value of 4 (90% CI = [2.51, 3.12], \(t\)(29) = \(-\)6.57, \(p\) < 0.001), which reflects a positive user experience in this singular category.