Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41516473›Full record

ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2025

Modelling the Balance Axiom in Flow Theory: A Physiological and Computational Approach in STEAM Education.

David Antonio Rosas, Natalia Padilla-Zea, Daniel Burgos

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

David Antonio RosasGUMTS Research Group on Fashion, Technology, and Sustainability, Universidad de Diseño, Innovación y Tecnología (UDIT), Av. Alfonso XIII, 97, 28016 Madrid, Comunidad de Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-9722-2659
Natalia Padilla-ZeaResearch Institute for Innovation & Technology in Education (UNIR iTED), Universidad Internacional de La Rioja (UNIR), Av. de la Paz, 137, 26006 Logroño, La Rioja, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-6677-0372
Daniel BurgosResearch Institute for Innovation & Technology in Education (UNIR iTED), Universidad Internacional de La Rioja (UNIR), Av. de la Paz, 137, 26006 Logroño, La Rioja, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-0498-1101

Funding

Doctoral School Universidad Internacional de la Rioja (UNIR) PR-2020-03UDIT PTE
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper addresses the axiom of balance in Flow Theory from a physiological-and-group-based approach by a quasi-experimental study using mixed methods across two action-research cycles, each divided into pre-test, intervention, and post-test phases. The study involved 56 students in two control and two experimental groups attending robotics and design STEAM courses in natural settings, wearing Polar H10 bands. Each group participated in nine one-hour sessions, with the same instructor. While flow in control groups was measured with intuition-based teacher actions, in experimental groups the teacher received support from a synchronous physiological flow advisory system. Data from these groups were analysed using nonlinear techniques, finding preliminary evidence that suggests (1) more quickly reaching of the Zone of Proximal Development when the teacher has physiological guidance, (2) mathematical physiologically-based support for the axiom of balance of Flow Theory, and (3) nonlinear analysis in group contexts offer quantification to the previously found contradictions in Flow Theory. Moreover, these findings propose new hypotheses and potential redefinitions in Flow Theory.

Indexed as

Models, TheoreticalSteamHumansRoboticsSteambalanceflow theoryphysiologySTEAM

Identifiers

PMID41516473
PMCPMC12787605

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.