Long-term maintenance of smartphone and PDA use in individuals with moderate to severe memory impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In an earlier paper we described a structured, theory-driven training programme which was administered to 10 individuals with moderate-to-severe memory impairment. All individuals received an errorless-fading-of-cues protocol in the use of personal digital assistants (PDAs) or smartphones (Svoboda, Richards, Leach, & Mertens, 2012 Svoboda, E., Richards, B., Leach, L., & Mertens, V. (2012). PDA and smartphone use by individuals with moderate-to-severe memory impairment: Application of a theory-driven training programme. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 22(3), 408–427. doi: 10.1080/09602011.2011.652498[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) and demonstrated generalisation of acquired skills to day-to-day memory challenges. Maintenance of intervention gains over the long-term is another indicator of successful generalisation. Here we present the maintenance of device use in the same group of individuals 12 to 19 months after programme completion. A within-subject, ABABB multi-case experimental design was used to evaluate the impact of PDA or smartphone use on day-to-day memory functioning at baseline, immediately post-intervention, at return to baseline, and at short-term and long-term follow-up. Results presented here focus predominantly on long-term follow-up. All 10 individuals showed maintenance of gains in day-to-day functioning as quantified across several ecologically valid questionnaire and task-based measures. This was corroborated by family members with whom six of the participants resided. This study further demonstrates the programme's clinical effectiveness in enabling individuals with moderate-to-severe memory impairment to function more independently and with greater confidence up to 19 months following programme completion.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".