MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2072547111 · doi:10.2196/mhealth.3136

Study of the Usability of Spaced Retrieval Exercise Using Mobile Devices for Alzheimer’s Disease Rehabilitation

2014· article· en· W2072547111 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ahmad Zmily, Yaser Mowafi, Ehab Mashal

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUsabilityRehabilitationComputer scienceCompetence (human resources)Task (project management)PsychologyDiseaseHuman–computer interactionMultimediaMedicinePhysical therapySocial psychologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Alzheimer's disease (AD) is an irreversible brain disease that slowly destroys memory and thinking skills, and eventually the ability to carry out the simplest daily tasks. Recent studies showed that people with AD might actually benefit from physical exercises and rehabilitation processes. Studies show that rehabilitation would also add value in making the day for an individual with AD a little less foggy, frustrating, isolated, and stressful for as long as possible. OBJECTIVE: The focus of our work was to explore the use of modern mobile technology to enable people with AD to improve their abilities to perform activities of daily living, and hence to promote independence and participation in social activities. Our work also aimed at reducing the burden on caregivers by increasing the AD patients' sense of competence and ability to handle behavior problems. METHODS: We developed ADcope, an integrated app that includes several modules that targeted individuals with AD, using mobile devices. We have developed two different user interfaces: text-based and graphic-based. To evaluate the usability of the app, 10 participants with early stages of AD were asked to run the two user interfaces of the spaced retrieval memory exercise using a tablet mobile device. RESULTS: We selected 10 participants with early stages of AD (average age: 75 years; 6/10, 60% males, 4/10, 40% females). The average elapsed time per question between the text-based task (14.04 seconds) and the graphic-based task (12.89 seconds) was significantly different (P=.047). There was also a significant difference (P<.001) between the average correct answer score between the text-based task (7.60/10) and the graphic-based task (8.30/10), and between the text-based task (31.50/100) and the graphic-based task (27.20/100; P<.001). Correlation analysis for the graphic-based task showed that the average elapsed time per question and the workload score were negatively correlated (-.93, and -.79, respectively) to the participants' performance (P<.001 and P=.006, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: We found that people with early stages of AD used mobile devices successfully without any prior experience in using such devices. Participants' measured workload scores were low and posttask satisfaction in fulfilling the required task was conceivable. Results indicate better performance, less workload, and better response time for the graphic-based task compared with the text-based task.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.075
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.367 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations41
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR mhealth and uhealth→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→