Improving the Ergonomics of Cognitive Assessment with Serious Games
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current cognitive testing methods in the elderly rely on clinical assessments, which are time consuming, costly, and require highly trained staff (Kueider, Parisi, Gross, & Rebok, 2012). We are developing a serious game with the goal of improving the ergonomics of cognition assessment. Instead of pencil and paper, or a computer, we are using touch-based tablets in order to provide a highly mobile and usable form of cognitive assessment. We are currently conducting usability studies on elderly adults in different healthcare environments to evaluate the technology. This paper presents work on customizing the game for use by elderly adults in a hospital emergency department (ED) and it will discuss some of the results obtained thus far, focusing on the usability of the game for this clinical population. In addition to usability results we will also report on the validity of the game in terms of how well it agrees with existing methods of cognitive assessment that are used in the ED.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it