Relationships between cognitive functioning and power wheelchair performance, confidence and life-space mobility among experienced power wheelchair users: An exploratory study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To explore: (i) relationships between power wheelchair performance, confidence, mobility and the severity of user's cognitive impairment; (ii) relationships between cognitive functioning and power wheelchair performance, confidence and mobility; and (iii) how cognitive scores influence power wheelchair performance, confidence and mobility. DESIGN: Cross-sectional exploratory study. SUBJECTS: Independent power wheelchair users; ≥18 years. OUTCOME MEASURES: Cognitive assessments (Montreal Cognitive Assessment, Motor-Free Visual Perception Test, and Dysexecutive Questionnaire) and power wheelchair driving assessments (Power mobility Indoor Driving Assessment, Wheelchair-Skills-Test-Questionnaire, and Life-Space Assessment). Analyses were completed using multivariate analysis of variance and principal component analysis. RESULTS: There were a total of 30 participants (with a mean (SD) age of 58 (15) years, who had a mean (SD) of 3 (6.2) years of experience of power wheelchair use, (SD) and a mean score of 22 (5 on) the Montreal Cognitive Assessment. There were statistically significant differences in all power wheelchair driving assessments, depending on the severity of cognitive impairment (moderate, p = 0.009; mild, p = <0.001; none, p = 0.009). The first principal component suggested that cognitive functioning, visual perception, and performance explained 69% of the variability in the first principle componenent. The second and third principal components suggested that confidence and the built and social environments also played significant roles in power wheelchair use. CONCLUSION: There are correlations between cognitive functioning and power wheelchair use in experienced users, with the severity of cognitive impairment influencing power wheelchair driving outcomes.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".