The effects of robot‐based cognitive intervention on resting‐state EEG in patients with mild Alzheimer's disease dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Cognitive intervention (CI) has been known to improve cognition and to delay cognitive decline in patients with dementia. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of our newly developed, robot‐based CI for 12 weeks on brain function and cognitive performance in patients with mild Alzheimer's disease dementia (ADD). Methods A single‐blind randomized controlled trial was conducted in 37 patients with ADD. ADD patients met the criteria proposed by the National Institute of Neurological and Communicative Disorders and Stroke and the Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Disorders Association (NINCDS‐ADRDA). Mild dementia was determined if global clinical dementia rating of the patients was 0.5 or 1. All participants were randomized into the two groups: the home based cognitive intervention with robot (Robot) and waitlist control without cognitive intervention (control). A total of 20 cognitive training programs were settled in the robot, which targeted training for specific cognitive domains including attention, memory, visuospatial, calculation, language and frontal executive functions. The robot‐based cognitive intervention comprised 60‐min‐session per day for 12 weeks. The primary outcome was the changes in brain function measured by resting state electroencephalogram (EEG) with a 19‐channel wireless EEG device. The secondary outcome was the changes of cognitive function measured using the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery. Results There were no baseline demographic and clinical differences between the two groups. EEG analysis after 12‐week cognitive intervention showed decreased theta wave on the frontal areas in the Robot group, while increased theta wave on the frontal areas in the control group. In addition, Robot group also demonstrated improvement in the attention domain compared to the control group. Conclusion Given that increased theta wave on the frontal areas is associated with cognitive decline, our results suggest that 12‐week robot based cognitive intervention could help improve brain function and attention in patients with mild ADD.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".