The effects of simulated and actual visual impairment on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many cognitive assessments include a visual component; however, adults may experience a decline in visual acuity with age. Scores on cognitive assessments of adults with visual impairments are typically lower than adults with normal vision, however, it is unclear if these lower scores are a consequence of cognitive or visual impairment. We measured the impact of simulated visual impairment on a cognitive screening measure. Undergraduate students were administered the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) under three vision conditions (20/20, simulated 20/80, simulated 20/200). We found a main effect of vision condition on test performance such that there is a statistically significant difference between scores on the 20/20 and 20/80 conditions and 20/200. However, no differences were observed between 20/80 and 20/200. Participants' performance decreased with simulated impairments. A secondary between-subject analysis was conducted on a sample of older adults with and without vision impairment; no differences were found.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".