MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4324119979 · doi:10.2196/40931

Computerized Block Games for Automated Cognitive Assessment: Development and Evaluation Study

2023· article· en· W4324119979 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xiangyi Cheng, Grover C. Gilmore, Alan J. Lerner, Kiju Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Serious Games · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEducational and Psychological Assessments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsComputer scienceCognitionCube (algebra)UsabilityBlock (permutation group theory)Artificial intelligenceWechsler Adult Intelligence ScaleHuman–computer interactionMachine learningPsychologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Cognitive assessment using tangible objects can measure fine motor and hand-eye coordination skills along with other cognitive domains. Administering such tests is often expensive, labor-intensive, and error prone owing to manual recording and potential subjectivity. Automating the administration and scoring processes can address these difficulties while reducing time and cost. e-Cube is a new vision-based, computerized cognitive assessment tool that integrates computational measures of play complexity and item generators to enable automated and adaptive testing. The e-Cube games use a set of cubes, and the system tracks the movements and locations of these cubes as manipulated by the player. OBJECTIVE: The primary objectives of the study were to validate the play complexity measures that form the basis of developing the adaptive assessment system and evaluate the preliminary utility and usability of the e-Cube system as an automated cognitive assessment tool. METHODS: This study used 6 e-Cube games, namely, Assembly, Shape-Matching, Sequence-Memory, Spatial-Memory, Path-Tracking, and Maze, each targeting different cognitive domains. In total, 2 versions of the games, the fixed version with predetermined sets of items and the adaptive version using the autonomous item generators, were prepared for comparative evaluation. Enrolled participants (N=80; aged 18-60 years) were divided into 2 groups: 48% (38/80) of the participants in the fixed group and 52% (42/80) in the adaptive group. Each was administered the 6 e-Cube games; 3 subtests of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV; Block Design, Digit Span, and Matrix Reasoning); and the System Usability Scale (SUS). Statistical analyses at the 95% significance level were applied. RESULTS: The play complexity values were correlated with the performance indicators (ie, correctness and completion time). The adaptive e-Cube games were correlated with the WAIS-IV subtests (r=0.49, 95% CI 0.21-0.70; P<.001 for Assembly and Block Design; r=0.34, 95% CI 0.03-0.59; P=.03 for Shape-Matching and Matrix Reasoning; r=0.51, 95% CI 0.24-0.72; P<.001 for Spatial-Memory and Digit Span; r=0.45, 95% CI 0.16-0.67; P=.003 for Path-Tracking and Block Design; and r=0.45, 95% CI 0.16-0.67; P=.003 for Path-Tracking and Matrix Reasoning). The fixed version showed weaker correlations with the WAIS-IV subtests. The e-Cube system showed a low false detection rate (6/5990, 0.1%) and was determined to be usable, with an average SUS score of 86.01 (SD 8.75). CONCLUSIONS: The correlations between the play complexity values and performance indicators supported the validity of the play complexity measures. Correlations between the adaptive e-Cube games and the WAIS-IV subtests demonstrated the potential utility of the e-Cube games for cognitive assessment, but a further validation study is needed to confirm this. The low false detection rate and high SUS scores indicated that e-Cube is technically reliable and usable.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.836
Threshold uncertainty score0.735

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.479
Teacher spread0.394 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Serious GamesSame topicEducational and Psychological AssessmentsFrench-language works237,207