Performance Differences of a Touch-Based Serial Reaction Time Task in Healthy Older Participants and Older Participants With Cognitive Impairment on a Tablet: Experimental Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Digital neuropsychological tools for diagnosing neurodegenerative diseases in the older population are becoming more relevant and widely adopted because of their diagnostic capabilities. In this context, explicit memory is mainly examined. The assessment of implicit memory occurs to a lesser extent. A common measure for this assessment is the serial reaction time task (SRTT). OBJECTIVE: This study aims to develop and empirically test a digital tablet-based SRTT in older participants with cognitive impairment (CoI) and healthy control (HC) participants. On the basis of the parameters of response accuracy, reaction time, and learning curve, we measure implicit learning and compare the HC and CoI groups. METHODS: A total of 45 individuals (n=27, 60% HCs and n=18, 40% participants with CoI-diagnosed by an interdisciplinary team) completed a tablet-based SRTT. They were presented with 4 blocks of stimuli in sequence and a fifth block that consisted of stimuli appearing in random order. Statistical and machine learning modeling approaches were used to investigate how healthy individuals and individuals with CoI differed in their task performance and implicit learning. RESULTS: =22.32; P<.001); and lower implicit learning, measured via the response increase between sequence blocks and the random block (β=-0.34; SE 0.12; t=-2.81; P=.007). Furthermore, machine learning models based on these findings were able to reliably and accurately predict whether an individual was in the HC or CoI group, with an average prediction accuracy of 77.13% (95% CI 74.67%-81.33%). CONCLUSIONS: Our results showed that the HC and CoI groups differed substantially in their performance in the SRTT. This highlights the promising potential of implicit learning paradigms in the detection of CoI. The short testing paradigm based on these results is easy to use in clinical practice.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".