Home-Based Cognitive Intervention for Healthy Older Adults Through Asking Robots Questions: Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Asking questions is common in conversations, and while asking questions, we need to listen carefully to what others say and consider the perspective our questions adopt. However, difficulties persist in verifying the effect of asking questions on older adults' cognitive function due to the lack of a standardized system for conducting experiments at participants' homes. Objective: This study examined the intervention effect of cognitive training moderated by robots on healthy older adults. A focus on the feasibility of the intervention at participants' homes was also maintained. Feasibility was evaluated by considering both the dropout rate during the intervention and the number of questions posed to each participant during the experiment. Methods: We conducted a randomized controlled trial with 81 adults older than 65 years. Participants were recruited through postal invitations and then randomized into 2 groups. The intervention group (n=40) received sessions where participants listened to photo-integrated stories and posed questions to the robots. The control group (n=41) received sessions where participants listened to photo-integrated stories and only thanked the robots for confirming participation. The participants participated in 12 dialogue sessions for 2-3 weeks. Scores of global cognitive functioning tests, recall tests, and verbal fluency tasks measured before and after the intervention were compared between the 2 groups. Results: There was no significant intervention effect on the Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status-Japanese scores, recall tests, and verbal fluency tasks. Additionally, our study successfully concluded with no participant dropouts at follow-up, confirming the feasibility of our approach. Conclusions: There was no statistically significant evidence indicating intervention benefits for cognitive functioning. Although the feasibility of home-based interventions was demonstrated, we identified areas for improvement in the future, such as setting up more efficient session themes. Further research is required to identify the effectiveness of an improved cognitive intervention involving the act of asking questions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 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".