MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392839251 · doi:10.2196/49992

Assessing the Relationship Between Digital Trail Making Test Performance and IT Task Performance: Empirical Study

2024· article· en· W4392839251 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Tanguy Depauw, Jared Boasen, Pierre‐Majorique Léger, Sylvain Sénécal

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Human Factors · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTechnology Use by Older Adults
Canadian institutionsHEC Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitionDiscriminant validityTask (project management)Profiling (computer programming)Turing testElementary cognitive taskPsychologyPredictive validityHuman multitaskingLinear discriminant analysisDiscriminant function analysisCognitive psychologyComputer scienceCognitive testArtificial intelligencePsychometricsMachine learningDevelopmental psychologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Cognitive functional ability affects the accessibility of IT and is thus something that should be controlled for in user experience (UX) research. However, many cognitive function assessment batteries are long and complex, making them impractical for use in conventional experimental time frames. Therefore, there is a need for a short and reliable cognitive assessment that has discriminant validity for cognitive functions needed for general IT tasks. One potential candidate is the Trail Making Test (TMT). Objective This study investigated the usefulness of a digital TMT as a cognitive profiling tool in IT-related UX research by assessing its predictive validity on general IT task performance and exploring its discriminant validity according to discrete cognitive functions required to perform the IT task. Methods A digital TMT (parts A and B) named Axon was administered to 27 healthy participants, followed by administration of 5 IT tasks in the form of CAPTCHAs (Completely Automated Public Turing tests to Tell Computers and Humans Apart). The discrete cognitive functions required to perform each CAPTCHA were rated by trained evaluators. To further explain and cross-validate our results, the original TMT and 2 psychological assessments of visuomotor and short-term memory function were administered. Results Axon A and B were administrable in less than 5 minutes, and overall performance was significantly predictive of general IT task performance (F5,19=6.352; P=.001; Λ=0.374). This result was driven by performance on Axon B (F5,19=3.382; P=.02; Λ=0.529), particularly for IT tasks involving the combination of executive processing with visual object and pattern recognition. Furthermore, Axon was cross-validated with the original TMT (Pcorr=.001 and Pcorr=.017 for A and B, respectively) and visuomotor and short-term memory tasks. Conclusions The results demonstrate that variance in IT task performance among an age-homogenous neurotypical population can be related to intersubject variance in cognitive function as assessed by Axon. Although Axon’s predictive validity seemed stronger for tasks involving the combination of executive function with visual object and pattern recognition, these cognitive functions are arguably relevant to the majority of IT interfaces. Considering its short administration time and remote implementability, the Axon digital TMT demonstrates the potential to be a useful cognitive profiling tool for IT-based UX research.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.124
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Human FactorsSame topicTechnology Use by Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207