Optimizing Technology-Based Prompts for Supporting People Living With Dementia in Completing Activities of Daily Living at Home: Experimental Approach to Prompt Modality, Task Breakdown, and Attentional Support
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Assistive technology is becoming increasingly accessible and affordable for supporting people with dementia and their care partners living at home, with strong potential for technology-based prompting to assist with initiation and tracking of complex, multistep activities of daily living. However, there is limited direct comparison of different prompt features to guide optimal technology design. OBJECTIVE: Across 3 experiments, we investigated the features of tablet-based prompts that best support people with dementia to complete activities of daily living at home, measuring prompt effectiveness and gaining feedback from people with dementia and their care partners about their experiences. METHODS: Across experiments, we developed a specialized iPad app to enable data collection with people with dementia at home over an extended experimental period. In experiment 1, we varied the prompts in a 3 (visual type: text instruction, iconic image, and photographic image) × 3 (audio type: no sound, symbolic sound, and verbal instruction) experimental design using repeated measures across multiple testing sessions involving single-step activities. In experiment 2, we tested the most effective prompt breakdown for complex multistep tasks comparing 3 conditions (1-prompt, 3-prompt, and 7-prompt conditions). In experiment 3, we compared initiation and maintenance alerts that involved either an auditory tone or an auditory tone combined with a verbal instruction. Throughout, we asked people with dementia and their care partners to reflect on the usefulness of prompting technology in their everyday lives and what could be developed to better meet their needs. RESULTS: First, our results showed that audible verbal instructions were more useful for task completion than either tone-based or visual prompts. Second, a more granular breakdown of tasks was generally more useful and increased independent use, but this varied across individuals. Third, while a voice or text maintenance alert enabled people with dementia to persist with a multistep task for longer when it was more frequent, task initiation still frequently required support from a care partner. CONCLUSIONS: These findings can help inform developers of assistive technology about the design features that promote the usefulness of home prompting systems for people with dementia as well as the preferences and insights of people with dementia and their care partners regarding assistive technology design.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".