MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403475355 · doi:10.4017/gt.2024.23.s.873.opp

The relationship between neurocognitive impairment, technology experience, and mobile device proficiency: A cross-sectional exploratory study in older adults

2024· article· en· W4403475355 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Alexander Moreno, T. Chatzikostopoulos, I. Spantidakis, C. Rigoulat, Elizabeth Cote, A. N. Dieumen

Bibliographic record

VenueGerontechnology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTechnology Use by Older Adults
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéConsortium canadien en neurodégénérescence associée au vieillissementCourtois FoundationRéseau québécois de recherche sur le vieillissementAGE-WELLNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaPfizer
KeywordsCross-sectional studyNeurocognitiveExploratory researchPsychologyAssistive technologyGerontologyMedicineComputer scienceHuman–computer interactionCognitionPsychiatrySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose To explore the technological experience and competence with mobile devices in a group of older adults from the province of Quebec, Canada.Understanding current use of technology can help researchers, scientists, clinicians, and the industry to promote their use among dyads of family caregivers and older adults with unimpaired cognition (Moreno et al., 2024a) and individuals with dementia (Moreno et al., 2024b).Method A total of 194 older adults were recruited from the CIMA-Q study (Consortium for the Early Identification of Alzheimer's Disease -Quebec, Belleville et al., 2019).They were mostly women (62.9%), with university degrees (56.2%), and a mean age of 65.4 (SD=5.9)years.The sample included individuals with different degrees of cognitive functioning with an average Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) score of 25.7 (SD = 3.5, range = 7 -30).The group included people with a confirmed clinical diagnosis of normal cognition or neurocognitive impairment by expert physicians or a memory clinic as follows: a) Unimpaired cognition (n = 12), b) Subjective cognitive decline without dementia (n = 120), c) Mild Cognitive Impairment (n = 59), and d) Major Neurocognitive Disorders (n = 3).Measures included the Technology Experience Profile (TEP) and the Mobile Device Proficiency Questionnaire -Short Form (MDPQ). Results and DiscussionMoCA scores were inversely associated with age (r = -3.8,p < .01),but positively associated with technological experience (r = 3.7, p < .01)and mobile device proficiency (r = 3.5, p < .01).Age was negatively associated with technological experience (r = -3.8,p < .01)and mobile device proficiency (r = -4.8,p < .01).Although they are medium correlations, the visual representation indicates that mobile device proficiency seems to be more affected by cognitive impairment than technology experience (Figure 1).Older adults with subjective or objective cognitive impairment report using technologies less frequently and mention more difficulties using mobile devices.AgeTech solutions must adapt technologies to effectively respond to the challenges that older adults may encounter when their cognition is subjectively or objectively affected.As such, flexibility and personalization are key issues when designing technologies for older adults.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.324 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueGerontechnologySame topicTechnology Use by Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207