An Ecological Momentary Assessment and Intervention Tool for Memory in Chronic Traumatic Brain Injury: Development and Usability of Memory Ecological Momentary Intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Memory and learning deficits are among the most impactful and longest-lasting symptoms experienced by people with chronic traumatic brain injury (TBI). Despite the persistence of post-TBI memory deficits and their implications for community reintegration, memory rehabilitation is restricted to short-term care within structured therapy sessions. Technology shows promise to extend memory rehabilitation into daily life and to increase the number and contextual diversity of learning opportunities. Ecological momentary assessment and intervention frameworks leverage mobile phone technology to assess and support individuals' behaviors across contexts and have shown benefits in other chronic conditions. However, few studies have used regular outreach via text messaging for adults with chronic TBI, and none have done so to assess and support memory. Objective: This study aimed to develop and test the usability of memory ecological momentary intervention (MEMI), a text message-based assessment and intervention tool for memory in daily life. MEMI is designed to introduce new information, cue retrieval of the information, and assess learning across time and contexts. We tested MEMI via an iterative, user-centered design process to ready it for a future trial. Methods: We developed MEMI by leveraging automated text messages for prompts using a REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture)/Twilio interface linking to the Gorilla web-based behavioral experimental platform. We recruited 14 adults with chronic, moderate-severe TBI from the Vanderbilt Brain Injury Patient Registry to participate in 3 rounds of usability testing: one round of ThinkAloud sessions using the platform and providing real-time feedback to an experimenter (n=4) and 2 rounds of real-world usability testing in which participants used MEMI in their daily lives for a week and provided feedback (n=5/round). We analyzed engagement and quantitative and qualitative user feedback to assess MEMI's usability and acceptability. Results: Participants were highly engaged with MEMI, completing an average of 11.8 out of 12 (98%) possible sessions. They rated MEMI as highly usable, with scores on the System Usability Scale across all rounds equivalent to an A+ on a standardized scale. In semistructured interviews, they stated that MEMI was simple and easy to use, that daily retrieval sessions were not burdensome, and that they perceived MEMI as helpful for memory. We identified a few small issues (eg, instruction wording) and made improvements between usability testing rounds. Conclusions: Testing MEMI with adults with chronic TBI revealed that this technology is highly usable and favorably rated for this population. We incorporated feedback regarding users' preferences and plan to test the efficacy of this tool in a future clinical trial.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".