MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4412398143 · doi:10.2196/66300

Optimizing the Color Shapes Task for Ambulatory Assessment and Drift Diffusion Modeling: A Factorial Experiment

2025· article· en· W4412398143 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sharon Kim, Jonathan G. Hakun, Yanling Li, Karra Harrington, Daniel Elbich, Martin J. Sliwinski, Joachim Vandekerckhove, Zita Oravecz

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsPreprintFactorialTask (project management)Factorial experimentComputer scienceStatisticsArtificial intelligenceMathematicsEngineeringMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Recent advances in cognitive digital assessment methodology, including high-frequency, ambulatory assessments, promise to improve the detection of subtle cognitive changes. Computational modeling approaches may further improve the sensitivity of digital cognitive assessments to detect subtle cognitive changes by capturing features that map onto core cognitive processes. OBJECTIVE: We explored the validity of a brief smartphone-based adaptation of a visual working memory task that has shown sensitivity for detecting preclinical Alzheimer disease risk. We aimed to optimize properties of the task for computational cognitive feature extraction with drift diffusion modeling. METHODS: We analyzed data from 68 participants (n=47, 69% women; n=55, 81% White; mean age 49, SD 14; range 24-80 years) who completed 60 trials for each of 16 variations of a visual working memory binding task (the Color Shapes task) on smartphones, over an 8-day period. A drift diffusion model was fit to the response time and accuracy data from the task. We experimentally manipulated 3 properties of the Color Shapes task (study time, probability of change, and choice urgency) to test how they yielded differences in key drift diffusion model parameters (drift rate, initial bias toward a response option, and caution in decision-making). We also evaluated how an additional task property, the test array size, impacted responses across all conditions. For array size, we tested a whole display of 3 shapes against a single probe of 1 shape only. RESULTS: The 3 task property manipulations yielded the following results: (1) increasing the ratio of different responses was credibly associated with higher initial bias toward the different response (mean 0.06, SD 0.02 for the whole display; mean 0.15, SD 0.02, for the single probe condition); (2) increasing the choice urgency during the test phase was credibly associated with decreased caution in decision-making in the single probe condition (mean -0.04, SD 0.02) but not in the whole display (mean -0.01, SD 0.02); and (3) contrary to expectation, longer study times did not yield a credibly faster drift rate but produced credibly slower ones for the whole display condition (mean -0.28, SD 0.05) and a null effect for the single probe condition (mean 0.01, SD 0.05). In addition, as expected, we found that individual differences in drift rate were associated with age in both array sizes (r=-0.45 with Bayes factor=191), with older participants having a slower drift rate. Older participants also showed higher caution (r=0.42 with Bayes factor=80.76) in the single probe condition. CONCLUSIONS: We identified a version of the Color Shapes task optimized for smartphone-based cognitive assessments in real-world settings, with data designed for analysis through computational cognitive modeling. Our proposed approach can advance the development of tools for efficient and effective early detection and monitoring of risk for Alzheimer disease.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.463
Teacher spread0.400 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative Research→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→