Improving Responsiveness in Game-based Cognitive Assessment for Mild Cognitive Impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) affects up to 20% of older adults and often progresses to dementia. While brief cognitive screening tools like the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) can aid in early detection and monitoring, their reliance on trained clinicians and susceptibility to test anxiety limit accessibility and ecological validity. Game-based cognitive monitoring presents a promising alternative, yet its sensitivity to cognitive changes in individuals with MCI remains underexplored. This study introduces an analytic pipeline for screening cognitive decline using Neuro-World, a serious gaming platform featuring six adaptive subgames that assess cognitive abilities through metrics such as accuracy and response time. Over 12 weeks, ten participants with MCI completed 24 game sessions. Gameplay data were analyzed using correlation-based feature selection and machine learning models to estimate cognitive function and track longitudinal changes. Results showed strong correlations between game-based assessments and clinician-administered MoCA scores ( r = 0.71), as well as with longitudinal cognitive changes ( r = 0.80). These findings highlight the potential of game-based cognitive assessments to provide self-administered, ecologically valid screening for cognitive decline in MCI, supporting early detection in aging populations.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".