User-Centered Formative Evaluation of Cognitive Rehabilitation Software: Cognitive Walkthrough and System Usability Scale Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The usability of software as a medical device plays a critical role in ensuring patient safety, clinical effectiveness, and treatment adherence. Particularly in tablet-based cognitive rehabilitation software, poor usability can increase the risk of user errors, cognitive overload, and low engagement, which may diminish therapeutic outcomes. Despite the growing integration of cognitive rehabilitation software in clinical settings, few studies have systematically evaluated its usability using structured human factor methodologies. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to conduct a formative evaluation of a tablet-based cognitive rehabilitation software by identifying potential user errors, interface design issues, and opportunities for improving the user experience and user interface (UI). METHODS: Following the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 62366-1 framework for usability engineering, a formative evaluation was conducted using a combination of cognitive walkthrough (CW) and the System Usability Scale (SUS). CW was used to identify interaction breakdowns and potential use-related problems through scenario-based expert evaluation. The SUS was administered to quantitatively assess perceived usability. Five occupational therapists with experience in cognitive rehabilitation participated in the formative evaluation. RESULTS: A total of 14 usability issues were identified across 6 task scenarios. Common problems included difficulty locating buttons, insufficient feedback during task completion, and inconsistent UI behavior. Key improvement areas included keypad layout, visibility of task progress, and accessibility of help content. The mean SUS score was 73.5 (SD 11.4), indicating an acceptable usability level (grade of B-). The lowest scores were related to system complexity and interface integration, suggesting a need to optimize UI flow and content hierarchy. CONCLUSIONS: The combined use of CW and the SUS enabled the identification of both objective and perceived usability challenges in the cognitive rehabilitation software. Findings emphasize the importance of user-centered design and formative evaluation in the early stages of software development. Recommendations such as improving information visibility, reducing unnecessary steps, and enhancing system feedback may contribute to safer and more effective digital cognitive interventions. However, given the small and homogeneous participant sample and the controlled test environment, these findings should be interpreted as preliminary. This study highlights the practical application of the IEC 62366-1 framework in evaluating software as a medical device and demonstrates its utility in guiding iterative user experience and UI improvements in cognitive rehabilitation contexts.
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.
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 | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it