Effects of an Eye-Tracking Digital Serious Game on Cognitive Function in Mild Cognitive Impairment: Pilot Intervention Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cognitive decline in aging populations underscores the need for early interventions in mild cognitive impairment (MCI), where pharmacological treatments show limited benefit. Eye-movement metrics serve as sensitive markers of cognitive deficits in MCI, and digital programs integrating these tasks offer scalable, data-driven training approaches. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a digital cognitive training program incorporating eye-movement tasks in individuals with MCI, and to determine whether eye-movement indicators can serve as objective markers of cognitive improvement. METHODS: A total of 12 participants aged 60-85 years with MCI (Korean version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment [K-MoCA] score of ≤22) completed baseline and postintervention assessments using the K-MoCA and Mini-Mental State Examination-Korean version (MMSE-K). Longitudinal changes in visuospatial attention and oculomotor performance were examined using Spearman correlations across sessions, and pre-post comparisons of eye-tracking metrics were conducted to assess training-related improvements. RESULTS: Cognitive scores improved significantly, with K-MoCA increasing by 1.5 points (from mean 20.3, SD 1.1 to mean 21.8, SD 1.7; P=.004; Cohen d=1.38) and MMSE-K by 1.3 points (from mean 21.9, SD 2.0 to mean 23.2, SD 2.2; P=.002; Cohen d=1.29). Fixation duration decreased (r=0.248; P=.003), and saccade velocity increased (r=0.258; P=.002), indicating enhanced visual processing efficiency and faster attentional shifts, whereas fixation count and saccade amplitude showed no consistent changes. In addition, saccade duration decreased by 21.72 ms, and saccade velocity increased by 114.54 °/s. CONCLUSIONS: Digital cognitive training yielded measurable gains in visuospatial attention and oculomotor efficiency in MCI, with optimized fixation and saccade patterns indicating enhanced attentional control and information processing. These findings support eye-movement metrics as sensitive indicators of cognitive change and highlight digital interventions as scalable, noninvasive tools for cognitive support 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".