MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417430458 · doi:10.1186/s12984-025-01844-0

REAsmash-ET: a methodological framework for combined cognitive and motor assessment through eye-tracking and kinematic metrics in immersive VR search-and-reach task

2025· article· en· W4417430458 on OpenAlexaff
Gregorio Sorrentino, Martin Edwards, Nicolò Baldini, Magda Mustile, Thierry Lejeune, Gauthier Everard

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGaze Tracking and Assistive Technology
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTask (project management)KinematicsCognitionCognitive Assessment SystemTask analysisVirtual realityMotor imageryMotor control

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Virtual Reality (VR) Serious Games (SGs) can provide a functionally relevant framework to capture cognitive and motor dynamics. Their interactive and engaging nature improves compliance, measurement reliability and allows for more frequent evaluations. Additionally, VR SGs enable the parallel collection of multiple types of data within a single session. We present REAsmash-ET, an immersive VR adaptation of the REAsmash SG, grounded in Feature Integration Theory (FIT) and integrating eye-tracking (ET) and upper limb kinematic (UL) analyses. REAsmash-ET introduces a novel methodological framework for the simultaneous assessment of attentional and motor functions in VR. METHODS: REAsmash is an interactive search-and-reach task designed to elicit structured visual exploration and UL motor responses under varying target-distractor saliency conditions. Custom algorithms extract metrics on visual search strategies and UL motor efficiency. Three age groups of adult healthy participants (n = 15 each) were included to test the feasibility and methodological consistency of the task and its metrics. Relative Response Time (RRT) and ET metrics were analyzed using ANOVA with factors: age group (20-39, 40-59, 60-80 years), target-distractor saliency (high vs. low), and number of distractors (11, 17, 23). Kinematic metrics were analyzed by age group and response hand (dominant vs. non-dominant). RESULTS: REAsmash-ET differentiated visuomotor performance across task conditions. RRT and ET metrics showed significant effects of saliency, number of distractors, and their interaction, consistent with FIT. Age-related differences emerged in both RRT and visual search efficiency. Kinematic analyses revealed slower and less efficient movements in older participants, with effects of hand dominance.. The results support the robustness and feasibility of REAsmash-ET as a methodological framework. CONCLUSIONS: The results support the robustness and internal consistency of REAsmash-ET as a methodological framework for the integrated assessment of visual attention and UL motor control in immersive VR. The task's ability to capture visuomotor variability and its multidimensional approach highlight its potential for future research and clinical applications in both healthy and clinical populations. REGISTRY NUMBER: This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04694833).

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.757
Threshold uncertainty score0.420

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.341 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeuroEngineering and RehabilitationSame topicGaze Tracking and Assistive TechnologyFrench-language works237,207