Evaluating the attention network test and its ability to detect cognitive decline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study involved an evaluation of the Attention Network Test (ANT) as a neurocognitive tool for assessing fitness to drive in the senior population. The ANT measures three distinct functions of attention: alerting, orienting and executive control. This test has been successfully utilized in a variety of clinical and research settings. Few studies have applied the ANT to driving research and none have examined the psychometric properties of the ANT over multiple time points. The participants in this study were senior drivers from the Candrive study. Overall, the ANT was found to have strong psychometric properties. Specifically, the ANT has good test-retest reliability demonstrated high convergent and divergent validity with other commonly used measures (i.e., MoCA, MMSE, Trails A and B, MVPT-3 and SIMARD-MD). In our sample, only Trails A, the SIMARD-MD and alerting scores showed significant change over time. Although the ANT was not more sensitive to cognitive decline as predicted, the cognitive changes were not redundant with other neurocognitive assessment tools. This high functioning sample of seniors coupled with only three annual measurement points may have limited our ability to detect drastic cognitive decline. Nonetheless, the current study provided valuable insight into the utility of a test of attentional processes, the Attention Network Test.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".