MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7117317234 · doi:10.1002/alz70858_103066

Exploring how individuals with dementia self‐cue while completing three household tasks

2025· article· en· W7117317234 on OpenAlexaffabout
C Commisso, Shane Avila, Shital Desai, Arlene Astell

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaPsychological interventionTask (project management)Activities of daily livingIntervention (counseling)Everyday life

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The decline in ability to complete everyday activities independently is a major determinant of quality of life for people living with dementia. Previous research has shown that saying task-relevant information out-loud ('self-cueing') while completing a task assists with children and older adults by helping them to keep on-task. However, there is limited investigation of the self-cueing potential in people living with dementia. This study explores how older adults with and without cognitive impairment keep themselves on-task while completing everyday activities. METHOD: Using an observational mixed-methods study design, thirty older adults with (n = 15) and without (n = 15) cognitive impairment are completing household tasks in a simulated home environment. Participants are screened using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) tool. Participants in both groups are asked to complete three household tasks in a 1.5-hour session: (1) make a hot drink, (2) make a bed, and (3) fold laundry. Behaviours are recorded with eye-tracking glasses, video cameras, a physiological sensor watch, and field-notes. Survey data regarding task familiarity is also collected. Recordings are thematically analyzed using Noldus Observer XT behavioural analysis software to compare task behaviours between older adults with and without cognitive impairment. RESULT: In total, 15 participants without cognitive impairment (MoCA x̄ = 27/30) and 6 participants with cognitive impairment (MoCA x̄ = 21/30) have completed the tasks to date. Behavioural analysis of the video data shows a greater number of interruptions and repetitions during task completion in the cognitive impairment group compared to the control group. Analysis of the eye-tracking data indicates participants in the control group often look ahead to items involved in the next step of the task while analysis of eye-tracking data in the cognitive impairment group is currently being explored. CONCLUSION: This study is important for understanding how difficulties with self-cueing may undermine the ability of people living with dementia to stay on-track during everyday task completion. The findings will be used to inform future interventions aimed at prompting individuals with dementia to stay on-track for successful task completion. Such interventions could maintain independence, and delay demands on family and services for support with daily activities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→