Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29167494›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2017

Picture Interpretation Test (PIT) 360°: An Innovative Measure of Executive Functions.

Silvia Serino, Francesca Baglio, Federica Rossetto, Olivia Realdon, Pietro Cipresso, Thomas D Parsons, Giacomo Cappellini, Fabrizia Mantovani, Gianluca De Leo, Raffaello Nemni and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Neuroscience of Virtual Reality: From Virtual Exposure to Embodied Medicine.Cyberpsychology, behavior and social networking · 2019
    Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Silvia SerinoApplied Technology for Neuro-Psychology Lab, IRCCS Istituto Auxologico Italiano, Via Magnasco, 2 20149, Milan, Italy. s.serino@auxologico.it.ORCID 0000-0002-8422-1358
Francesca BaglioIRCCS, Fondazione don Carlo Gnocchi ONLUS, Via Capecelatro 66, 20148, Milan, Italy.
Federica RossettoDepartment of Psychology, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Largo Gemelli, 1, 20100, Milan, Italy.
Olivia RealdonDepartment of Human Sciences for Education, Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy.
Pietro CipressoApplied Technology for Neuro-Psychology Lab, IRCCS Istituto Auxologico Italiano, Via Magnasco, 2 20149, Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-0662-7678
Thomas D ParsonsComputational Neuropsychology and Simulation Laboratory, University of North Texas, 1155 Union Circle #311280, Denton, Texas, 76203-5017, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0331-5019
Giacomo CappelliniNational Research Council of Italy, Institute for the Dynamics of Environmental Processes, Piazza della Scienza, 1, 20126, Milan, Italy.
Fabrizia MantovaniDepartment of Human Sciences for Education, Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy.
Gianluca De LeoDepartment of Clinical and Digital Health Sciences, College of Allied Health Sciences, Augusta University, 987 St. Sebastian Way, EC 4316, Augusta, Georgia, 30912, USA.
Raffaello NemniIRCCS, Fondazione don Carlo Gnocchi ONLUS, Via Capecelatro 66, 20148, Milan, Italy.
Giuseppe RivaApplied Technology for Neuro-Psychology Lab, IRCCS Istituto Auxologico Italiano, Via Magnasco, 2 20149, Milan, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The assessment of executive functions poses researchers with several challenges related to both the complexity of the construct of executive functions itself and/or the methodological difficulties related to its evaluation. The main objective of the current study was to evaluate a 360° version of an ecologically valid assessment called the Picture Interpretation Test (PIT). Participants included 19 patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) and 19 healthy controls. All participants endorsed globally positive experiences of the PIT 360°. Furthermore, findings indicated that patients with PD took longer to correctly interpret the PIT 360° scene and tended to significantly focus on details of the 360° scene instead of the most informative elements. The time needed for a correct interpretation of the presented scene also correlated significantly with performance in conventional paper and pencil tests of executive functions for patients with PD. Classification analysis indicated the potential of the PIT 360° for distinguishing between patients with PD and healthy controls. Overall, these data provide preliminary evidence in support of the PIT 360° for evaluating executive functions.

Indexed as

Neuropsychological TestsCognition DisordersExecutive FunctionFemaleHumansMaleParkinson Disease

Identifiers

PMID29167494
PMCPMC5700040

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.