Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32116928›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2020

Virtual Reality for the Assessment of Everyday Cognitive Functions in Older Adults: An Evaluation of the Virtual Reality Action Test and Two Interaction Devices in a 91-Year-Old Woman.

Andrea Chirico, Tania Giovannetti, Pietro Neroni, Stephanie Simone, Luigi Gallo, Federica Galli, Francesco Giancamilli, Marco Predazzi, Fabio Lucidi, Giuseppe De Pietro and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
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.

Andrea ChiricoDepartment of Psychology of Developmental and Socialization Processes, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Tania GiovannettiPsychology Department, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, United States.
Pietro NeroniInstitute for High Performance Computing and Networking, National Research Council, Naples, Italy.
Stephanie SimonePsychology Department, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, United States.
Luigi GalloInstitute for High Performance Computing and Networking, National Research Council, Naples, Italy.
Federica GalliDepartment of Psychology of Developmental and Socialization Processes, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Francesco GiancamilliDepartment of Psychology of Developmental and Socialization Processes, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Marco PredazziFondazione Il Melo Onlus, Gallarate, Italy.
Fabio LucidiDepartment of Psychology of Developmental and Socialization Processes, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Giuseppe De PietroInstitute for High Performance Computing and Networking, National Research Council, Naples, Italy.
Antonio GiordanoSbarro Institute for Cancer Research and Molecular Medicine, Center for Biotechnology, College of Science and Technology, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, United States.

Funding

Feasibility of the SmartPrompt for Improving Everyday Function in DementiaR21AG060422 · NIA · TEMPLE UNIV OF THE COMMONWEALTH · PI GIOVANNETTI, TANIA · 2019 to 2020
$426k
NIA NIH HHS R21 AG060422
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Performance-based functional tests for the evaluation of daily living activities demonstrate strong psychometric properties and solve many of the limitations associated with self- and informant-report questionnaires. Virtual reality (VR) technology, which has gained interest as an effective medium for administering interventions in the context of healthcare, has the potential to minimize the time-demands associated with the administration and scoring of performance-based assessments. To date, efforts to develop VR systems for assessment of everyday function in older adults generally have relied on non-immersive systems. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the feasibility of an immersive VR environment for the assessment of everyday function in older adults. We present a detailed case report of an elderly woman who performed an everyday activity in an immersive VR context (Virtual Reality Action Test) with two different types of interaction devices (controller vs. sensor). VR performance was compared to performance of the same task with real objects outside of the VR system (Real Action Test). Comparisons were made on several dimensions, including (1) quality of task performance (e.g., order of task steps, errors, use and speed of hand movements); (2) subjective impression (e.g., attitudes), and (3) physiological markers of stress. Subjective impressions of performance with the different controllers also were compared for presence, cybersickness, and usability. Results showed that the participant was capable of using controllers and sensors to manipulate objects in a purposeful and goal-directed manner in the immersive VR paradigm. She performed the everyday task similarly across all conditions. She reported no cybersickness and even indicated that interactions in the VR environment were pleasant and relaxing. Thus, immersive VR is a feasible approach for function assessment even with older adults who might have very limited computer experience, no prior VR exposure, average educational experiences, and mild cognitive difficulties. Because of inherent limitations of single case reports (e.g., unknown generalizability, potential practice effects, etc.), group studies are needed to establish the full psychometric properties of the Virtual Reality Action Test.

Indexed as

activities of daily livingcognitive agingeveryday actionpsychometric assessmentvirtual reality

Identifiers

PMID32116928
PMCPMC7029745

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.