ArticlePsychological research2021
Digital pen technology for conducting cognitive assessments: a cross-over study with older adults.
Article in Psychological research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Fall sensors, home emergency system, and social service for ≥ 75-year-olds living at home - a matched control intervention study.BMC geriatrics · 2025Article
- The Potential of Automated Assessment of Cognitive Function Using Non-Neuroimaging Data: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Comparing analog and digital neurocognitive tests with older adults: a study of the ISPOCD battery vs. a digital test battery from Mindmore.BMC geriatrics · 2024Article
- Article
- Modeling Users' Cognitive Performance Using Digital Pen Features.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2022Article
- Automated Early Detection of Alzheimer's Disease by Capturing Impairments in Multiple Cognitive Domains with Multiple Drawing Tasks.Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many digitalized cognitive assessments exist to increase reliability, standardization, and objectivity. Particularly in older adults, the performance of digitized cognitive assessments can lead to poorer test results if they are unfamiliar with the computer, mouse, keyboard, or touch screen. In a cross-over design study, 40 older adults (age M = 74.4 ± 4.1 years) conducted the Trail Making Test A and B with a digital pen (digital pen tests, DPT) and a regular pencil (pencil tests, PT) to identify differences in performance. Furthermore, the tests conducted with a digital pen were analyzed manually (manual results, MR) and electronically (electronic results, ER) by an automized system algorithm to determine the possibilities of digital pen evaluation. ICC(2,k) showed a good level of agreement for TMT A (ICC(2,k) = 0.668) and TMT B (ICC(2,k) = 0.734) between PT and DPT. When comparing MR and ER, ICC(2,k) showed an excellent level of agreement in TMT A (ICC(2,k) = 0.999) and TMT B (ICC(2,k) = 0.994). The frequency of pen lifting correlates significantly with the execution time in TMT A (r = 0.372, p = 0.030) and TMT B (r = 0.567, p < 0.001). A digital pen can be used to perform the Trail Making Test, as it has been shown that there is no difference in the results due to the type of pen used. With a digital pen, the advantages of digitized testing can be used without having to accept the disadvantages.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.