Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34139954›Full record

ArticleNeuropsychology, development, and cognition. Section B, Aging, neuropsychology and cognition2022

Reliability and Validity of a Home-Based Self-Administered Computerized Test of Learning and Memory Using Speech Recognition.

R Scott Mackin, Emma Rhodes, Philip S Insel, Rachel Nosheny, Shannon Finley, Miriam Ashford, Monica R Camacho, Diana Truran, Kenneth Mosca, Guy Seabrook and 3 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neuropsychology, development, and cognition. Section B, Aging, neuropsychology and cognition, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Brain health registry updates: An online longitudinal neuroscience platform.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. The California Cognitive Assessment Battery (CCAB).Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Validation of the Computerized Cognitive Assessment Test: NNCT.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

13 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

R Scott MackinDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, USA.
Emma RhodesCenter for Imaging of Neurodegenerative Diseases (CIND) San Francisco Veterans Affair Medical Center, USA.
Philip S InselDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, USA.
Rachel NoshenyDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, USA.
Shannon FinleyCenter for Imaging of Neurodegenerative Diseases (CIND) San Francisco Veterans Affair Medical Center, USA.
Miriam AshfordCenter for Imaging of Neurodegenerative Diseases (CIND) San Francisco Veterans Affair Medical Center, USA.
Monica R CamachoCenter for Imaging of Neurodegenerative Diseases (CIND) San Francisco Veterans Affair Medical Center, USA.
Diana TruranCenter for Imaging of Neurodegenerative Diseases (CIND) San Francisco Veterans Affair Medical Center, USA.
Kenneth MoscaJanssen Research and Development LLC.
Guy SeabrookJohnson & Johnson Innovation.
Randall MorrisonJanssen Research and Development LLC.
Vaibhav A NarayanJanssen Research and Development LLC.
Michael WeinerDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, USA.
San Francisco VA Medical Center · USJanssen (Belgium) · BEJohnson & Johnson (Israel) · ILUniversity of California, San Francisco · US

Funding

The Brain Health Registry for facilitating interdisciplinary aging researchR33AG062867 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI NOSHENY, RACHEL LAUREN · 2020 to 2024
$3.2M
NIA NIH HHS R33 AG062867
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe objective of this study is to evaluate the reliability and validity of the ReVeRe

methodsProspective cohort study. Participants included 249 cognitively intact community dwelling older adults. Measures included clinician administered neuropsychological assessments at baseline and unsupervised remotely administered tests of cognition from six time-points over six months.

resultsThe RWLRT showed acceptable validity. Reliability coefficients varied across time points, with poor reliability between times 1 and 2 and fair-to-good reliability across the remaining five testing sessions. Practice effects were observed with repeated administration as expected. DISCUSSION: Unsupervised computerized tests of cognition, particularly word list learning and memory tests that use speech recognition, have significant potential for large scale early detection and long-term tracking of cognitive decline due to AD.

Indexed as

Speech PerceptionAgedCognitionHumansLearningNeuropsychological TestsProspective StudiesReproducibility of ResultsmemoryOnline cognitive testsreliabilityreverespeech recognitionvalidity

Identifiers

PMID34139954
PMCPMC10081827
OpenAlexW3166825205

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.