ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Domain-Specific Cognitive Prosthesis for Face Memory and Recognition.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Vision AI-Based Gamified Cognitive Prosthesis for Executive Function: Feasibility and Usability Study.JMIR serious games · 2025Article
- Biodesign in the generative AI era: enhancing innovation and equity with NLP and LLM tools.BMJ health & care informatics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The present study proposes a cognitive prosthesis device for face memory impairment as a proof-of-concept for the domain-specific cognitive prosthesis. Healthy subjects (n = 6) and a patient with poor face memory were enrolled. An acquaintance face recognition test with and without the use of cognitive prosthesis for face memory impairment, face recognition tests, quality of life, neuropsychological assessments, and machine learning performance of the cognitive prosthesis were followed-up throughout four weeks of real-world device use by the patient. The healthy subjects had an accuracy of 92.38 ± 4.41% and reaction time of 1.27 ± 0.12 s in the initial attempt of the acquaintance face recognition test, which changed to 80.48 ± 6.23% (p = 0.06) and 2.11 ± 0.20 s (p < 0.01) with prosthesis use. The patient had an accuracy of 74.29% and a reaction time of 6.65 s, which improved to 94.29% and 3.28 s with prosthesis use. After four weeks, the patient’s unassisted accuracy and reaction time improved to 100% and 1.23 s. Functional MRI study revealed activation of the left superior temporal lobe during face recognition task without prosthesis use and activation of the right precentral motor area with prosthesis use. The prosthesis could improve the patient’s performance by bypassing the brain area inefficient for facial recognition and employing the area more efficiently for the cognitive task.
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.