ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2024
Development of a new computer simulated environment to screen cognition: assessing the feasibility and acceptability of Leaf Café in younger and older adults.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Innovations in dementia screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis of virtual reality assessments.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Pooled it
- The CARE study protocol: game-based cognitive assessment via recreational engagement in patients with mild cognitive impairment in India.BMC geriatrics · 2026Article
- Psychological and social factors influencing AI painting tool adoption among young-old adults in the context of creative aging.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Exploring the molecular mechanisms of curcumin in modulating memory impairment in neurodegenerative disorders.Molecular biology reports · 2024Review
- Acceptability of virtual reality to screen for dementia in older adults.BMC geriatrics · 2024Article
- Article
- Navigation performance in virtual reality-based cognitive assessment games as a candidate digital cognitive marker of hippocampal vulnerability: a scoping review.Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundExisting traditional cognitive screening tools for dementia have various limitations, including overreliance on tests assessing verbal memory and, to a lesser extent, on some aspects of executive functioning. Comprehensive neuropsychological assessment is sensitive to impairment but time-intensive and expensive. Virtual reality may provide a dynamic and unique understanding of cognitive performance and increase the ecological validity of cognitive assessment. The use of virtual reality in screening for cognitive function in older persons is promising, but evidence for its use remains sparse.
objectiveOur primary aim was to examine the feasibility and acceptability of a newly developed, virtual reality assessment module, 'Leaf Café', a computer-based program that assesses cognition in an engaging, efficient, and ecologically relevant way. The secondary aim was to assess the ability of the module to discriminate between performances of younger and older adults.
methodsA cross-sectional study was carried out in Sydney, Australia, targeting adults aged 18 years and above. Participants completed a traditional cognitive screening tool (Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status-Modified, TICS-M) and Leaf Café, a low-immersive virtual reality module designed to evaluate learning and memory, perceptual-motor function, and executive functioning. The total performance score for each participant, ranging from 0 to 180, was correlated with their cognitive performance assessed by TICS-M, using Pearson's correlation coefficient. Following module completion, participants were presented with an open and closed-question survey to capture their perceptions, attitudes, and feedback on the module, encompassing practicality, acceptability, and enjoyment. Both descriptive and content analyses were employed to interpret the obtained data.
resultsA sample of 131 participants (mean age 54.9 years, SD = 20.8, range 20-85) took part. The majority were female (71.8%) and born in an English-speaking country (75.8%). The mean amount of time spent in the module was 32.8 min (SD = 13.3) with a mean module score of 107.6 (SD = 38.7). Most participants completed the highest level (5; 80.5%). There was a significant correlation between Leaf Café total scores with TICS-M cognitive scores overall, and for both younger (aged 18-64 years) and older adult (aged 65 + years) groups. No significant difference was found on performance between age groups on TICS-M performance, however, younger adults had significantly better performance on the Leaf Café module than older adults (M = 124.1 vs 95.9; p < .001). Participants had similar response proportions regarding user experience with most agreeing that the module was easy to use (84%) and to navigate (85%). Compared with younger adults, older adults had lower rates of agreement on the module's design (36.8% vs 64.3%; p = .020) and support experienced (20.5% vs 53.6%; p = .007). Participants highlighted the significance of practicality and the cognitive challenges presented by the module, in terms of memory strain and user interface concerns. Feedback encompassed different opinions on the usefulness of music, with suggestions for improvements centred around clearer instructions, varied game dynamics, and considerations for diverse user needs.
conclusionsLeaf Café is a feasible and acceptable tool to be used for screening for cognitive impairment in older adults and has real-world assessment value. Further verification on the game's utility in detecting cognitive impairment is required.
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.