Observational studyArchives of clinical neuropsychology : the official journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists2025
Accuracy of Reaction Time Measurement on Automated Neuropsychological Assessment Metric UltraMobile.
Observational study in Archives of clinical neuropsychology : the official journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists, 2025. 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.
- On-Body Measure of Reaction Time Provides Real-time Triage of Impairment.Military medicine · 2026Article
- Using Android Smartphones to Collect Precise Measures of Reaction Times to Multisensory Stimuli.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis observational study examined the accuracy of simple reaction time (RT) measurements on various touchscreen tablet devices using the Automated Neuropsychological Assessment Metric (ANAM) UltraMobile test battery. The study investigated the implications of interpreting ANAM UltraMobile with laptop-based normative data by analyzing the magnitude and variability of RT accuracy across devices.
methodRT accuracy on 10 different tablets was assessed using a photodetector and robotic arm to respond to stimuli at predetermined response times. The recorded RT was compared with the true RT obtained from the robotic arm to calculate the RT error.
resultsANAM UltraMobile recorded slower RTs than the laptop version. Additionally, RT error varied considerably among the 10 tablet models, suggesting psychometrically significant implications that could lead to interpretive errors when using laptop-based normative data.
conclusionsRelative to the RT error from the laptop-based version of ANAM, tablet data from ANAM UltraMobile are significantly slower and exhibit large variability between devices. These differences may have clinically significant implications for the comparability of the two versions. The findings suggest that further research with human participants is needed to assess the equivalence of ANAM UltraMobile with its predecessor.
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.