ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025
Nesplora Ice Cream test: a normative study of a virtual reality-based executive function assessment in adults.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aims to establish normative data for participants aged 17 to 80 who completed the Nesplora Ice Cream test, a virtual reality tool designed to assess executive functions. The objective is to provide a comprehensive reference for evaluating executive function performance in healthy adults across different age groups. A total of 419 participants (51% female) were recruited from nine locations in Spain. Trained evaluators administered the Nesplora Ice Cream test. The study utilized empirical analysis to identify key factors related to executive function, focusing on planning, learning, and flexibility. Cluster analysis was employed to define age groups for each factor: 17-40, 41-61, and 62-80 for planning; 17-44, 45-61, and 62-80 for learning; and 17-20, 21-36, and 37-80 for flexibility. The analysis revealed three main factors-planning, learning, and flexibility-that characterize executive function performance. No significant gender differences were found. Descriptive normative data were provided based on age and gender. Confirmatory factor analysis supported the three-factor structure of the test. Additionally, data on the validity, reliability, and internal consistency of the test were included. These normative data are valuable for assessing executive functions in an ecologically valid way. The findings provide a robust reference point for studying the early identification of executive dysfunction in adults and the impact of neurodegenerative conditions in clinical settings. Further research is needed to evaluate the test's sensitivity and specificity in clinical populations. These norms enable the development of timely, personalized interventions for individuals showing executive function impairments.
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.