ArticleScientific reports2026
Accessibility features in executive function apps and user performance post-stroke.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Executive functions are key cognitive processes that enable planning, organization, and problem-solving, and they are often impaired after stroke, limiting independence in daily life. Digital tests offer innovative ways to assess these functions, but their accessibility may influence performance. This study compared performance on accessible versus less-accessible versions of three digital executive function applications among 32 post-stroke individuals and 32 matched healthy adults. The assessments included a virtual shopping task (Four-Item Tablet Test, 4ITT), a medication-sorting task (Medicine Arrangement Test for Occupational Therapy, MATOT), and a digital Trail Making Test (TMT). Accessible versions incorporated features such as voiceover, high contrast, or multi-page layout, while less-accessible versions omitted these features. Stroke participants performed better on the single-page version of the shopping task and on the voiceover version of the medication-sorting task. No significant differences were observed between versions in the control group, although they reported greater difficulty with the low-contrast TMT. These results indicate that accessibility features can support or hinder cognitive performance after stroke, depending on task demands. Between-group differences may partly reflect residual confounding by education and technological proficiency, alongside stroke-related factors. Overall, the findings emphasize the need to design digital executive function assessments that address stroke-related cognitive challenges.
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.