ArticleScientific reports2026
Assessment of Abbreviated Neurocognitive Tasks via a Custom-Built Mobile Platform.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Assessment of Abbreviated Neurocognitive Tasks via a Custom-Built Mobile Platform.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study investigated the feasibility, reliability, and validity of abbreviated versions of four neurocognitive tasks-typically used to assess attention, working memory, and executive functions (i.e., the Oddball, n-Back, Stroop, and Flanker tasks). To reduce the effects of response variability and physiological noise, neurocognitive assessments typically require numerous stimulus trials per task, causing each task to often exceed 20 minutes in duration. Such long durations can contribute to participant fatigue and practical constraints, especially when multiple neurocognitive tasks are administered in a single session to evaluate neurocognitive performance across domains. To address this, we evaluated whether abbreviated versions of the tasks-each limited to a maximum duration of four minutes-could serve as reliable alternatives. A total of 57 healthy young adult participants completed the four aforementioned tasks administered through a custom-built, cross-platform mobile application. Response accuracy and reaction times were then analyzed to assess cognitive performance. Statistical analyses confirmed significant expected effects between different stimuli and experimental conditions within each task. Moreover, high split-half intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) indicated excellent internal consistency, demonstrating that the abbreviated versions yielded stable and reproducible results across all tasks. These findings support the use of the presented abbreviated tasks as efficient proxy measures for defined facets of executive functions, offering practical alternatives without compromising data integrity.
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.