The Language & Memory Test: International feasibility study of an unsupervised digital test of cognition for neurologic populations
Leavitt, V. M.; Simani, L.; Koch, M. W.; Morrow, S. A.; Heuer, L. B.; Roozbeh, M.; Roozbeh, M.; Traynor, S. P.
Show abstract
BackgroundCurrent cognitive outcomes are insufficient to monitor subtle change over time in neurologic populations. Challenging cognitive tests (i.e., cognitive "stress test") unaffected by practice effects and learning are ideal for monitoring and tracking change. Here we describe the Language & Memory Test (LMT), an unsupervised digital test we developed to measure rapid naming, visuospatial memory, and fine motor dexterity, that takes approximately 4 minutes to complete. ObjectiveConduct feasibility study of the LMT in adults recruited across three countries; in English and non-English speaking participants; employing in-person, remote, and unsupervised administration modalities. MethodsWe investigated retest reliability, usability / tolerability, and equivalence across centers, administration modalities, and English / non-English speakers. We also evaluated performance across adult age groups: 18-40, 41-60, and 61+ years. ResultsThe LMT was administered 555 times to 440 individuals ages 18-84 years in Canada, Iran, and the United States. Our sample was geographically and racially/ethnically diverse. Participants included a control sample of adults (n=115) and adults with a diagnosed neurologic disease (n=325). Of those invited to complete the LMT, 95.3% agreed; 99% of those who began the test completed it. Retest reliability was acceptable for finger tapping (Cronbachs =0.942) and language (=0.872), and marginally acceptable for memory 1 (=0.604). Equivalence varied across administration modalities, centers/countries, settings, and English / non-English speakers. Expected age-related performance decrements were shown for all three subtests. ConclusionsThe LMT shows promise as a culturally adaptable tool for use in diverse neurologic populations.
Matching journals
The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Feasibility and reliability of online vs in-person cognitive testing in healthy older people 97%
- The Healthy Brain Initiative (HBI): A prospective cohort study protocol 95%
- The Healthy Brain 9 (HB9): A New Instrument to Characterize Subjective Cognitive Decline, and Detect Anosognosia in Mild Cognitive Impairment 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Reliability of remote self-administered web-based digital cognitive measures and comparison to in-person neuropsychological tests: Stricker Learning Span, Symbols Test and the Mayo Test Drive Screening Battery Composite 95%
- Online46: online cognitive assessments in elderly cohorts - the British 1946 birth cohort case study 94%
- Clinical Validation and Machine Learning Optimization of MyCog: A Self-Administered Cognitive Screener for Primary Care Settings 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Impaired everyday executive functions and cognitive strategy use on the Weekly Calendar Planning Activity in individuals with stroke undergoing acute inpatient rehabilitation 94%
- Rasch validation of a new scale to measure dependency in arm use in daily life: the Upper Limb Lucerne ICF-based Multidisciplinary Observation Scale (UL-LIMOS) 92%
- A randomized sham-controlled trial of transcranial and intranasal photobiomodulation in Japanese patients with mild cognitive impairment and mild dementia due to Alzhimer’s disease: a protocol 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- The New Therapeutics in Alzheimer’s Disease Longitudinal Cohort study (NTAD): study protocol 94%
- Optimising activity and diet compositions for dementia prevention: Protocol for the ACTIVate prospective longitudinal cohort study 94%
- Returning Research Results That Indicate Risk of Alzheimer Disease Dementia to Healthy Participants in Longitudinal Studies (WeSHARE) 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.