Mitigating the impact of motor impairment on self-administered digital tests in patients with neurological disorders
Gruia, D. C.; Giunchiglia, V.; Braban, A.; Parkinson, N.; Banerjee, S. C.; Kwan, J.; Hellyer, P. J.; Hampshire, A.; Geranmayeh, F.
Show abstract
IntroductionCognitive impairments are prevalent in many neurological disorders and remain underdiagnosed and poorly studied longitudinally. Unsupervised remote cognitive testing is an accessible, scalable, and cost-effective solution, however it often fails to separate cognitive deficits from commonly co-occurring motor impairments. To address this gap, we present a computational framework that isolates cognitive ability from motor impairment in self-administered digital tasks. MethodsStroke was chosen as a representative neurological disorder, as patients frequently experience both motor and cognitive impairments. Our validation analyses spanned 18 computerised tasks completed by 171 patients longitudinally, covering a broad spectrum of cognitive and motor domains. The computational model was applied on trial-level data to disentangle the contribution of motor and cognitive processes. ResultsIn patients with motor hand impairment, standard accuracy performance metrics were confounded in 6 tasks (p<.05, FDR-corrected). In contrast, the Modelled Cognitive metrics obtained from the computational framework showed no significant effects of impaired hand (p>.05, FDR-corrected). Moreover, the Modelled Cognitive metrics correlated more strongly with clinical pen-and-paper scales (mean R2=0.64 vs. 0.43) and functional outcomes (mean R2=0.16 vs 0.09). Brain-behaviour associations were stronger when using the Modelled Cognitive metrics, and revealed intuitive multivariate relationships with individual tasks. InterpretationWe present converging evidence for the improved clinical utility and validity of the Modelled Cognitive metrics within neurological conditions characterised by co-occurring motor and cognitive deficits. Addressing the confounding effect of motor impairments improves the reliability and biological validity of self-administered digital assessments, enhances accessibility, and supports early detection and intervention across neurological disorders. FundingThis research is funded by the UK Medical Research Council (MR/T001402/1).
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- A Remote Digital Memory Composite to Detect Cognitive Impairment in Memory Clinic Samples in Unsupervised Settings using Mobile Devices 95%
- Interpretable deep learning approach for extracting cognitive features from hand-drawn images of intersecting pentagons in older adults 94%
- A scoping review of remote and unsupervised digital cognitive assessments in preclinical Alzheimer’s disease 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Longitudinal trajectories of global and domain-specific cognition after stroke using the Oxford Cognitive Screen 95%
- Blood-brain barrier leakage in the penumbra is associated with infarction on follow-up imaging in acute ischemic stroke 92%
- Preparing for a second attack: a lesion simulation study on network resilience after stroke 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Clinical Validation and Machine Learning Optimization of MyCog: A Self-Administered Cognitive Screener for Primary Care Settings 95%
- Relationship of plasma biomarkers to digital cognitive tests in alzheimer's disease 95%
- Evaluation of a speech-based AI system for early detection of Alzheimer’s disease remotely via smartphones 94%
"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.