| Literature DB >> 28674661 |
Sonia Valladares-Rodriguez1, Roberto Perez-Rodriguez1, David Facal2, Manuel J Fernandez-Iglesias1, Luis Anido-Rifon1, Marcos Mouriño-Garcia1.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Assessment of episodic memory has been traditionally used to evaluate potential cognitive impairments in senior adults. Typically, episodic memory evaluation is based on personal interviews and pen-and-paper tests. This article presents the design, development and a preliminary validation of a novel digital game to assess episodic memory intended to overcome the limitations of traditional methods, such as the cost of its administration, its intrusive character, the lack of early detection capabilities, the lack of ecological validity, the learning effect and the existence of confounding factors.Entities:
Keywords: Digital game; Early detection of alzheimer and mild cognitive impairment; Ecological neuropsychological evaluation; Episodic memory assessment; Psychometric properties; Usability; Validity
Year: 2017 PMID: 28674661 PMCID: PMC5494179 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.3508
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PeerJ ISSN: 2167-8359 Impact factor: 2.984
Structural elements of the Episodix video game.
| Game goal or purpose | Cognitive assessment, detection of cognitive impairments through the assessment of episodic memory. |
| Target group | Senior people (+55 years old). |
| Location | A virtual walk around a medium-sized town. |
| Rules | During the walk, everyday life objects are displayed and players have to recall the maximum number of elements possible. |
| Challenge | To recall the maximum number of elements actually displayed, trying to avoid objects in the interference lists. |
| Feedback | Each time a correct object is selected, a star is displayed on top of it to represent a positive score or bonus point. |
| Engagement | Objects and furniture try to reproduce a realistic and personalized virtual walk, thanks to the dynamic displaying of different types of elements common in an urban environment. |
Figure A1Street map of path lists in the Episodix digital game.
Figure 1Process to obtain new object/word list in Episodix game.
Pen-and-paper test vs. Episodix video game: administration protocols.
| Word list | CVLT (pen-and-paper test) | Word list | EPISODIX (video game) |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | Immediate recall (5 trials) | A | Immediate recall (3 trials) |
| B | Immediate recall (1 trials) | B | Immediate recall (1 trials) |
| A | Short-term recall with semantic clues | A | Short-term recall with semantic clues |
| A | Immediate recall (5 trials) | A | Immediate recall (3 trials) |
| 20′ pause (other tasks carried out) | 15′ pause (other games played: attention, executive functions, or visual gnosias) | ||
| A | Long-term recall | A | Long-term recall |
| A | Long-term recall with semantic clues | A | Long-term recall with semantic clues |
| C | Yes/no recognition | C | Yes/no recognition |
| Manual processing and calculation of assessment results (20′–30′) | Automatic processing and calculation of assessment results | ||
| Expected administration + processing time: 65′–75′ | Expected administration + processing time: 30′ | ||
Notes.
Apart from the actual administration time, pen-and-paper tests require an additional processing time that depends, among other aspects, on the previous experience of the person administering the test.
List of variables captured during the administration of the Episodix digital game.
| EPISODIX | |
|---|---|
| 1. time_duration_RI_B1 | 24. omissions_RCL_CP1 |
| 2. time_duration_RCL_CP2 | 25. guesses_RI_A3 |
| 3. repetitions_RL_CP | 26. guesses_RI_A2 |
| 4. time_duration_RCL_CP4 | 27. omissions_RI_A2 |
| 5. repetitions_RI_B1 | 28. omissions_RI_A3 |
| 6. time_duration_RCL_CP1 | 29. omissions_RCL_CP3 |
| 7. time_duration_RI_A2 | 30. guesses_RCL_CP3 |
| 8. time_duration_RCL_CP3 | 31. repetitions_RI_A1 |
| 9. time_duration_RI_A3 | 32. failures_RCL_CP4 |
| 10. array_fz_play_games | 33. repetitions_RI_A2 |
| 11. time_duration_RL_CP | 34. repetitions_RI_A3 |
| 12. time_duration_RI_A1 | 35. guesses_RCL_CP4 |
| 13. omissions_RCL_CP2 | 36. omissions_RCL_CP4 |
| 14. guesses_RCL_CP2 | 37. failures_RCL_CP2 |
| 15. omissions_RL_CP | 38. repetitions_RCL_CP4 |
| 16. guesses_RI_B1 | 39. repetitions_RCL_CP2 |
| 17. omissions_RI_B1 | 40. repetitions_RCL_CP1 |
| 18. omissions_RI_A1 | 41. repetitions_RCL_CP3 |
| 19. guesses_RL_CP | 42. failures_RI_A1 |
| 20. guesses_RI_A1 | 43. failures_RI_A2 |
| 21. failures_RCL_CP3 | 44. failures_RI_A3 |
| 22. failures_RCL_CP1 | 45. failures_RI_B1 |
| 23. guesses_RCL_CP1 | 46. failures_RL_CP |
| EPISODIX | CVLT ( |
| Total trials 1–3 | Total trials 1–5 |
| Short-delayed free recall | Short-delayed free recall |
| Short-delayed cued recall | Short-delayed cued recall |
| Long-delayed free recall | Long-delayed free recall |
| Long-delayed cued recall | Long-delayed cued recall |
| Total recognition discrimination | Total recognition discrimination |
| Total repetitions | Total repetitions |
Figure 2Frequency comparison of words/objects in CVLT and Episodix.
The vertical axis represents frequency values. vertical axis: FR_A: frequency of List A; FR_B: frequency of List B; FR_C-PR: frequency of prototype word in List C; FR_C-RF: frequency of related word in List C; and FR_C-NR: frequency of nonrelated word in list C.
Comparative List A and List B from CVLT vs Episodix game.
| CVLT-A | av. fr. | EPISODIX-A | av. fr. | CVLT-B | av. fr. | EPISODIX-B | av. fr. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Drill | 1.4E–06 | bus | 7.7E–05 | Skimmer | 1.4E–05 | Sidecar | 1.9E–06 |
| 2 | Lemons | 1.1E–04 | Musician | 4.2E–04 | Cherries | 6.6E–05 | Kindergarten | 4.0E–05 |
| 3 | Jacket | 2.8E–05 | Fountain | 4.3E–03 | Tuna | 5.2E–05 | Roundabout | 3.0E–01 |
| 4 | Saffron | 5.5E–05 | Restaurant | 1.6E–04 | Mint | 7.6E–06 | Paintbrush | 4.8E–05 |
| 5 | Grapes | 3.1E–04 | postman (male) | 6.1E–05 | kiwis | 1.0E–06 | Police station | 1.4E–04 |
| 6 | Cumin | 4.1E–05 | market | 2.7E–05 | Mixer | 7.6E–06 | Skates | 1.9E–05 |
| 7 | Socks | 1.5E–03 | stop | 4.4E–04 | Garlic | 1.6E–04 | Pulley | 1.0E–04 |
| 8 | Shovel | 3.2E–04 | bicycle | 8.9E–05 | Flounder | 9.4E–06 | Sewer | 5.9E–01 |
| 9 | Laurel | 4.3E–04 | Bakery | 8.0E–05 | Paprika | 1.8E–05 | Hose | 3.1E–02 |
| 10 | Mandarins | 1.3E–05 | builder (male) | 1.2E–04 | Strawberry | 5.9E–05 | chimney | 3.2E–04 |
| 11 | Saw | 1.8E–03 | motorbike | 4.5E–05 | Megrim | 2.3E–04 | Pot | 1.6E–01 |
| 12 | Shoes | 6.1E–04 | Bin | 3.7E–05 | Dishes | 3.9E–04 | Wheelbarrow | 9.2E–07 |
| 13 | Rosemary | 1.0E–04 | Greengrocer | 4.6E–06 | Apricots | 2.3E–05 | Auditorium | 5.1E–04 |
| 14 | Pineapple | 8.3E–05 | fireman (male) | 2.3E–05 | Trout | 4.6E–05 | Mailbox | 2.8E–01 |
| 15 | Screws | 1.6E–04 | Skateboard | 7.2E–07 | oregano | 3.1E–05 | Cement-mixer | 1.6E–06 |
| 16 | Gloves | 2.2E–04 | Lamps | 1.5E–05 | Casserole | 7.9E–05 | Tricycle | 6.8E–06 |
| fr media | 3.6E–04 | fr media | 3.7E–04 | fr media | 7.5E–05 | fr media | 8.5E–05 |
Comparative List C from CVLT vs Episodix game.
| CVLT-C | Type | av. fr. | EPISODIX-C | Type | av. fr. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Shoes | A | 6.1E–04 | Bin | A | 3.7E–01 |
| 2 | Oregano | BC | 3.1E–05 | Sidecar | BC | 1.9E–02 |
| 3 | Megrim | NC | 9.4E–06 | Kindergarten | NC | 4.0E–01 |
| 4 | Clock | NR | 7.0E–04 | Clock | NR | 7.0E–04 |
| 5 | Land | RF | 3.1E–02 | Hose | RF | 4.6E–05 |
| 6 | Cinnamon | PR | 2.7E–04 | Ice-cream-shop | PR | 3.0E–06 |
| 7 | Socks | A | 1.5E–03 | Stop | A | 4.4E–04 |
| 8 | Sheets | NR | 1.9E–04 | Roses | NR | 6.8E–04 |
| 9 | rocking chair | RF | 1.9E–05 | Bridge | RF | 3.0E–03 |
| 10 | Shovel | A | 3.2E–04 | Bicycle | A | 8.9E–05 |
| 11 | Mandarins | A | 1.3E–05 | Builder (male) | A | 1.2E–04 |
| 12 | Strawberry | NC | 5.9E–05 | Pulley | NC | 1.0E–04 |
| 13 | Casserole | BC | 7.9E–05 | Sewer | BC | 5.9E–01 |
| 14 | Bonbons | RF | 2.4E–05 | Waiter (male) | RF | 1.2E–04 |
| 15 | Cumin | A | 4.1E–05 | Market | A | 2.7E–02 |
| 16 | Books | NR | 1.1E–02 | Books | NR | 1.1E–02 |
| 17 | Drill | A | 1.4E–06 | Bus | A | 7.7E–05 |
| 18 | Vitamins | NR | 1.7E–04 | Stairs | NR | 3.5E–04 |
| 19 | Carnation | RF | 9.0E–05 | Drums | RF | 7.0E–04 |
| 20 | Grapes | A | 3.1E–04 | Postman (male) | A | 6.1E–01 |
| 21 | Thread | NR | 1.7E–03 | Glasses | NR | 8.2E–05 |
| 22 | Blazer | PR | 1.6E–04 | Cone | PR | 6.5E–04 |
| 23 | lemons | A | 1.1E–04 | Musician | A | 4.2E–04 |
| 24 | Trout | NC | 4.6E–05 | Chimney | NC | 3.2E–04 |
| 25 | Saffron | A | 5.5E–05 | Restaurant | A | 1.6E–04 |
| 26 | Whistles | RF | 1.8E–05 | Paper | RF | 1.2E–02 |
| 27 | Garlic | BC | 1.6E–04 | Wheelbarrow | BC | 9.2E–03 |
| 28 | Jacket | A | 2.8E–05 | Fountain | A | 4.3E–03 |
| 29 | Carpet | NR | 2.0E–04 | Carpet | NR | 2.0E–04 |
| 30 | Rosemary | A | 1.0E–04 | Greengrocer | A | 4.6E–02 |
| 31 | Gloves | A | 2.2E–04 | Lamps | A | 1.5E–02 |
| 32 | Apples | PR | 4.4E–04 | Teacher (female) | PR | 2.6E–04 |
| 33 | Sticks | RF | 3.8E–05 | Jacket | RF | 1.6E–04 |
| 34 | Pineapple | A | 8.3E–05 | Fireman (male) | A | 2.3E–01 |
| 35 | Rosemary | A | 1.8E–03 | Motorbike | A | 4.5E–05 |
| 36 | Apricots | BC | 2.3E–05 | Mailbox | BC | 2.8E–01 |
| 37 | Aspirins | RF | 5.9E–06 | Bulb | RF | 3.0E–05 |
| 38 | Wallet | NR | 6.5E–04 | Wallet | NR | 6.5E–04 |
| 39 | Screws | A | 1.6E–04 | Skateboard | A | 7.2E–07 |
| 40 | Mixer | NC | 7.6E–06 | Cement-mixer | NC | 1.6E–02 |
| 41 | Tongs | PR | 1.0E–04 | Lorry | PR | 2.3E–04 |
| 42 | Laurel | A | 4.3E–04 | Bakery | A | 8.0E–02 |
| 43 | Duster | RF | 2.3E–05 | Bookshop | RF | 4.3E–04 |
| 44 | Soap | NR | 3.1E–04 | Cardboard | NR | 2.7E–04 |
Notes.
word from list A
word from list B, belonging to common categories
word from list B, belonging to non-common categories
prototype word
word with a phonetic relationship
non-relation word
Figure 3Focus group sessions with senior people (A at University of Vigo and B at AFAGA).
Photo permission was required and granted in the patient informant sheet. Photo credit: Sonia Valladares-Rodriguez.
Script of the focus group sessions performed.
| Focus group script |
|---|
| Introduction of the moderator and description of the work/research being carried out. Introduction of participants: name, age, occupation, hobbies, etc. |
| To start with, I would like to talk about new technologies or ITC and video games: Do you like new technologies? Do you think that new technologies mya improve or positively influence your quality if life? How do you manage with a computer, a mobile phone or a tablet computer? For what may video games could be useful? Which video games do you usually play? Which video games would you like to play if possible? What are your motivations to play video games? Do you know virtual reality video games that could make us feel that we are inside the game? |
| Next I would like to talk about people skills such us memory, attention, language, etc, and how such abilities could be studied. I would like to know your opinion about: Are you interested in how memory capabilities are evaluated? Why? Are you worried about the detection of some memory or attention problem? Which activities do you perform to keep your brain active? |
| I would like to propose a simple exercise. For this, I will first briefly describe how episodic memory is evaluated in a clinical setting. Then, I will show you a preliminary version of a video game with the same objective. |
| I show images from TAVEC and introduce the game mechanics. Then, I show a first execution of the Episodic prototype. |
| Now I would like to talk about your opinions on the game I have just shown to you, and about your experiences with this game. What do you think about cognitive questionnaires or tests such as TAVEC? Do they recall to you some daily life activity? Which? How would you improve these tests? What do you think about “Episodix”? Do you like the scenery? Which improvements or changes would you propose? Do it recall to you some daily life activity? Which? Do you feel it is invasive or alien? About using it. DO you think it is intuitive? How would you like to play this game? Using a Mobile phone, a tablet, a TV, a PC, another device? Would you like to use a collection of video games to assess your memory, attention, etc.? Do you think that Episodix serves to evaluate memory? Finally, do you wish that researchers keep investigating this topic? Would you like to participate in a future validation of this type of systems? |
Figure 4Some participants in the pilot (A–D).
Photo permission was required and granted in the patient informant sheet. Photo credit: Sonia Valladares-Rodriguez and Carlos Costa-Rivas.
Figure 5Main test subjects’ characteristics, distributed by cognitive groups (i.e., HC, MCI and AD).
In red is expressed the median value. (A) AGE; (B) Usage fz. ICTs; (C) Usage fz. Games; (D) Socialize Level; (E) Physical Exercise level; (F) MMSE [score]; (G) MAT [score] and (H) IQCODE [score]. Blue box plots are distributed by cognitive groups.
Comparative motivational and usefulness perceptions of pre-pilot and post-pilot surveys (5-point Likert scale: 1[strongly disagree] to 5[strongly agree]).
| HC | MCI | AD | TOTAL | HC rate increase (%) | MCI rate increase (%) | AD rate increase (%) | TOTAL rate increase (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [pre] to play VG | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | Rate = 40% | Rate = 20% | Rate = 40% | Rate = 40% |
| [post] to play more VG | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | ||||
| [pre] motivation to play VG | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | Rate = 50% | Rate = 0% | Rate = 20% | Rate = 40% |
| [post] more motivation to play VG | 3.5 | 3 | 3 | 3 | ||||
| [pre] useful CVG | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3.5 | Rate = 30% | Rate = 0% | Rate = −10% | Rate = 10% |
| [post] useful CVG | 4.5 | 4 | 3.5 | 4 | ||||
| [pre] useful CVG for you | 2.5 | 4 | 4 | 3 | Rate = 20% | Rate = 0% | Rate = −10 | Rate = 20% |
| [post] useful CVG for you | 3.5 | 4 | 3.5 | 4 | ||||
| [pre] to use ICTs | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1.5 | Rate = 10% | Rate = 20% | Rate = 20% | Rate = 40% |
| [post] to use more ICTs | 3.5 | 4 | 2 | 3.5 | ||||
| [post] VG easier than tests | 5 | 4 | 3.5 | 4 | ||||
| [post] VG more engaging than tests | 3.5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | ||||
| [post] VG more ecological than tests | 5 | 4 | 3.5 | 4 | ||||
| [post] VG less intrusive than tests | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 |
Notes.
video game
video game for cognitive assessment
Rows [2:5] express median value by cognitive group; rows [2:9] express statistical differences by rate of increased and paired samples t-test.
Experiments to assess of prediction accuracy of episodix using linear regression, random forest and support vector machines.
| Linear regression | Random forest | Support vector machine | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Precision | Sensitivity (Recall) | Specificity | Precision | Sensitivity (Recall) | Specificity | Precision | Sensitivity (Recall) | Specificity | ||||
| Episodix [80%–20%] executions = 5 | 0.73 | 0.70 | 0.68 | 0.83 | 0.75 | 0.50 | 0.38 | 0.92 | 0.29 | 0.25 | 0.22 | 0.55 |
| Episodix [80%–20%] executions = 100 | 0.42 | 0.40 | 0.39 | 0.57 | 0.74 | 0.69 | 0.65 | 0.82 | 0.40 | 0.41 | 0.41 | 0.51 |
| Episodix [100%] | 0.58 | 0.56 | 0.54 | 0.44 | 0.69 | 0.76 | 0.85 | 0.44 | 0.55 | 0.50 | 0.46 | 0.44 |
| Episodix [best 50%] | 0.58 | 0.56 | 0.54 | 0.44 | 0.69 | 0.76 | 0.85 | 0.44 | 0.57 | 0.59 | 0.62 | 0.33 |
| Episodix (best %) LR (best %) = 5%–6% RF (best %) = 12.5% | 0.92 | 0.88 | 0.85 | 0.89 | 0.86 | 0.89 | 0.92 | 0.78 | 0.79 | 0.81 | 0.85 | 0.67 |
| Episodix +CVG [100%] | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.90 | 0.83 | 0.77 | 0.90 |
| Episodix +CVG [best 50%] | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.85 | 0.83 | 0.81 | 0.83 |
| Episodix +CVG (best %) LR (best %) = 50% RF (best %) = 10% | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.90 | 0.83 | 0.77 | 0.90 |
Notes.
Higher quality, when accuracy values were closer to the unit.
cognitive video games during break of Episodix (similar to the break of CVLT)
Figure 6Heat map of correlation between Episodix’s variables and classical tests: CVLT, MMSE and MAT.