| Literature DB >> 30412614 |
Irene Alice Chicchi Giglioli1, Carla de Juan Ripoll1, Elena Parra1, Mariano Alcañiz Raya1.
Abstract
EFs are a set of processes that supports many cognitive domains as goal setting, monitoring, planning, and cognitive-behavioural flexible control. Currently, many standardized paper-and-pencil tests or scales are used to assess EFs. These tests are easy to administer, score, and interpret but present some limitations in terms of generalizability of behaviours in real life. More recently, Information and Communication Technology has provided a higher ecological validity in the EFs assessment. In order to increase the ecological validity, we have developed a serious game (SG), named EXPANSE, which aim was to compare the participants' game performance (latency times, and correct answers) with the results obtained in the traditional tasks and scales. 354 healthy subjects participated to the study and the findings showed significant correlations among standard tasks and the serious game. The exploratory nature of the present study, on one hand, highlighted that SG could be an additional behavioral tool to assess EFs and, on the other, we need further investigations, including clinical populations, for better defining the game sensitivity toward EF components. Finally, the results show that serious games are a promising technology for the evaluation of real cognitive behavior along with traditional evaluation.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30412614 PMCID: PMC6226175 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0206925
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1a,b. Screenshot of the SG-AT3. Two objects appeared in pairs (a) and participants were instructed to shoot the alien (b).
Fig 2Screenshot of the SG-AT4.
Participants were asked to use the switches to rotate the letters until writing the color of the word in the screen.
Fig 3Screenshot of the SG-CF2.
The card on the right should be matched with one of the four groups on the left following one of the classification criterions.
Fig 4Screenshot of the SG-CF3.
There was only one combination that could activate the turbine, but this criterion was changeable along the task.
Demographic data of participants (n = 301).
| Demographic (n = 301) | Mean (SD) [Range] | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 39.78 | (8.73) | [ |
| Gender (M/F) | 149/152 | ||
| Use of technologies level (High/Low) | 143/158 | ||
Mean (SD) and [Range] values for standard tasks and serious games variables.
| Standard Tasks | Mean(SD)[Range] | Serious Games | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Correct answers (%) | 0,98 (0.06) [0.46–1.00] | 0,98(0.04) [0.53–1.00] | 0,98(0.05)[0.53–1.00] |
| Latency time (s) | 0,47 (0.07) [0.13–0.77] | 0,47(0.06) [0.34–0.71] | 0,46(0.07)[0.07–0.70] |
| Latency time (s) (correct answers-go) | 0,21(0.03)[0.11–0.41] | 0,32(0.10)[0.004–0.59] | |
| Latency time (s) | 1,40(0.26)[0.90–2.45] | 2,77(1.12)[0.91–8.10] | |
| Total time A (s) | 39,39(9.25)[21.80–91.15] | 60,38(31.87)[19.01–215.98] | |
| Total time B (s) | 55,11(14.61)[31.29–119.97] | 57,87(29.76)[22.76–332.36] | |
| Total time (s) | 338,36(119.91)[158.45–1081.21] | 336,94(141.02)[29.42–789.12] | |
| Initial time (correct answers) (s) | 10,81(5.17)[3.72–37.91] | 15,43(18.55)[1.36–143.19] | |
| Total score | 26.22(2.72)[18.00–30.00] | 11.16(1.68)[2.00–17.00] | |
| Correct answers (%) | 0,63(0.24) [0.01–0.92] | 0,54(0.25)[0.01–0.92] | 0,59(0.15)[0.08–0.87] |
| Latency time (s) | 1,08(0.44)[0.01–2.08] | 1,04(0.47)[0.01–2.10] | 0.86(0.74)[0.08–9.29] |
| Perseverative responses | 21,90(23.69)[0.00–118.00] | 29,73(25.50)[0.00–118.00] | 4.66(0.89)[0–5] |
Fig 5Results of Pearson correlations between associated Standard Tasks and Serious Games Variable.
*p < .05 **p < .01.
Results of t-test between standard tasks and serious games performance.
| CA | LT | TT (A) | PR | IT | ET | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | ||
| 0.01 | 0.056 | ||||||||||||
| -0.107 | 0.101 | ||||||||||||
| -1.318 | 0.971 | ||||||||||||
| -20.916 | 31.369 | ||||||||||||
| 0.088 | 0.274798626 | ||||||||||||
| -7.708 | 32.577 | ||||||||||||
| 0.198 | 0.854 | ||||||||||||
| 16.880 | 23.958 | ||||||||||||
| -4.624 | 18.112 | ||||||||||||
| -299.939 | 136.450 | ||||||||||||
| -1.342 | 1.647 | ||||||||||||
1 = Dot Probe, 2 = Go/Nogo, 3 = Stroop, 4 = TMT, 5 = WCST,6 = Tower of London; CA = Correct answers, LT = Latency time, TT = Total time, PR = Perseverative responses, IT = Initial time, ET = Execution time, ST = Switch time, NST = Non switch time. LT in Go/Nogo Task and in AT3 = Latency time (go-correct answers).
*p < .05
**p < .01.