BACKGROUND: The Cogstate Brief Battery (CBB) is a computerized cognitive assessment that can be completed in clinic or at home. Design/Objective: This retrospective study investigated whether practice effects / performance trajectories of the CBB differ by location of administration. PARTICIPANTS/ SETTING: Participants included 1439 cognitively unimpaired individuals age 50-75 at baseline participating in the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (MCSA), a population-based study of cognitive aging. Sixty three percent of participants completed the CBB in clinic only and 37% completed CBB both in clinic and at home. MEASUREMENTS: The CBB consists of four subtests: Detection, Identification, One Card Learning, and One Back. Linear mixed effects models were used to evaluate performance trajectories in clinic and at home. RESULTS: Results demonstrated significant practice effects between sessions 1 to 2 for most CBB measures. Practice effects continued over subsequent testing sessions, to a lesser degree. Average practice effects/trajectories were similar for each location (home vs. clinic). One Card Learning and One Back accuracy performances were lower at home than in clinic, and this difference was large in magnitude for One Card Learning accuracy. Participants performed faster at home on Detection reaction time, although this difference was small in magnitude. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest the location where the CBB is completed has an important impact on performance, particularly for One Card Learning accuracy, and there are practice effects across repeated sessions that are similar regardless of where testing is completed.
BACKGROUND: The Cogstate Brief Battery (CBB) is a computerized cognitive assessment that can be completed in clinic or at home. Design/Objective: This retrospective study investigated whether practice effects / performance trajectories of the CBB differ by location of administration. PARTICIPANTS/ SETTING:Participants included 1439 cognitively unimpaired individuals age 50-75 at baseline participating in the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (MCSA), a population-based study of cognitive aging. Sixty three percent of participants completed the CBB in clinic only and 37% completed CBB both in clinic and at home. MEASUREMENTS: The CBB consists of four subtests: Detection, Identification, One Card Learning, and One Back. Linear mixed effects models were used to evaluate performance trajectories in clinic and at home. RESULTS: Results demonstrated significant practice effects between sessions 1 to 2 for most CBB measures. Practice effects continued over subsequent testing sessions, to a lesser degree. Average practice effects/trajectories were similar for each location (home vs. clinic). One Card Learning and One Back accuracy performances were lower at home than in clinic, and this difference was large in magnitude for One Card Learning accuracy. Participants performed faster at home on Detection reaction time, although this difference was small in magnitude. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest the location where the CBB is completed has an important impact on performance, particularly for One Card Learning accuracy, and there are practice effects across repeated sessions that are similar regardless of where testing is completed.
Entities:
Keywords:
Neuropsychology; cognitively unimpaired; computerized testing; memory; reaction time
Authors: David G Darby; Robert H Pietrzak; Julia Fredrickson; Michael Woodward; Lynette Moore; Amy Fredrickson; Jack Sach; Paul Maruff Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2012 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Robert L Heilbronner; Jerry J Sweet; Deborah K Attix; Kevin R Krull; George K Henry; Robert P Hart Journal: Clin Neuropsychol Date: 2010-11 Impact factor: 3.535
Authors: Michelle M Mielke; Mary M Machulda; Clinton E Hagen; Kelly K Edwards; Rosebud O Roberts; V Shane Pankratz; David S Knopman; Clifford R Jack; Ronald C Petersen Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2015-04-06 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: R C Petersen; R O Roberts; D S Knopman; Y E Geda; R H Cha; V S Pankratz; B F Boeve; E G Tangalos; R J Ivnik; W A Rocca Journal: Neurology Date: 2010-09-07 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Yen Ying Lim; Paul Maruff; Robert H Pietrzak; Kathryn A Ellis; David Darby; David Ames; Karra Harrington; Ralph N Martins; Colin L Masters; Cassandra Szoeke; Greg Savage; Victor L Villemagne; Christopher C Rowe Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2014-02-28 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Mary M Machulda; V Shane Pankratz; Teresa J Christianson; Robert J Ivnik; Michelle M Mielke; Rosebud O Roberts; David S Knopman; Bradley F Boeve; Ronald C Petersen Journal: Clin Neuropsychol Date: 2013-09-17 Impact factor: 3.535
Authors: Elise G Valdes; Nasreen A Sadeq; Aryn L Harrison Bush; David Morgan; Ross Andel Journal: J Clin Exp Neuropsychol Date: 2016-06-07 Impact factor: 2.475
Authors: Rosebud O Roberts; Yonas E Geda; David S Knopman; Ruth H Cha; V Shane Pankratz; Bradley F Boeve; Robert J Ivnik; Eric G Tangalos; Ronald C Petersen; Walter A Rocca Journal: Neuroepidemiology Date: 2008-02-07 Impact factor: 3.282
Authors: Paul Maruff; Yen Ying Lim; David Darby; Kathryn A Ellis; Robert H Pietrzak; Peter J Snyder; Ashley I Bush; Cassandra Szoeke; Adrian Schembri; David Ames; Colin L Masters Journal: BMC Psychol Date: 2013-12-23
Authors: Sean A P Clouston; Charles B Hall; Minos Kritikos; David A Bennett; Steven DeKosky; Jerri Edwards; Caleb Finch; William C Kreisl; Michelle Mielke; Elaine R Peskind; Murray Raskind; Marcus Richards; Richard P Sloan; Avron Spiro; Neil Vasdev; Robert Brackbill; Mark Farfel; Megan Horton; Sandra Lowe; Roberto G Lucchini; David Prezant; Joan Reibman; Rebecca Rosen; Kacie Seil; Rachel Zeig-Owens; Yael Deri; Erica D Diminich; Bernadette A Fausto; Sam Gandy; Mary Sano; Evelyn J Bromet; Benjamin J Luft Journal: Nat Rev Neurol Date: 2021-11-18 Impact factor: 42.937
Authors: Andrea L Roberts; Jiaxuan Liu; Rebecca B Lawn; Shaili C Jha; Jennifer A Sumner; Jae H Kang; Eric B Rimm; Francine Grodstein; Laura D Kubzansky; Lori B Chibnik; Karestan C Koenen Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2022-06-01
Authors: Helen Brooker; Gareth Williams; Adam Hampshire; Anne Corbett; Dag Aarsland; Jeffrey Cummings; Jose Luis Molinuevo; Alireza Atri; Zahinoor Ismail; Byron Creese; Tormod Fladby; Charlotte Thim-Hansen; Keith Wesnes; Clive Ballard Journal: Alzheimers Dement (Amst) Date: 2020-10-14
Authors: Nikki H Stricker; Emily S Lundt; Sabrina M Albertson; Mary M Machulda; Shehroo B Pudumjee; Walter K Kremers; Clifford R Jack; David S Knopman; Ronald C Petersen; Michelle M Mielke Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2020 Impact factor: 4.472
Authors: Eva C Alden; Shehroo B Pudumjee; Emily S Lundt; Sabrina M Albertson; Mary M Machulda; Walter K Kremers; Clifford R Jack; David S Knopman; Ronald C Petersen; Michelle M Mielke; Nikki H Stricker Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2021-03-01 Impact factor: 16.655
Authors: Roos J Jutten; Dorene M Rentz; Jessie F Fu; Danielle V Mayblyum; Rebecca E Amariglio; Rachel F Buckley; Michael J Properzi; Paul Maruff; Craig E Stark; Michael A Yassa; Keith A Johnson; Reisa A Sperling; Kathryn V Papp Journal: Front Aging Neurosci Date: 2022-01-13 Impact factor: 5.750
Authors: Nikki H Stricker; John L Stricker; Aimee J Karstens; Jennifer R Geske; Julie A Fields; Jason Hassenstab; Christopher G Schwarz; Nirubol Tosakulwong; Heather J Wiste; Clifford R Jack; Kejal Kantarci; Michelle M Mielke Journal: Alzheimers Dement (Amst) Date: 2022-03-09
Authors: Shehroo B Pudumjee; Emily S Lundt; Sabrina M Albertson; Mary M Machulda; Walter K Kremers; Clifford R Jack; David S Knopman; Ronald C Petersen; Michelle M Mielke; Nikki H Stricker Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2021 Impact factor: 4.472
Authors: Chris J Edgar; Eric Siemers; Paul Maruff; Ronald C Petersen; Paul S Aisen; Michael W Weiner; Bruce Albala Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2021 Impact factor: 4.472