Can a novel computerized cognitive screening test provide additional information for early detection of Alzheimer's disease?
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Virtual reality testing of everyday activities is a novel type of computerized assessment that measures cognitive, executive, and motor performance as a screening tool for early dementia. This study used a virtual reality day-out task (VR-DOT) environment to evaluate its predictive value in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). METHODS: One hundred thirty-four patients with MCI were selected and compared with 75 healthy control subjects. Participants received an initial assessment that included VR-DOT, a neuropsychological evaluation, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan, and event-related potentials (ERPs). After 12 months, participants were assessed again with MRI, ERP, VR-DOT, and neuropsychological tests. RESULTS: At the end of the study, we differentiated two subgroups of patients with MCI according to their clinical evolution from baseline to follow-up: 56 MCI progressors and 78 MCI nonprogressors. VR-DOT performance profiles correlated strongly with existing predictive biomarkers, especially the ERP and MRI biomarkers of cortical thickness. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with ERP, MRI, or neuropsychological tests alone, the VR-DOT could provide additional predictive information in a low-cost, computerized, and noninvasive way.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The most specific domains for VR diagnostic and training purposes in AD patients include attention, executive functions, memory, orientation, and ADL.
“The most specific domains for VR diagnostic and training purposes in AD patients include attention (322), executive functions (323–326), memory (327–333), orientation (322, 327, 334–336), and ADL (337, 338).”
From The Multidisciplinary Approach to Alzheimer’s Disease and Dementia. A Narrative Review of Non-Pharmacological Treatment (2018) · cites this paper as [324]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 51 · Cited by 77
- Authors
- Tarnanas, I., Tsolaki, M., Nef, T., M. Müri, R., & Mosimann, U. P.
- Affiliations
- University of Bern (CH)
- Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (GR)
- Gerontechnology and Rehabilitation Group University of Bern Bern Switzerland
- Corresponding author
- Tarnanas, Ioannis
- Venue
- Alzheimer's & Dementia
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2014-03-20
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 790-798
- ISSN
- 1552-5260 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-5279
- OpenAlex
- W1999733637
- Cited by
- 77
- References
- 51
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 7.63
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- Alzheimer s & Dementia (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Bern Open Repository and Information System (University of Bern) (submittedVersion)
- Open Access CRIS of the University of Bern
- Funders
- PharmaCog
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
- Keywords
- Alzheimer's disease, mild cognitive impairment
- MeSH terms
- Activities of Daily Living, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Alzheimer Disease, Analysis of Variance, Cognition, Cognition Disorders, Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted, Electroencephalography, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Neuropsychological Tests, User-Computer Interface
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review