Cited by 48Educational Games and GamificationDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchCognitive Abilities and Testing

Developing a serious game for cognitive assessment: choosing settings and measuring performance

Tong, Tiffany, Chignell, Mark·2014·Proceedings of the Second International Symposium of Chinese CHI

Abstract

Gamification and serious games are becoming increasingly important for training, wellness, and other applications. How can games be developed for non-traditional gaming populations such as the elderly, and how can gaming be applied in non-traditional areas such as cognitive assessment? The application that we were interested in is detection of cognitive impairment in the elderly. Example use cases where gamified cognitive assessment might be useful are: prediction of delirium onset risk in emergency departments and postoperative hospital wards; evaluation of recovery from stroke in neuro-rehabilitation; monitoring of transitions from mild cognitive impairment to dementia in long-term care. With the rapid increase in cognitive disorders in many countries, inexpensive methods of measuring cognitive status on an ongoing basis, and to large numbers of people, are needed. In order to address this challenge we have developed a novel game-based method of cognitive assessment. In this paper, we present findings from a usability study conducted on the game that we developed for measuring changes in cognitive status. We report on the game's ability to predict cognitive status under varying game parameters, and we introduce a method to calibrate the game that takes into account differences in speed and accuracy, and in motor coordination. Recommendations concerning the development of serious games for cognitive assessment are made, and detailed recommendations concerning future development of the whack-a-mole game are also provided.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/2592235.2592246

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 25 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tong, T., & Chignell, M.
Affiliations
University of Toronto (CA)
Venue
Proceedings of the Second International Symposium of Chinese CHI
Publisher
ACM
Published
2014-04-26
Pages
70-79
OpenAlex
W1964622906
Cited by
48
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1
FWCI
12.08
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
International Symposium of Chinese CHI (Chinese CHI) (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Games and Gamification
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
Keywords
serious games, gamification, cognitive assessment, cognitive impairment detection, older adults, usability testing, delirium prediction, stroke recovery, mild cognitive impairment, dementia, long-term care, motor coordination

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