Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine
Volume 2014 (2014), Article ID 804723, 13 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/804723
Research Article

Computerized Neuropsychological Assessment in Aging: Testing Efficacy and Clinical Ecology of Different Interfaces

1Institute of Molecular Bioimaging and Physiology, National Research Council (IBFM-CNR), Segrate, 20090 Milan, Italy
2Laboratory of Neuropsychology, The Foundation of the Carlo Besta Neurological Institute, IRCSS, 20133 Milan, Italy

Received 18 April 2014; Revised 2 July 2014; Accepted 2 July 2014; Published 24 July 2014

Academic Editor: Fabio Babiloni

Copyright © 2014 Matteo Canini et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. R. E. Schlegel and K. Gilliland, “Development and quality assurance of computer-based assessment batteries,” Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 49–61, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  2. S. Zygouris and M. Tsolaki, “Computerized cognitive testing for older adults. A review,” American Journal of Alzheimer's Disease & Other Dementias, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  3. M. D. Lezak, Neuropsychological Assessment, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 2004.
  4. O. Spreen, A Compendium of Neuropsychological Tests: Administration, Norms, and Commentary, Oxford University Press, 1998.
  5. M. D. Franzen and P. A. Arnett, “The validity of neuropsychological assessment procedures,” in Biological and Neuropsychological Mechanisms: Life-Span Developmental Psychology, H. W. Resse and M. D. Franzen, Eds., pp. 51–69, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, USA, 1997. View at Google Scholar
  6. R. W. Heinrichs, “Current and emergent applications of neuropsychological assessment: problems with validity and utility,” Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 171–176, 1990. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. H. C. Fichman, R. Nitrini, P. Caramelli, and K. Sameshima, “A new brief computerized cognitive screening battery (CompCogs) for early diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease,” Dementia e Neuropsychologia, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 13–19, 2008. View at Google Scholar
  8. C. Bartels, M. Wegrzyn, A. Wiedl, V. Ackermann, and H. Ehrenreich, “Practice effects in healthy adults: a longitudinal study on frequent repetitive cognitive testing,” BMC Neuroscience, vol. 11, no. 1, article 118, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. J. Fredrickson, P. Maruff, M. Woodward et al., “Evaluation of the usability of a brief computerized cognitive screening test in older people for epidemiological studies,” Neuroepidemiology, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 65–75, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. E. Woo, “Computerized neuropsychological assessments,” CNS Spectrums, vol. 13, no. 10, supplement 16, pp. 14–17, 2008. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. J.-A. Witt, W. Alpherts, and C. Helmstaedter, “Computerized neuropsychological testing in epilepsy: overview of available tools,” Seizure, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 416–423, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. R. C. K. Chan, D. Shum, T. Toulopoulou, and E. Y. H. Chen, “Assessment of executive functions: review of instruments and identification of critical issues,” Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 201–216, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  13. American Psychological Association, Committee on Professional Standards, American Psychological Association, Board of Scientific Affairs, and Committee on Psychological Tests and Assessment, Guidelines for Computer-Based Tests and Interpretations, The Association, 1986.
  14. K. Wild, D. Howieson, F. Webbe, A. Seelye, and J. Kaye, “Status of computerized cognitive testing in aging: a systematic review,” Alzheimer's and Dementia, vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 428–437, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. C. T. Gualtieri and L. G. Johnson, “Reliability and validity of a computerized neurocognitive test battery, CNS Vital Signs,” Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, vol. 21, no. 7, pp. 623–643, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. P. Maruff, E. Thomas, L. Cysique et al., “Validity of the CogState brief battery: relationship to standardized tests and sensitivity to cognitive impairment in mild traumatic brain injury, schizophrenia, and AIDS dementia complex,” Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 165–178, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. T. Dwolatzky, V. Whitehead, G. M. Doniger et al., “Validity of a novel computerized cognitive battery for mild cognitive impairment,” BMC Geriatrics, vol. 3, article 1, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. R. H. Paul, J. Lawrence, L. M. Williams, C. C. Richard, N. Cooper, and E. Gordon, “Preliminary validity of “integneuro”: a new computerized battery of neurocognitive tests,” International Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 115, no. 11, pp. 1549–1567, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  19. M. Inoue, D. Jimbo, M. Taniguchi, and K. Urakami, “Touch panel-type dementia assessment scale: a new computer-based rating scale for Alzheimer's disease,” Psychogeriatrics, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 28–33, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. K. Onoda, T. Hamano, Y. Nabika et al., “Validation of a new mass screening tool for cognitive impairment: cognitive assessment for Dementia, iPad version,” Clinical Interventions in Aging, vol. 8, pp. 353–360, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  21. A. Blackwell, “Tag Archives: CANTAB mobile,” 2011.
  22. J. Fan, B. D. McCandliss, J. Fossella, J. I. Flombaum, and M. I. Posner, “The activation of attentional networks,” NeuroImage, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 471–479, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  23. P. A. Della Rosa, G. Videsott, V. M. Borsa et al., “A neural interactive location for multilingual talent,” Cortex, vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 605–608, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  24. A. Rey, L’Examenclinique en Psychologie, Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, France, 1964.
  25. C. Caltagirone, G. Gainotti, C. Masullo, and G. Miceli, “Validity of some neuropsychological tests in the assessment of mental deterioration,” Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 50–56, 1979. View at Google Scholar
  26. A. Laudanna, A. M. Thornton, G. Brown, C. Burani, and L. Marconi, “Un corpus dell'italiano scritto contemporaneo dalla parte del ricevente,” in III Giornate Internazionali di Analisi Statistica dei Dati Testuali, S. Bolasco, L. Lebart, and A. Salem, Eds., vol. 1, pp. 103–109, Centro Informazione Stampa Universitaria, Roma, Italy, 1995. View at Google Scholar
  27. P. A. Della Rosa, E. Catricalà, G. Vigliocco, and S. F. Cappa, “Beyond the abstract-concrete dichotomy: mode of acquisition, concreteness, imageability, familiarity, age of acquisition, context availability, and abstractness norms for a set of 417 Italian words,” Behavior Research Methods, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 1042–1048, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  28. A. J. Larner, Neuropsychological Neurology: The Neurocognitive Impairments of Neurological Disorders, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2013.
  29. J. W. MacLeod, M. A. Lawrence, M. M. McConnell, G. A. Eskes, R. M. Klein, and D. I. Shore, “Appraising the ANT: psychometric and theoretical considerations of the attention network test,” Neuropsychology, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 637–651, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  30. A. Sears and B. Shneiderman, “High precision touchscreens: design strategies and comparisons with a mouse,” International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 593–613, 1991. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  31. A. Holzinger, “Finger instead of mouse: touch screens as a means of enhancing universal access,” in Universal Access Theoretical Perspectives, Practice, and Experience, pp. 387–397, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2003. View at Google Scholar
  32. P. Thekkumpurath, C. Venkateswaran, M. Kumar, A. Newsham, and M. I. Bennett, “creening for psychological distress in palliative care: performance of touch screen questionnaires compared with semistructured psychiatric interview,” Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 597–605, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  33. H. C. Fichman, R. Nitrini, P. Caramelli, and K. Sameshima, “A new Brief computerized cognitive screening battery (CompCogs) for early diagnosis of Alzheimers disease,” Dementia & Neuropsychologia, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 13–19, 2008. View at Google Scholar
  34. G. Radvansky, Human Memory, Pearson Education, Boston, Mass, USA, 2006.
  35. E. Wood, T. Willoughby, A. Rushing, L. Bechtel, and J. Gilbert, “Use of computer input devices by older adults,” Journal of Applied Gerontology, vol. 24, pp. 419–438, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  36. C. Forlines, D. Wigdor, C. Shen, and R. Balakrishnan, “Direct-touch vs. mouse input for tabletop displays,” in Proceedings of the 25th SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '07), pp. 647–656, ACM, May 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  37. W. A. Rogers, A. D. Fisk, A. C. McLaughlin, and R. Pak, “Touch a screen or turn a knob: choosing the best device for the job,” The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 271–288, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus