Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Brain M-App's Structure and Usability: A New Application for Cognitive Rehabilitation at Home
Pedroli E, Mancuso V, Stramba-Badiale C, Cipresso P, Tuena C, Greci L, Goulene K, Stramba-Badiale M et al.. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2022-06-17
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Cognitive frailty is defined as a clinical condition characterized by both physical frailty and cognitive impairment, without reaching the criteria for dementia. The major goal of rehabilitation intervention is to assist patients in performing ordinary personal duties without the assistance of another person, or at the very least to remove the need for additional support, using adaptive approaches and facilities. In this regard, home-based rehabilitation allows patients to continue an intervention begun in a hospital setting while also ensuring support and assistance when access to healthcare systems is limited, such as during the present pandemic situation. We thus present Brain m-App, a tablet-based application designed for home-based cognitive rehabilitation of frail subjects, addressing spatial memory, attention, and executive functions. This app exploits the potential of 360° videos which are well-suited to home-based rehabilitation. The Brain m-app is made up of 10 days of activities that include a variety of exercises. The activities were chosen based on those patients used to do during their clinical practice in the hospital with the aim to improve their independence and autonomy in daily tasks. The preliminary usability test, which was conducted on five older people, revealed a sufficient level of usability, however, the sample size was modest. Results from the clinical study with 10 patients, revealed that Brain m-App improved especially executive functions and memory performances.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Pedroli, E., Mancuso, V., Stramba-Badiale, C., Cipresso, P., Tuena, C., Greci, L., et al. (2022). Brain M-App's Structure and Usability: A New Application for Cognitive Rehabilitation at Home. Frontiers in human neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2022.898633
Vancouver
Pedroli E, Mancuso V, Stramba-Badiale C, Cipresso P, Tuena C, Greci L, et al. Brain M-App's Structure and Usability: A New Application for Cognitive Rehabilitation at Home. Frontiers in human neuroscience. 2022. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2022.898633. PMID: 35782042.
BibTeX
@article{pedroli2022-35782042,
author = {Pedroli, E. and Mancuso, V. and Stramba-Badiale, C. and Cipresso, P. and Tuena, C. and Greci, L. and Goulene, K. and Stramba-Badiale, M. and others},
title = {{Brain M-App's Structure and Usability: A New Application for Cognitive Rehabilitation at Home}},
journal = {Frontiers in human neuroscience},
year = {2022},
doi = {10.3389/fnhum.2022.898633},
pmid = {35782042},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2022.898633}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- The preliminary usability test, which was conducted on five older people, revealed a sufficient level of usability, however, the sample size was modest.
- Results from the clinical study with 10 patients, revealed that Brain m-App improved especially executive functions and memory performances.
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 43/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 25 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 43 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Frontiers in human neuroscience) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 3 / 5 | 2022 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 35782042) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 25 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 25 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 43 out of 100. |
| Total | 43 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment
Also tagged “application”
4 studies in the library carry the topic tag “application”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 4 tagged studies.