Home › Research › Risk genes beyond APOE
Errorless learning of a video call in Alzheimer Disease: verbal motor error dissociation as a potential marker of procedural learning (a pilot study)
Vincenti, C.. medRxiv (preprint), 2026-09-10
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
BackgroundDementia is rising worldwide, and in Alzheimer Disease (AD) the loss of communication adds to the burden. In AD the explicit, error correcting memory fails early, whereas procedural and implicit memory is relatively preserved, which is the basis of errorless learning. ObjectiveTo test whether people with AD can learn an everyday communicative task, placing a video call, through errorless learning, and to characterise the learning curve and the pattern of verbal and motor errors. MethodsTwenty patients with AD learned a three step video call on a touchscreen through errorless learning, over two sessions of 15 minutes with three trials each, separated by a 15 minute interval. Execution time was recorded for each trial. Verbal errors, a correct gesture with an incorrect verbalisation, and motor errors, a wrong, approximate, or absent gesture, were scored for each step. Means are reported with 95% confidence intervals. ResultsMean execution time fell from 41.7 to 23.3 seconds and levelled off over the last two trials of the second session. Verbal and motor errors followed significantly different courses across steps: verbal errors were present from the first trial and fell close to zero by the last step of the second session, whereas motor errors increased. ConclusionPeople with AD acquired the procedure, and the dissociation between verbal and motor errors is consistent with a dissociation between procedural performance and explicit verbal report during acquisition. These preliminary findings support the use of preserved procedural memory in rehabilitation.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Vincenti. (2026). Errorless learning of a video call in Alzheimer Disease: verbal motor error dissociation as a potential marker of procedural learning (a pilot study). medRxiv (preprint). https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.09.08.26362385
Vancouver
Vincenti. Errorless learning of a video call in Alzheimer Disease: verbal motor error dissociation as a potential marker of procedural learning (a pilot study). medRxiv (preprint). 2026. doi:10.64898/2026.09.08.26362385.
BibTeX
@article{vincenti2026-55a6c0eb,
author = {Vincenti},
title = {{Errorless learning of a video call in Alzheimer Disease: verbal motor error dissociation as a potential marker of procedural learning (a pilot study)}},
journal = {medRxiv (preprint)},
year = {2026},
doi = {10.64898/2026.09.08.26362385},
url = {https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.09.08.26362385}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Verbal and motor errors followed significantly different courses across steps: verbal errors were present from the first trial and fell close to zero by the last step of the second session, whereas motor errors increased.
Why it matters
In this small pilot study, 20 people with Alzheimer's disease learned to make a video call through errorless learning, with verbal errors falling and motor errors increasing. It is an early, preliminary study about learning a daily task, not about treating, curing, or preventing Alzheimer's disease.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Genetics →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 16/100
Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. It scored 19 on the same rubric, but non-peer-reviewed sources are capped at 16, so it shows as 16. 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 impact for its field and year and senior author's track record, so those were left out: it earned 17 of the 90 points we could judge it on, which is 19 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 2 / 10 | Tier 4 — not a peer-reviewed journal (medRxiv (preprint)) |
| Journal's citation record | 0 / 4 | Not a journal article, so the journal's record does not count |
| 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 | 4 / 10 | Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. Hosted on a preprint server. |
| How recent | 5 / 5 | 2026 — within 1 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 | 0 / 7 | Cited 0 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 0 / 5 | 0.0 citations a year over 2 year(s) since 2026 |
| 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 | 0 / 6 | No other study in this library cites it |
| Still being cited | 0 / 4 | Cited 0 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | OpenAlex's profile for last-listed author Caroline Vincenti holds only 1 work(s), too few to judge a track record — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | 1 / 3 | Université de Montréal: institution h-index 1,020 (OpenAlex) |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 1 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 2 institution(s) in 2 countries |
| Indexed in PubMed | 1 / 2 | Not in PubMed, but has a DOI |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 17 / 90 | Scored on 18 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 17 of the 90 points we could judge it on is 19 out of 100. |
| Total | 19 / 100 | Capped to 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed article. |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Studies this one cites
Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here.
Related studies in Risk genes beyond APOE
Also tagged “machine”
834 studies in the library carry the topic tag “machine”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 834 tagged studies.