Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Gallery Game: Smartphone-based assessment of long-term memory in adults at risk of Alzheimer's disease
Lancaster C, Koychev I, Blane J, Chinner A, Chatham C, Taylor K, Hinds C.. Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology, 2020-01-24
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
Retention intervals of at least three days were needed to evidence significant forgetting at both recognition and paired-associate recall test. The association between Gallery Game outcomes and established in-clinic memory assessments were small but numerically in the anticipated direction. In addition, there was preliminary support for utilizing the perirhinal-dependent pattern of semantic false alarms during object recognition as a marker of early impairment. These results support the need for tests of longer-term memory to sensitively record behavioral differences in adults with no diagnosis of cognitive impairment. Aggregate behavioral outcomes promote Gallery Game's utility as a digital assessment of episodic memory, aligning with established theoretical models of object memory and showing small yet uniform associations with existing in-clinic tests. Initial support for the discriminatory value of perirhinal-targeted outcomes justifies ongoing large-sample validation against traditional biomarkers of Alzheimer's disease.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Lancaster, C., Koychev, I., Blane, J., Chinner, A., Chatham, C., Taylor, K., et al. (2020). Gallery Game: Smartphone-based assessment of long-term memory in adults at risk of Alzheimer's disease. Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2020.1714551
Vancouver
Lancaster C, Koychev I, Blane J, Chinner A, Chatham C, Taylor K, et al. Gallery Game: Smartphone-based assessment of long-term memory in adults at risk of Alzheimer's disease. Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology. 2020. doi:10.1080/13803395.2020.1714551. PMID: 31973659.
BibTeX
@article{lancaster2020-31973659,
author = {Lancaster, C. and Koychev, I. and Blane, J. and Chinner, A. and Chatham, C. and Taylor, K. and Hinds, C.},
title = {{Gallery Game: Smartphone-based assessment of long-term memory in adults at risk of Alzheimer's disease}},
journal = {Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology},
year = {2020},
doi = {10.1080/13803395.2020.1714551},
pmid = {31973659},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2020.1714551}
}
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 names 7 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Retention intervals of at least three days were needed to evidence significant forgetting at both recognition and paired-associate recall test.
- The association between Gallery Game outcomes and established in-clinic memory assessments were small but numerically in the anticipated direction.
- In addition, there was preliminary support for utilizing the perirhinal-dependent pattern of semantic false alarms during object recognition as a marker of early impairment.
- These results support the need for tests of longer-term memory to sensitively record behavioral differences in adults with no diagnosis of cognitive impairment.
- Aggregate behavioral outcomes promote Gallery Game's utility as a digital assessment of episodic memory, aligning with established theoretical models of object memory and showing small yet uniform associations with existing in-clinic tests.
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 38/100
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 22 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 38 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology) |
| 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 | 2 / 5 | 2020 — within 10 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 31973659) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 22 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 22 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 38 out of 100. |
| Total | 38 / 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 “computerized”
238 studies in the library carry the topic tag “computerized”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 238 tagged studies.