Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Naturalistic assessment of reaction time variability in older adults at risk for Alzheimer's disease
Welhaf MS, Wilks H, Aschenbrenner AJ, Balota DA, Schindler SE, Benzinger TLS, Gordon BA, Cruchaga C et al.. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society : JINS, 2024-01-29
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
Plain-language summary
Objective Maintaining attention underlies many aspects of cognition and becomes compromised early in neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer's disease (AD). The consistency of maintaining attention can be measured with reaction time (RT) variability. Previous work has focused on measuring such fluctuations during in-clinic testing, but recent developments in remote, smartphone-based cognitive assessments can allow one to test if these fluctuations in attention are evident in naturalistic settings and if they are sensitive to traditional clinical and cognitive markers of AD. Method Three hundred and seventy older adults (aged 75.8 +/- 5.8 years) completed a week of remote daily testing on the Ambulatory Research in Cognition (ARC) smartphone platform and also completed clinical, genetic, and conventional in-clinic cognitive assessments. RT variability was assessed in a brief (20-40 seconds) processing speed task using two different measures of variability, the Coefficient of Variation (CoV) and the Root Mean Squared Successive Difference (RMSSD) of RTs on correct trials. Results Symptomatic participants showed greater variability compared to cognitively normal participants. When restricted to cognitively normal participants, APOE ε4 carriers exhibited greater variability than noncarriers. Both CoV and RMSSD showed significant, and similar, correlations with several in-clinic cognitive composites. Finally, both RT variability measures significantly mediated the relationship between APOE ε4 status and several in-clinic cognition composites. Conclusions Attentional fluctuations over 20-40 seconds assessed in daily life, are sensitive to clinical status and genetic risk for AD. RT variability appears to be an important predictor of cognitive deficits during the preclinical disease stage.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Welhaf, M. S., Wilks, H., Aschenbrenner, A. J., Balota, D. A., Schindler, S. E., Benzinger, T. L. S., et al. (2024). Naturalistic assessment of reaction time variability in older adults at risk for Alzheimer's disease. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society : JINS. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1355617723011475
Vancouver
Welhaf MS, Wilks H, Aschenbrenner AJ, Balota DA, Schindler SE, Benzinger TLS, et al. Naturalistic assessment of reaction time variability in older adults at risk for Alzheimer's disease. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society : JINS. 2024. doi:10.1017/s1355617723011475. PMID: 38282413.
BibTeX
@article{welhaf2024-38282413,
author = {Welhaf, M. S. and Wilks, H. and Aschenbrenner, A. J. and Balota, D. A. and Schindler, S. E. and Benzinger, T. L. S. and Gordon, B. A. and Cruchaga, C. and others},
title = {{Naturalistic assessment of reaction time variability in older adults at risk for Alzheimer's disease}},
journal = {Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society : JINS},
year = {2024},
doi = {10.1017/s1355617723011475},
pmid = {38282413},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1017/s1355617723011475}
}
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
- Results Symptomatic participants showed greater variability compared to cognitively normal participants.
- Both CoV and RMSSD showed significant, and similar, correlations with several in-clinic cognitive composites.
- Finally, both RT variability measures significantly mediated the relationship between APOE ε4 status and several in-clinic cognition composites.
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 41/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomized / 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 multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 24 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 41 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society : JINS) |
| 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 | 4 / 5 | 2024 — within 3 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) |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomization 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 |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 38282413) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 24 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 24 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 41 out of 100. |
| Total | 41 / 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 the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment from nearby years
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.