Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
The Dual Task Ball Balancing Test and Its Association With Cognitive Function: Algorithm Development and Validation
Greene B, Tobyne S, Jannati A, McManus K, Gomes Osman J, Banks R, Kher R, Showalter J et al.. Journal of medical Internet research, 2024-08-19
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Background Dual task paradigms are thought to offer a quantitative means to assess cognitive reserve and the brain's capacity to allocate resources in the face of competing cognitive demands. The most common dual task paradigms examine the interplay between gait or balance control and cognitive function. However, gait and balance tasks can be physically challenging for older adults and may pose a risk of falls. Objective We introduce a novel, digital dual-task assessment that combines a motor-control task (the "ball balancing" test), which challenges an individual to maintain a virtual ball within a designated zone, with a concurrent cognitive task (the backward digit span task [BDST]). Methods The task was administered on a touchscreen tablet, performance was measured using the inertial sensors embedded in the tablet, conducted under both single- and dual-task conditions. The clinical use of the task was evaluated on a sample of 375 older adult participants (n=210 female; aged 73.0, SD 6.5 years). Results All older adults, including those with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer disease-related dementia (ADRD), and those with poor balance and gait problems due to diabetes, osteoarthritis, peripheral neuropathy, and other causes, were able to complete the task comfortably and safely while seated. As expected, task performance significantly decreased under dual task conditions compared to single task conditions. We show that performance was significantly associated with cognitive impairment; significant differences were found among healthy participants, those with MCI, and those with ADRD. Task results were significantly associated with functional impairment, independent of diagnosis, degree of cognitive impairment (as indicated by the Mini Mental State Examination [MMSE] score), and age. Finally, we found that cognitive status could be classified with >70% accuracy using a range of classifier models trained on 3 different cognitive function outcome variables (consensus clinical judgment, Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test [RAVLT], and MMSE). Conclusions Our results suggest that the dual task ball balancing test could be used as a digital cognitive assessment of cognitive reserve. The portability, simplicity, and intuitiveness of the task suggest that it may be suitable for unsupervised home assessment of cognitive function.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Greene, B., Tobyne, S., Jannati, A., McManus, K., Gomes Osman, J., Banks, R., et al. (2024). The Dual Task Ball Balancing Test and Its Association With Cognitive Function: Algorithm Development and Validation. Journal of medical Internet research. https://doi.org/10.2196/49794
Vancouver
Greene B, Tobyne S, Jannati A, McManus K, Gomes Osman J, Banks R, et al. The Dual Task Ball Balancing Test and Its Association With Cognitive Function: Algorithm Development and Validation. Journal of medical Internet research. 2024. doi:10.2196/49794. PMID: 39158963.
BibTeX
@article{greene2024-39158963,
author = {Greene, B. and Tobyne, S. and Jannati, A. and McManus, K. and Gomes Osman, J. and Banks, R. and Kher, R. and Showalter, J. and others},
title = {{The Dual Task Ball Balancing Test and Its Association With Cognitive Function: Algorithm Development and Validation}},
journal = {Journal of medical Internet research},
year = {2024},
doi = {10.2196/49794},
pmid = {39158963},
url = {https://doi.org/10.2196/49794}
}
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 All older adults, including those with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer disease-related dementia (ADRD), and those with poor balance and gait problems due to diabetes, osteoarthritis, peripheral neuropathy, and other causes, were able to complete the task comfortably and safely while seated.
- As expected, task performance significantly decreased under dual task conditions compared to single task conditions.
- We show that performance was significantly associated with cognitive impairment; significant differences were found among healthy participants, those with MCI, and those with ADRD.
- Task results were significantly associated with functional impairment, independent of diagnosis, degree of cognitive impairment (as indicated by the Mini Mental State Examination [MMSE] score), and age.
- Finally, we found that cognitive status could be classified with >70% accuracy using a range of classifier models trained on 3 different cognitive function outcome variables (consensus clinical judgment, Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test [RAVLT], and MMSE).
Study details
- Participants210
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 53/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported 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 31 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 53 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of medical Internet research) |
| 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 | 2 / 4 | 210 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| 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 39158963) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 31 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 31 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 53 out of 100. |
| Total | 53 / 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 “development”
3 studies in the library carry the topic tag “development”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 3 tagged studies.