ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2025
Impacts of Environmental Distractions and Interruptions on Unsupervised Digital Cognitive Assessments in Older Adults: Cognitive Ecological Momentary Assessment Study.
Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quantitative Electroencephalography as a Complement to Symptom-Based Psychiatric Diagnosis: A Narrative Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
- Remote digital cognitive assessment in a trial-ready Alzheimer's disease cohort: A scalable approach for early intervention studies.Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Unsupervised cognitive assessments are becoming commonly used in studies of aging and neurodegenerative diseases. As assessments are completed in everyday environments and without a proctor, there are concerns about how common distractions may impact performance and whether these distractions may differentially impact those experiencing the earliest symptoms of dementia. Objective: We examined the impact of self-reported interruptions, testing location, and social context during testing on remote cognitive assessments in older adults. Methods: Participants from the Ambulatory Research in Cognition smartphone study were classified as cognitively normal (n=380) or as having very mild dementia (n=37). Participants completed daily tests of processing speed, working memory, and associative memory. At each assessment, participants were asked for their current location and social surroundings, which was used to quantify whether participants were either at home (or not) and by themselves (or not). After each assessment session, participants were asked if they experienced any interruptions. Mixed-effect modeling tested the interactions between location, social context, and clinical status. Additional analyses were conducted by removing sessions where participants reported that they were interrupted at any point during the testing period. Results: Across all participants, momentary effects of environmental distractions were minimal. Specifically, when tests were completed in the presence of others, participants exhibited slightly increased variability in processing speed (P=.04). However, these momentary effects of environmental distractions were dependent upon cognitive status (P=.009). Cognitively normal older adults had better visuospatial working memory performance when they completed tests at home compared to when they completed tests away from home (P=.001). However, older adults with very mild dementia showed no effect of testing location on the same task (P=.36). Conversely, cognitively normal older adults did not differ in their processing speed at either testing location (P=.88). Older adults with very mild dementia were slightly faster when not at home (P=.04). Social context only impacted variability in processing speed for participants with very mild dementia (P=.04). When considering tests completed in the most distracting environments (away from home and in the presence of others), those with very mild dementia showed larger differences only on the visuospatial working memory measure. Additional analyses demonstrated that after removing sessions in which participants self-reported experiencing an interruption (1194/9633, 12.4% of all assessments), these small effects of environmental distractions on cognition remained, but were more apparent in those with very mild dementia. Conclusions: Social context and location of unsupervised remote cognitive testing have small impacts on performance, but these impacts were not consistent across cognitive domains and were mostly limited to participants demonstrating the earliest symptoms of dementia. Remote cognitive testing provides valid and reliable data in older adults, but care should be taken to allow participants to report distractions that may occur during testing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.