Archives of clinical neuropsychology : the official journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists · 2025
Accuracy of Reaction Time Measurement on Automated Neuropsychological Assessment Metric UltraMobile.
СтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Arrieux Jacques, Ivins Brian
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This observational study examined the accuracy of simple reaction time (RT) measurements on various touchscreen tablet devices using the Automated Neuropsychological Assessment Metric (ANAM) UltraMobile test battery. The study investigated the implications of interpreting ANAM UltraMobile with laptop-based normative data by analyzing the magnitude and variability of RT accuracy across devices.
METHOD: RT accuracy on 10 different tablets was assessed using a photodetector and robotic arm to respond to stimuli at predetermined response times. The recorded RT was compared with the true RT obtained from the robotic arm to calculate the RT error.
RESULTS: ANAM UltraMobile recorded slower RTs than the laptop version. Additionally, RT error varied considerably among the 10 tablet models, suggesting psychometrically significant implications that could lead to interpretive errors when using laptop-based normative data.
CONCLUSIONS: Relative to the RT error from the laptop-based version of ANAM, tablet data from ANAM UltraMobile are significantly slower and exhibit large variability between devices. These differences may have clinically significant implications for the comparability of the two versions. The findings suggest that further research with human participants is needed to assess the equivalence of ANAM UltraMobile with its predecessor.
METHOD: RT accuracy on 10 different tablets was assessed using a photodetector and robotic arm to respond to stimuli at predetermined response times. The recorded RT was compared with the true RT obtained from the robotic arm to calculate the RT error.
RESULTS: ANAM UltraMobile recorded slower RTs than the laptop version. Additionally, RT error varied considerably among the 10 tablet models, suggesting psychometrically significant implications that could lead to interpretive errors when using laptop-based normative data.
CONCLUSIONS: Relative to the RT error from the laptop-based version of ANAM, tablet data from ANAM UltraMobile are significantly slower and exhibit large variability between devices. These differences may have clinically significant implications for the comparability of the two versions. The findings suggest that further research with human participants is needed to assess the equivalence of ANAM UltraMobile with its predecessor.