skip to main content
10.1145/3531073.3531169acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesaviConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper
Open Access

A Pilot Study on Interactive Multisensory Environments for Neuropsychological Assessment

Authors Info & Claims
Published:06 June 2022Publication History

ABSTRACT

Measuring cognitive functions is a complex and challenging process, and researchers usually conduct their study in experimental settings and with standardized tests. Such an approach is raising more and more criticism. Especially about the capability of psychology’s laboratory experiments to provide generalizable and accurate indicators of impairments outside the laboratory boundaries in everyday life. This is acknowledged as the ”real-world or lab” dilemma. Most tests traditionally performed using paper-and-pencil may fail to detect the individual’s difficulties in the real world. The scientific community has launched a quest for new digitized, interactive, and more ”ecological” versions. Our work investigates a novel approach to this topic that exploits interactive Multi-Sensory Environments (iMSE) and questions how iMSEs could contribute to the neuropsychology assessment field. The paper describes NEP-Neuro-Psychological Suite, a set of game-based activities in iMSE inspired by widely adopted neuropsychological tests. The suite provides a context in which existing or new neuropsychological tests can be experimented, extended, and modified with stimuli, contents, and tasks closer to real-world situations. We report an exploratory empirical study (N=22) on a well-known test to assess attention skills, the Stroop Test. The results, although very preliminary, provide insights into the effects of transposing classic tests into a novel form and the role that iMSEs can play in the debate about the ”real-world or lab” dilemma.

References

  1. Christopher M Aanstoos. 1991. Experimental psychology and the challenge of real life.(1991).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Erin D Bigler. 2012. Symptom validity testing, effort, and neuropsychological assessment. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society 18, 4(2012).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Ian Burns, Helen Cox, and Helen Plant. 2000. Leisure or therapeutics? Snoezelen and the care of older persons with dementia. International Journal of Nursing Practice 6, 3 (2000), 118–126.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Sally Wai-chi Chan, David R Thompson, Janita PC Chau, Wilson WS Tam, Ivy WS Chiu, and Susanne HS Lo. 2010. The effects of multisensory therapy on behaviour of adult clients with developmental disabilities—A systematic review. International Journal of Nursing Studies 47, 1 (2010), 108–122.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Naomi Chaytor and Maureen Schmitter-Edgecombe. 2003. The ecological validity of neuropsychological tests: A review of the literature on everyday cognitive skills. Neuropsychology review 13, 4 (2003), 181–197.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Antonio Di Carlo, Marzia Baldereschi, Luigi Amaducci, Stefania Maggi, Francesco Grigoletto, Guglielmo Scarlato, Domenico Inzitari, and Italian Longitudinal Study on Aging Working Group. 2000. Cognitive impairment without dementia in older people: prevalence, vascular risk factors, impact on disability. The Italian Longitudinal Study on Aging. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 48, 7 (2000), 775–782.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Erika M Ebly, David B Hogan, and Irma M Parhad. 1995. Cognitive impairment in the nondemented elderly: results from the Canadian Study of Health and Aging. Archives of neurology 52, 6 (1995), 612–619.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Franca Garzotto, Eleonora Beccaluva, Mattia Gianotti, and Fabiano Riccardi. 2020. Interactive Multisensory Environments for Primary School Children. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376343Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Franca Garzotto and Mirko Gelsomini. 2018. Magic Room: A Smart Space for Children with Neurodevelopmental Disorder. IEEE Pervasive Computing 17, 1 (Jan. 2018), 38–48. https://doi.org/10.1109/MPRV.2018.011591060Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Charles J Golden and Shawna M Freshwater. 1978. Stroop color and word test. (1978).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Mylène Henry, Christian C Joyal, and Pierre Nolin. 2012. Development and initial assessment of a new paradigm for assessing cognitive and motor inhibition: the bimodal virtual-reality Stroop. Journal of neuroscience methods 210, 2 (2012).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Gijs A Holleman, Ignace TC Hooge, Chantal Kemner, and Roy S Hessels. 2020. The ‘real-world approach’and its problems: A critique of the term ecological validity. Frontiers in Psychology 11 (2020), 721.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Robert L. Kane and Gary G. Kay. 1992. Computerized assessment in neuropsychology: A review of tests and test batteries. Neuropsychology Review 3, 1 (March 1992), 1–117. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01108787Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Roy PC Kessels, Martine JE Van Zandvoort, Albert Postma, L Jaap Kappelle, and Edward HF De Haan. 2000. The Corsi block-tapping task: standardization and normative data. Applied neuropsychology 7, 4 (2000), 252–258.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. G. E. Lancioni, A. J. Cuvo, and M. F. O’Reilly. 2002. Snoezelen: an overview of research with people with developmental disabilities and dementia. Disability and Rehabilitation 24, 4 (Jan. 2002), 175–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638280110074911Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Muriel Deutsch Lezak, Diane B Howieson, David W Loring, Jill S Fischer, 2004. Neuropsychological assessment. Oxford University Press, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Rebecca G Logsdon, Laura E Gibbons, Susan M McCurry, and Linda Teri. 2002. Assessing quality of life in older adults with cognitive impairment. Psychosomatic medicine 64, 3 (2002), 510–519.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Donlin M Long. 2003. Perceptual Learning.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Peter McGeorge, Louise H Phillips, John R Crawford, Sharin E Garden, Sergio Della Sala, Alan B Milne, Steven Hamilton, and John S Callender. 2001. Using virtual environments in the assessment of executive dysfunction. Presence 10, 4 (2001), 375–383.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Marco Monaco, Alberto Costa, Carlo Caltagirone, and Giovanni Augusto Carlesimo. 2013. Forward and backward span for verbal and visuo-spatial data: standardization and normative data from an Italian adult population. Neurological Sciences 34, 5 (May 2013), 749–754. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10072-012-1130-xGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Thomas D Parsons. 2015. Virtual reality for enhanced ecological validity and experimental control in the clinical, affective and social neurosciences. Frontiers in human neuroscience 9 (2015), 660.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Anaick Perrochon and Gilles Kemoun. 2014. The Walking Trail-Making Test is an early detection tool for mild cognitive impairment. Clinical Interventions in Aging (Jan. 2014), 111. https://doi.org/10.2147/CIA.S53645Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Anaick Perrochon, Gilles Kemoun, Watelain, and Berthoz. 2013. Walking Stroop carpet: an innovative dual-task concept for detecting cognitive impairment. Clinical Interventions in Aging (March 2013), 317. https://doi.org/10.2147/CIA.S38667Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Ronald C Petersen, Rachelle Doody, Alexander Kurz, Richard C Mohs, John C Morris, Peter V Rabins, Karen Ritchie, Martin Rossor, Leon Thal, and Bengt Winblad. 2001. Current concepts in mild cognitive impairment. Archives of neurology 58, 12 (2001), 1985–1992.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Ronald C Petersen, Glenn E Smith, Stephen C Waring, Robert J Ivnik, Eric G Tangalos, and Emre Kokmen. 1999. Mild cognitive impairment: clinical characterization and outcome. Archives of neurology 56, 3 (1999), 303–308.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Luigi Pugnetti, Laura Mendozzi, Achille Motta, Annamaria Cattaneo, Elena Barbieri, and Aaron Brancotti. 1995. Evaluation and retraining of adults’ cognitive impairments: Which role for virtual reality technology?Computers in Biology and Medicine 25, 2 (1995), 213–227.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Ralph M Reitan. 1958. Validity of the Trail Making Test as an indicator of organic brain damage. Perceptual and motor skills 8, 3 (1958), 271–276.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Murat Doğan Şahin and Eren Can Aybek. 2019. Jamovi: an easy to use statistical software for the social scientists. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education 6, 4 (2019), 670–692.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Federica Scarpina and Sofia Tagini. 2017. The stroop color and word test. Frontiers in psychology 8 (2017), 557.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Silvia Serino and Claudia Repetto. 2018. New Trends in Episodic Memory Assessment: Immersive 360° Ecological Videos. Frontiers in Psychology 9 (2018), 1878. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01878Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. TIM Shallice and Paul W Burgess. 1991. Deficits in strategy application following frontal lobe damage in man. Brain 114, 2 (1991), 727–741.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Donna M Spooner and Nancy A Pachana. 2006. Ecological validity in neuropsychological assessment: A case for greater consideration in research with neurologically intact populations. Archives of clinical neuropsychology 21, 4 (2006).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Sonia Valladares-Rodríguez, Roberto Pérez-Rodríguez, Luis Anido-Rifón, and Manuel Fernández-Iglesias. 2016. Trends on the application of serious games to neuropsychological evaluation: A scoping review. Journal of Biomedical Informatics 64 (Dec. 2016), 296–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2016.10.019Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Barbara A Wilson. 1993. Ecological validity of neuropsychological assessment: Do neuropsychological indexes predict performance in everyday activities?Applied and Preventive Psychology 2, 4 (1993), 209–215.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Margaret Wilson. 2002. Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic bulletin & review 9, 4 (2002), 625–636.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    AVI 2022: Proceedings of the 2022 International Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces
    June 2022
    414 pages
    ISBN:9781450397193
    DOI:10.1145/3531073

    Copyright © 2022 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 6 June 2022

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • short-paper
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate107of408submissions,26%

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format .

View HTML Format