Advertisement

User Testing of Cognitive Training Games for People with Mild Cognitive Impairment: Design Implications

  • Mikaela Law
  • Ho Seok Ahn
  • Bruce MacDonald
  • Dina-Sara Vasjakovic
  • JongYoon Lim
  • Min Ho Lee
  • Craig Sutherland
  • Kathy Peri
  • Ngaire Kerse
  • Elizabeth BroadbentEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11876)

Abstract

Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) occurs in older adults whose cognitive decline is greater than in normal aging, and it is a risk-factor for dementia. Cognitive training through games is a potential way to protect against further decline and delay the onset of dementia. This study investigated the usability and acceptability of a set of cognitive games for people with MCI when delivered on a robotic interface. 10 older adults played a set of cognitive games delivered on a robot with a touchscreen. Participants evaluated their experience through questionnaires. Observations of their interaction with the robot were also conducted by the researchers and experts in aged care to get further insight into the usability of these games. Findings demonstrated that both the users and experts believed the games to have potential to improve cognition in people with MCI. However, there were many functional issues with the robot that needed improvement including technical difficulties, problems with understanding the robot’s speech and language, and problems for the older adult in using the touchscreen to complete the games. This study highlights design considerations for cognitive games for older adults on robotic devices.

Keywords

Mild cognitive impairment Cognitive training Robots Elderly 

Notes

Funding

This study was supported by the Ministry of Trade, Industry & Energy (MOTIE, Korea) under Industrial Technology Innovation Program (No. 10063300).

References

  1. 1.
    Gauthier, S., et al.: Mild cognitive impairment. Lancet 367(9518), 1262–1270 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Petersen, R.C.: Mild cognitive impairment. CONTINUUM Lifelong Learning in Neurology 22(2 Dementia), 404 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gates, N.J., Sachdev, P.S., Singh, M.A.F., Valenzuela, M.: Cognitive and memory training in adults at risk of dementia: a systematic review. BMC Geriatr. 11(1), 55 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kim, G.H., et al.: Structural brain changes after traditional and robot-assisted multi-domain cognitive training in community-dwelling healthy elderly. PLoS ONE 10(4), e0123251 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    McCallum, S., Boletsis, C.: Dementia games: a literature review of dementia-related serious games. In: Ma, M., Oliveira, M.F., Petersen, S., Hauge, J.B. (eds.) SGDA 2013. LNCS, vol. 8101, pp. 15–27. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40790-1_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Belleville, S.: Cognitive training for persons with mild cognitive impairment. Int. Psychogeriatr. 20(1), 57–66 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Klimova, B.: Computer-based cognitive training in aging. Frontiers Aging Neurosci. 8, 313 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hill, N.T., Mowszowski, L., Naismith, S.L., Chadwick, V.L., Valenzuela, M., Lampit, A.: Computerized cognitive training in older adults with mild cognitive impairment or dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am. J. Psychiatry 174(4), 329–340 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    García-Casal, J.A., Loizeau, A., Csipke, E., Franco-Martín, M., Perea-Bartolomé, M.V., Orrell, M.: Computer-based cognitive interventions for people living with dementia: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Aging Ment. Health 21(5), 454–467 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lopez-Samaniego, L., Garcia-Zapirain, B., Mendez-Zorrilla, A.: Memory and accurate processing brain rehabilitation for the elderly: LEGO robot and iPad case study. Biomed. Mater. Eng. 24(6), 3549–3556 (2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Broadbent, E., et al.: Robots in older people’s homes to improve medication adherence and quality of life: a randomised cross-over trial. In: Beetz, M., Johnston, B., Williams, M.-A. (eds.) ICSR 2014. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8755, pp. 64–73. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11973-1_7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tapus, A., Vieru, A.-M.: Robot cognitive stimulation for the elderly. In: Ferrández Vicente, J.M., Álvarez Sánchez, J.R., de la Paz López, F., Toledo Moreo, F.J. (eds.) IWINAC 2013. LNCS, vol. 7930, pp. 94–102. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38637-4_10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ahn, H.S., Santos, M.P.G., Wadhwa, C., MacDonald, B.: Development of brain training games for a healthcare service robot for older people. In: Beetz, M., Johnston, B., Williams, M.-A. (eds.) ICSR 2014. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8755, pp. 1–10. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11973-1_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Garcia-Sanjuan, F., Jaen, J., Nacher, V.: Tangibot: a tangible-mediated robot to support cognitive games for ageing people, a usability study. Pervasive Mob. Comput. 34, 91–105 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nasreddine, Z.S., et al.: The montreal cognitive assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 53(4), 695–699 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Astell, A.J., et al.: Does familiarity affect the enjoyment of touchscreen games for people with dementia? Int. J. Med. Inf. 91, e8 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Virzi, R.A.: Refining the test phase of usability evaluation: how many subjects is enough? Human Fact. 34(4), 457–468 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Automation and Robotic Engineering Science (CARES)The University of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations