The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Smart Aging Platform for Evaluating Cognitive Functions in Aging: A Comparison with the MoCA in a Normal Population
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fnagi.2017.00379 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sara Bottiroli, Cristina Tassorelli, Marialisa Lamonica, Chiara Zucchella, Elena Cavallini, Sara Bernini, Elena Sinforiani, Stefania Pazzi, Paolo Cristiani, Tomaso Vecchi, Daniela Tost, Giorgio Sandrini |
| Abstract |
Background: Smart Aging is a Serious games (SGs) platform in a 3D virtual environment in which users perform a set of screening tests that address various cognitive skills. The tests are structured as 5 tasks of activities of daily life in a familiar environment. The main goal of the present study is to compare a cognitive evaluation made with Smart Aging with those of a classic standardized screening test, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Methods: One thousand one-hundred thirty-one healthy adults aged between 50 and 80 (M = 64.3 ± 8.3) were enrolled in the study. They received a cognitive evaluation with the MoCA and the Smart Aging platform. Participants were grouped according to their MoCA global and specific cognitive domain (i.e., memory, executive functions, working memory, visual spatial elaboration, language, and orientation) scores and we explored differences among these groups in the Smart Aging indices. Results: One thousand eighty-six older adults (M = 64.0 ± 8.0) successfully completed the study and were stratified according to their MoCA score: Group 1 with MoCA < 27 (n = 360); Group 2 with 27 ≥ MoCA < 29 (n = 453); and Group 3 with MoCA ≥ 29 (n = 273). MoCA groups significantly differed in most of the Smart Aging indices considered, in particular as concerns accuracy (ps < 0.001) and time (ps < 0.001) for completing most of the platform tasks. Group 1 was outperformed by the other two Groups and was slower than them in these tasks, which were those supposed to assess memory and executive functions. In addition, significant differences across groups also emerged when considering the single cognitive domains of the MoCA and the corresponding performances in each Smart Aging task. In particular, this platform seems to be a good proxy for assessing memory, executive functions, working memory, and visual spatial processes. Conclusion: These findings demonstrate the validity of Smart Aging for assessing cognitive functions in normal aging. Future studies will validate this platform also in the clinical aging populations. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 17% |
| France | 1 | 17% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 3 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 83% |
| Scientists | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 104 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 104 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 17 | 16% |
| Researcher | 11 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 8% |
| Other | 11 | 11% |
| Unknown | 37 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 22 | 21% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 10% |
| Computer Science | 8 | 8% |
| Engineering | 7 | 7% |
| Neuroscience | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 9 | 9% |
| Unknown | 41 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 January 2018.
All research outputs
#7,542,164
of 23,009,818 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#2,672
of 4,843 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#150,056
of 437,742 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#47
of 99 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,009,818 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,843 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 437,742 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 99 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.