Motor practice effects (i.e., improvements in motor task performance with practice) are emerging as a unique variable that can predict Alzheimer’s disease (AD) progression and biomarker positivity. However, the tasks used to study motor practice effects have involved face-to-face assessment, making them difficult to integrate into large internet-based cohorts that represent the next generation of AD research. The purpose of this study was to validate an online computer game against its in-lab version, which has been shown previously to characterize motor practice effects.
Materials and Methods:
This study leveraged young adult participants within the MindCrowd electronic cohort, a large nationwide cohort for AD research collected entirely through the internet. Validation compared performance on the online version among MindCrowd users against an age-matched cohort’s performance on an in-lab version using a different controller (Xbox 360 controller joystick for in-lab sample versus keyboard arrow keys for online sample).
Results:
Data indicated that the rate of skill acquisition among MindCrowd users were not significantly different from those of the in-lab cohort. Furthermore, the contact-to-consent rate observed in this study (although low) was similar to that of other online AD cohorts.
Conclusion:
Overall, this study demonstrates that implementing online games designed to study and measure motor practice effects into online research cohorts is feasible and valid. Future research will explore how online game performance is associated with age and dementia risk factors that may help further an understanding of AD.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
DuffK, HammersD, DalleyB, et al.Short-term practice effects in amnestic mild cognitive impairment: Implications for diagnosis and treatment. Int Psychogeriatr, 2008; 20(2):87–92.
2.
DuffK, CheluneG, DennettK. Within-session practice effects in patients referred for suspected dementia. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord, 2012; 33:245–249.
3.
SchaeferSY, DuffK, HooymanA, et al.Improving prediction of amyloid deposition in mild cognitive impairment with a timed motor task. Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen, 2022; 37:153331752110482.
4.
SchaeferSY, Malek-AhmadiM, HooymanA, et al.Association between motor task performance and hippocampal atrophy across cognitively unimpaired, amnestic mild cognitive impairment, and Alzheimer's disease individuals. J Alzheimer's Dis, 2022; 85:1411–1417.
AtlasNE. Car Access: Everyone Needs Reliable Transportation Access and in Most American Communities That Means a Car; 2019. Available from: https://nationalequityatlas.org/indicators/Car_access#/ [Last accessed: September 3, 2022].
7.
FordJG, HowertonMW, LaiGY, et al.Barriers to recruiting underrepresented populations to cancer clinical trials: A systematic review. Cancer, 2008; 112:228–242.
8.
Nelson KakullaB. Gaming Attitudes and Habits of Adults Ages 50-Plus. AARP Research: Washington, DC,, 2019; doi: 10.26419/res.00328.001
9.
BrooksV, HipperathF, BrooksM, et al.Learning what and how in a human motor task. Learn Mem, 1995; 2:225–243.
10.
HooymanA, GordonJ, WinsteinC. Unique behavioral strategies in visuomotor learning: Hope for the non-learner. Hum Mov Sci, 2021; 79:102858.
11.
WeinerMW, NoshenyR, CamachoM, et al.The Brain Health Registry: An internet-based platform for recruitment, assessment, and longitudinal monitoring of participants for neuroscience studies. Alzheimers Dement, 2018; 14:1063–1076.
12.
WalterS, NoshenyR, CamachoM, et al.Recruitment into the Alzheimer Prevention Trials (APT) Webstudy for a Trial-Ready Cohort for Preclinical and Prodromal Alzheimer's Disease (TRC-PAD). J Prev Alzheimers Dis, 2020; 7:219–225.
13.
ThorntonJ. Covid-19: How coronavirus will change the face of general practice forever. BMJ, 2020; 368:m1279; doi: 10.1136/bmj.m1279
14.
SalazarCR, HoangD, GillenDL, et al.Racial and ethnic differences in older adults' willingness to be contacted about Alzheimer's disease research participation. Alzheimers Dement (N Y), 2020; 6(1):e12023.
15.
RajakumarK, ThomasSB, MusaD, et al.Racial differences in parents' distrust of medicine and research. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med, 2009; 163:108.
16.
HingE, HsiaoC-J. State variability in supply of office-based primary care providers: United States, 2012. NCHS Data Brief 2014:1–8.
17.
CanevelliM, BrunoG, GrandeG, et al.Race reporting and disparities in clinical trials on Alzheimer's disease: A systematic review. Neurosci Biobehav Rev, 2019; 101:122–128; doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.03.020.
18.
TsayJS, IvryRB, LeeA, et al.Moving outside the lab: The viability of conducting sensorimotor learning studies online. Neuron Behav Data Anal Theory, 2021; 5(3):1–22; doi: 10.51628/001c.26985
19.
HaraK, AdamsA, MillandK, et al.A data-driven analysis of workers' earnings on amazon mechanical turk. proceedings of the 2018 chi conference on human factors in computing systems, New York, NY;, 2018; pp. 1–14; doi: 10.1145/3173574.3174023
20.
HuentelmanMJ, TalboomJS, LewisCR, et al.Reinventing neuroaging research in the digital age. Trends Neurosci, 2020; 43:17–23.
21.
DearyIJ, DerG. Reaction time, age, and cognitive ability: Longitudinal findings from age 16 to 63 years in representative population samples. Aging Neuropsychol Cogn, 2005; 12:187–215.
22.
HammersDB, SuhrieKR, DixonA, et al.Validation of one-week reliable change methods in cognitively intact community-dwelling older adults. Neuropsychol Dev Cogn B Aging Neuropsychol Cogn, 2021; 28:472–492.
23.
SallinenJ, StenholmS, RantanenT, et al.Hand-grip strength cut points to screen older persons at risk for mobility limitation. J Am Geriatr Soc, 2010; 58:1721–1726.
24.
RoalfDR, RupertP, Mechanic-HamiltonD, et al.Quantitative assessment of finger tapping characteristics in mild cognitive impairment, Alzheimer's disease, and Parkinson's disease. J Neurol, 2018; 265:1365–1375.
25.
GoetzCG, TilleyB, ShaftmanS, et al.Movement Disorder Society-sponsored revision of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS): Scale presentation and clinimetric testing results. Mov Disord, 2008; 23:2129–2170.
26.
GladstoneDJ, DanellsCJ, BlackSE. The Fugl-Meyer Assessment of motor recovery after stroke: A critical review of its measurement properties. Neurorehabil Neural Repair, 2002; 16:232–240.
27.
BullMT, DarwinK, VenkataramanV, et al.A pilot study of virtual visits in Huntington disease. J Huntingtons Dis, 2014; 3:189–195.
28.
DorseyER, BloemBR, OkunMS. A new day: The role of telemedicine in reshaping care for persons with movement disorders. Mov Disord, 2020; 35:1897–1902.
29.
LarsonDN, SchneiderRB, SimuniT. A new era: The growth of video-based visits for remote management of persons with Parkinson's disease. J Parkinsons Dis, 2021; 11:S27–S34.
30.
NaitoA, WillsA, TropeaT, et al.Expediting telehealth use in clinical research studies: Recommendations for overcoming barriers in North America. NPJ Parkinsons Dis, 2021; 7(1):34.
31.
ZhouH, Al-AliF, WangC, et al.Harnessing digital health to objectively assess cognitive impairment in people undergoing hemodialysis process: The impact of cognitive impairment on mobility performance measured by wearables. PLoS One, 2020; 15:e0225358.
32.
OmbergL, Chaibub NetaE, PerumalT, et al.Remote smartphone monitoring of Parkinson's disease and individual response to therapy. Nat Biotechnol, 2022; 40(4):480–487; doi: 10.1038/s41587-021-00974-9
33.
HooymanA, TalboomJ, DeBothM, et al.Remote, unsupervised functional motor task evaluation in older adults across the United States using the MindCrowd Electronic Cohort. Dev Neuropsychol, 2021; 46:435–446.
34.
HillCV. At the intersection of rigor and equity: Health disparities research related to aging. Gerontol Geriatr Med, 2019; 5:233372141985785.
35.
ReuterK, LiuC, LeN, et al.General practice and digital methods to recruit stroke survivors to a clinical mobility study: Comparative analysis. J Med Internet Res, 2021; 23:e28923.
