Smartwatches have potential to provide support for prospective memory (PM), the ability to remember and carry out an intention in the future. How older adults (OAs), particularly those with cognitive impairment (CI), might interact with smartwatches is undetermined. This study aimed to understand the usability of smartwatches among cognitively diverse OAs and the potential for smartwatches to serve as reminder aids for this population. Participants were 58 OAs (age 60+) with and without CI. After using a smartwatch as a reminder aid for 10 days, participants gave low usability ratings overall, and the smartwatches did not aid performance of a daily PM task. Perceived usefulness of the smartwatches was associated with subjective memory, suggesting that perceived memory challenges may play an important role in smartwatch adoption. Results can inform the development of future efficacy tests and interventions involving smartwatches.
AlwahaishiS.SnášelV. (2013). Modeling the determinants affecting consumers’ acceptance and use of information and communications technology. Inte. J. E-Adoptio, 5, 25–39. https://doi.org/10.4018/jea.2013040103
2.
BrookeJ. (1996). SUS: A “quick and dirty” usability scale. In JordanP. W.ThomasB.McClellandI. L.WeerdmeesterB. (Eds.), Usability evaluation in industry (pp. 189–194). Taylor & Francis.
3.
CharnessN.BestR.EvansJ. (2016). Supportive home health care technology for older adults: Attitudes and implementation. Gerontechnology: International Journal on the Fundamental Aspects of Technology to Serve the Ageing Society, 15(4), 233–242. https://doi.org/10.4017/gt.2016.15.4.006.00
4.
CharnessN.BootW. R.GrayN. (2020). Mobile monitoring and intervention (MMI) technology for adaptive aging. In Mobile technology for adaptive aging: Proceedings of a workshop. The National Academies Press. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2020. https://doi.org/10.17226/25878
5.
ChenK.ChanA. H. S. (2014). Gerontechnology acceptance by elderly Hong Kong Chinese: A senior technology acceptance model (STAM). Ergonomics, 57(5), 635–652. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2014.895855
6.
ChenK.LouV. W. Q. (2020). Measuring senior technology acceptance: Development of a brief, 14-item scale. Innovation in Aging, 4(3), igaa016. https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igaa016
7.
CostaA.PerriR.SerraL.BarbanF.GattoI.ZabberoniS.CaltagironeC.CarlesimoG. A. (2010). Prospective memory functioning in mild cognitive impairment. Neuropsychology, 24(3), 327–335. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018015
8.
CzajaS. J.SharitJ. (2012). Designing training and instructional programs for older adults (1st ed.). CRC Press.
9.
DavisF. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
10.
EhrlerF.LovisC. (2014). Supporting elderly homecare with smartwatches: Advantages and drawbacks. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 205, 667–671. https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-432-9-667
11.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA. G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
HartS. G.StavelandL. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX: Results of empirical and theoretical research. In HancockN.MeshkatiP. A. (Eds.), Human mental workload (pp. 139–183). Elsevier.
14.
HenryJ. D.MacLeodM. S.PhillipsL. H.CrawfordJ. R. (2004). A meta-analytic review of prospective memory and aging. Psychology and Aging, 19(1), 27–39. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.19.1.27
15.
HeringA.KliegelM.RendellP. G.CraikF.RoseN. S. (2018). Prospective memory is a key predictor of functional independence in older adults. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society: JINS, 24(6), 640–645. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617718000152
JamiesonM.MonastraM.GilliesG.ManolovR.CullenB.McGee-LennonM.BrewsterS.EvansJ. (2019). The use of a smartwatch as a prompting device for people with acquired brain injury: A single case experimental design study. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 29(4), 513–533. https://doi.org/10.1080/09602011.2017.1310658
18.
JayG. M.WillisS. L. (1992). Influence of direct computer experience on older adults’ attitudes toward computers. Journal of Gerontology, 47(4), 250–257. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronj/47.4.P250
19.
KhakurelJ.KnutasA.MelkasH.PenzenstadlerB.FuB.PorrasJ. (2018). Categorization framework for usability issues of smartwatches and pedometers for the older adults. In Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction. Methods, Technologies, and Users, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 15-20 July, 2018 (pp. 91–106). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92049-8_7
20.
KliegelM.BallhausenN.HeringA.IhleA.SchnitzspahnK. M.ZuberS. (2016). Prospective memory in older adults: Where we are now and what is next. Gerontology, 62(4), 459–466. https://doi.org/10.1159/000443698
KnopmanD. S.RobertsR. O.GedaY. E.PankratzV. S.ChristiansonT. J.PetersenR. C.RoccaW. A. (2010). Validation of the telephone interview for cognitive status-modified in subjects with normal cognition, mild cognitive impairment, or dementia. Neuroepidemiology, 34(1), 34–42. https://doi.org/10.1159/000255464
23.
LajeunesseA.PotvinM. J.LabelleV.JoubertS.RouleauI. (2020). Characterization of prospective memory in mild cognitive impairment by using the Ecological test of Prospective Memory. Neuropsychology, Development, and Cognition. Section B, Aging, Neuropsychology and Cognition, 28(3), 367–391. https://doi.org/10.1080/13825585.2020.1772192 (Advance online publication).
24.
MalinowskyC.AlmkvistO.KottorpA.NygårdL. (2010). Ability to manage everyday technology: A comparison of persons with dementia or mild cognitive impairment and older adults without cognitive impairment. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 5(6), 462–469. https://doi.org/10.3109/17483107.2010.496098
25.
McDonaldA.HaslamC.YatesP.GurrB.LeederG.SayersA. (2011). Google calendar: A new memory aid to compensate for prospective memory deficits following acquired brain injury. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 21(6), 784–807. https://doi.org/10.1080/09602011.2011.598405
26.
MitznerT. L.SavlaJ.BootW. R.SharitJ.CharnessN.CzajaS. J.RogersW. A. (2016). Technology adoption by older adults: Findings from the PRISM trial. The Gerontologist, 59(1), 34–44. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gny113
27.
MoF.ShupingY.ZhouJ. (2016). Effect of icon amount and visual density on usability of smartwatches. In International Conference on Human Aspects of IT for the Aged Population, Part I, LNCS, Toronto, ON, Canada, 17–22 July, 2016 (Vol. 9754, pp. 466–477). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39943-0_45
28.
PetersenR. C.LopezO.ArmstrongM. J.GetchiusT. S. D.GanguliM.GlossD.GronsethG. S.MarsonD.PringsheimT.DayG. S.SagerM.StevensJ.Rae-GrantA. (2018). Practice guideline update summary: Mild cognitive impairment: Report of the guideline development, dissemination, and implementation subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology, 90(3), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000004826
29.
SandersE. C.StuartR.ExumA.BootW. R. (2022). Enhancing neurocognitive health, abilities, networks, & community engagement for older adults with cognitive impairments through technology: A scoping review introducing the enhance center. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 19(2), 302–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2022.2087770
30.
Schmitter-EdgecombeM.WrightM. J. (2004). Event-based prospective memory following severe closed-head injury. Neuropsychology, 18(2), 353–361. https://doi.org/10.1037/0894-4105.18.2.353
31.
ShenZ.XueC.LiJ.ZhouX. (2015). Effect of icon density and color contrast on users’ visual perception in human computer interaction. In HarrisD. (Ed.), EPCE 2015. LNCS (Vol. 9174, pp. 66–76). Springer.
32.
SmithB.CaputiP.RawstorneP. (2007). The development of a measure of subjective computer experience. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(1), 127–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2004.04.001
33.
SmithG.Del SalaS.LogieR. H.MaylorE. A. (2000). Prospective and retrospective memory in normal ageing and dementia: A questionnaire study. Memory, 8(5), 311–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210050117735
34.
ThompsonH. J.WeirS.RivaraF. P.WangJ.SullivanS. D.SalkeverD.MacKenzieE. J. (2012). Utilization and costs of health care after geriatric traumatic brain injury. Journal of Neurotrauma, 29(10), 1864–1871. https://doi.org/10.1089/neu.2011.2284
35.
TierneyS. M.BucksR. S.WeinbornM.HodgsonE.WoodsS. P. (2016). Retrieval cue and delay interval influence the relationship between prospective memory and activities of daily living in older adults. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 38(5), 572–584. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2016.1141876
36.
van den BergE.KantN.PostmaA. (2012). Remember to buy milk on the way home! A meta-analytic review of prospective memory in mild cognitive impairment and dementia. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society: JINS, 18(4), 706–716. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617712000331
37.
Van HulleA.HuxK. (2006). Improvement patterns among survivors of brain injury: Three case examples documenting the effectiveness of memory compensation strategies. Brain Injury, 20(1), 101–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699050500309684
38.
VenkateshV.ThongJ. Y. L.XuX. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), Article 157. https://doi.org/10.2307/41410412
39.
ViraniS. S.AlonsoA.BenjaminE. J.BittencourtM. S.CallawayC. W.CarsonA. P.TasoC. W.ChangA. R.ChengS.DellingF. N.DjousseL.ElkindM. S. V.FergusonJ. F.FornageM.KhanS. S.KisselaB. M.KnutsonK. L.KwanT. W.LacklandD. T.American Heart Association Council on Epidemiology and Prevention Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee (2020). Heart disease and stroke statistics—2020 update: A report from the American heart association. Circulation, 141(9), e139–e596. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000757
40.
WilsonB. A.EmslieH. C.QuirkK.EvansJ. J. (2001). Reducing everyday memory and planning problems by means of a paging system: A randomised control crossover study. Journal of Neurology Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 70(4), 477–482. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.70.4.477
41.
WittichW.PhillipsN.NasreddineZ. S.ChertkowH. (2010). Sensitivity and specificity of the Montreal cognitive assessment modified for individuals who are visually impaired. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 104(6), 360–368. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X1010400
42.
WongD. G.BuchananL. (2019). A meta-analysis of task-related influences in prospective memory in traumatic brain injury. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 29(5), 657–671. https://doi.org/10.1080/09602011.2017.1313748
43.
WoodsS. P.WeinbornM.LiY. R.HodgsonE.NgA. R.BucksR. S. (2015). Does prospective memory influence quality of life in community-dwelling older adults?Neuropsychology, Development, and Cognition. Section B, Aging, Neuropsychology and Cognition, 22(6), 679–692. https://doi.org/10.1080/13825585.2015.1027651
44.
WoodsS. P.WeinbornM.VelnowethA.RooneyA.BucksR. S. (2012). Memory for intentions is uniquely associated with instrumental activities of daily living in healthy older adults. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society: JINS, 18(1), 134–138. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617711001263
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
