Scholarlink

Background <p>Computerized cognitive training (CCT) is effective for people with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). But CCT must be “user friendly” and easy to handle for this target group.</p> Objective <p>The aim of this study was to evaluate in a secondary data analysis the user experience with two CCT programs developed for people with MCI.</p> Methods <p>In the framework of the randomized controlled study BrainFit-Nutrition (<i>N</i> = 270), two CCTs were examined: an individualized CCT (iCCT) with a machine learning system and more exercises versus a basic CCT (bCCT) with less exercises and without machine learning: both containing a set of cognitive training tasks. The User Experience Questionnaire (UEQ) was used to evaluate user satisfaction with the two CCTs at t6-follow-up (<i>n</i><sub><i>UX</i></sub>=217; <i>n</i><sub><i>UX−iCCT</i></sub>=109; <i>n</i><sub><i>UX−bCCT</i></sub>=108). In addition to the benchmark, we examined, first, the differences between the CCTs; second, the correlation between self-reported training intensity and user satisfaction; and third, age and gender differences in the use of the CCTs.</p> Results <p>For both CCT programs, the benchmark was above average or good for all scales. There were no significant differences between the CCT programs in 5 of the 6 UEQ scales. Only the Perspicuity scale showed significantly higher values for the bCCT than for the iCCT. Training intensity was positively correlated with the UEQ aspects Attractiveness, and hedonic quality (i.e. the scales Stimulation and Novelty) for each CCT program.</p> Conclusion <p>Both CCT programs are user-friendly tools for individuals with MCI aged 60 years and older. Participants who used one of the CCT programs more frequently were more satisfied with the hedonic quality of the CCT program, whereby the training intensity of the iCCT was descriptively higher than in the bCCT. The results are very important, due to the rising number of persons with MCI and the need to offer various non-pharmacological intervention, that can be offered at a low threshold.</p> Trial registration <p>ISRCTN10560738; registered November 23, 2021.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

User experience with two computerized cognitive intervention programs for people with mild cognitive impairment

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年12月10日

查看全文
  • Julia-Sophia Scheuermann,
  • Elmar Graessel,
  • Martin Schmitt,
  • Petra Scheerbaum

摘要

Background

Computerized cognitive training (CCT) is effective for people with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). But CCT must be “user friendly” and easy to handle for this target group.

Objective

The aim of this study was to evaluate in a secondary data analysis the user experience with two CCT programs developed for people with MCI.

Methods

In the framework of the randomized controlled study BrainFit-Nutrition (N = 270), two CCTs were examined: an individualized CCT (iCCT) with a machine learning system and more exercises versus a basic CCT (bCCT) with less exercises and without machine learning: both containing a set of cognitive training tasks. The User Experience Questionnaire (UEQ) was used to evaluate user satisfaction with the two CCTs at t6-follow-up (nUX=217; nUX−iCCT=109; nUX−bCCT=108). In addition to the benchmark, we examined, first, the differences between the CCTs; second, the correlation between self-reported training intensity and user satisfaction; and third, age and gender differences in the use of the CCTs.

Results

For both CCT programs, the benchmark was above average or good for all scales. There were no significant differences between the CCT programs in 5 of the 6 UEQ scales. Only the Perspicuity scale showed significantly higher values for the bCCT than for the iCCT. Training intensity was positively correlated with the UEQ aspects Attractiveness, and hedonic quality (i.e. the scales Stimulation and Novelty) for each CCT program.

Conclusion

Both CCT programs are user-friendly tools for individuals with MCI aged 60 years and older. Participants who used one of the CCT programs more frequently were more satisfied with the hedonic quality of the CCT program, whereby the training intensity of the iCCT was descriptively higher than in the bCCT. The results are very important, due to the rising number of persons with MCI and the need to offer various non-pharmacological intervention, that can be offered at a low threshold.

Trial registration

ISRCTN10560738; registered November 23, 2021.