INS NYC 2024 Program

Poster	Poster Session 04 Program Schedule 02/15/2024 12:00 pm - 01:15 pm Room: Majestic Complex (Posters 61-120) Poster Session 04: Neuroimaging \| Neurostimulation/Neuromodulation \| Teleneuropsychology/Technology Final Abstract #87 Accuracy of Error Monitoring using Ecological Momentary Assessment with Mid-life and Older Adults Carolyn Pagán, Washington State University, Pullman, United States Catherine Luna, Washington State University, Pullman, United States Maureen Schmitter-Edgecombe, Washington State University, Pullman, United States Category: Teleneuropsychology/ Technology Keyword 1: aging (normal) Keyword 2: technology Keyword 3: self-monitoring Objective: Accurate error monitoring is important for successful completion of everyday tasks and use of compensatory strategies. The ability to recognize errors during task performance is an important cognitive process that influences task efficiency and accuracy. This study used ecological momentary assessment (EMA) delivered via smartwatches to examine ability to accurately judge performance on a cognitive n-back test, and to assess the relationship of error detection with self-reported mental sharpness and environmental distractors. We hypothesized that accuracy in judgment will fluctuate depending on mental sharpness and environmental distraction levels. Participants and Methods: Twenty-five community-dwelling midlife adults and older adults (Age: M = 70.80; SD = 8.53, range = 51 - 83; 80% Female; 96% White, 96% not Hispanic or Latino; Education: M = 6.36, SD = 4.05) completed the EMA portion of a larger study examining compensatory strategy use in completion of everyday tasks. Participants were provided with a smartwatch and prompted 4x a day over 2 weeks to complete a 45-second n-back test and respond to Likert questions about their current experience (range (1) “Not at all”, (2) “Very Little”, (3) “Slightly”, (4) “Somewhat”, (5) “Moderately”, (6) “Very Much”, (7) “Extremely”). To examine current experience, the prompts “right now, I feel mentally sharp and alert” and “right now, my environment is distracting,” were used. The n-back required participants to quickly select (yes or no) whether the current shape is the same as the prior shape shown. To examine error monitoring, participants choose how many shape attempts they thought they missed (i.e., made an error response) on the n-back test (range 0 - 6 errors). Results: From a total of 1,115 responses, participants accurately judged their n-back errors 58.48% (652 responses) of the time, while they overestimated errors 34.71% (387 responses) and under-estimated errors 6.82% (76 responses) of the time. When participants correctly recalled errors made, they generally thought they made no errors (65.34%), reported their environment as Not at All (28.07%) to Very Little (28.99%) distracting, and self-reported feeling Very Much (40.18%) mentally sharp. Similar patterns emerged when participants incorrectly judged their errors. More specifically, when participants underestimated or overestimated their errors, they generally thought they made no errors if underestimated (69.74%) or 1-2 errors if overestimated (48.84%); they described their environment as Not at All (23.68% and 18.09%, respectively) to Very Little (26.32% and 20.16%, respectively) distracting, and self-reported feeling Very Much (32.89% and 33.59%, respectively) mentally sharp. Cross correlations between error detection and current experience responses were small. Conclusions: At the group level, community-dwelling midlife and older adults tended to primarily rate their errors accurately, which means that they were accurately assessing their performance on the 45-second n-back cognitive test. When they inaccurately rated their errors, they tended to overestimate errors made. Across error judgments, there was no differentiation in participants’ ratings of feeling distracted from their environment and feeling highly mentally alert. This could suggest that other factors not captured by the current EMA questions may be playing a role in differentiating error monitoring performance.

Poster

02/15/2024
12:00 pm - 01:15 pm
Room: Majestic Complex (Posters 61-120)

Poster Session 04: Neuroimaging | Neurostimulation/Neuromodulation | Teleneuropsychology/Technology

Final Abstract #87

Accuracy of Error Monitoring using Ecological Momentary Assessment with Mid-life and Older Adults

Carolyn Pagán, Washington State University, Pullman, United States
Catherine Luna, Washington State University, Pullman, United States
Maureen Schmitter-Edgecombe, Washington State University, Pullman, United States

Category: Teleneuropsychology/ Technology

Keyword 1: aging (normal)
Keyword 2: technology
Keyword 3: self-monitoring

Objective:

Accurate error monitoring is important for successful completion of everyday tasks and use of compensatory strategies. The ability to recognize errors during task performance is an important cognitive process that influences task efficiency and accuracy. This study used ecological momentary assessment (EMA) delivered via smartwatches to examine ability to accurately judge performance on a cognitive n-back test, and to assess the relationship of error detection with self-reported mental sharpness and environmental distractors. We hypothesized that accuracy in judgment will fluctuate depending on mental sharpness and environmental distraction levels.

Participants and Methods:

Twenty-five community-dwelling midlife adults and older adults (Age: M = 70.80; SD = 8.53, range = 51 - 83; 80% Female; 96% White, 96% not Hispanic or Latino; Education: M = 6.36, SD = 4.05) completed the EMA portion of a larger study examining compensatory strategy use in completion of everyday tasks. Participants were provided with a smartwatch and prompted 4x a day over 2 weeks to complete a 45-second n-back test and respond to Likert questions about their current experience (range (1) “Not at all”, (2) “Very Little”, (3) “Slightly”, (4) “Somewhat”, (5) “Moderately”, (6) “Very Much”, (7) “Extremely”). To examine current experience, the prompts “right now, I feel mentally sharp and alert” and “right now, my environment is distracting,” were used. The n-back required participants to quickly select (yes or no) whether the current shape is the same as the prior shape shown. To examine error monitoring, participants choose how many shape attempts they thought they missed (i.e., made an error response) on the n-back test (range 0 - 6 errors).

Results:

From a total of 1,115 responses, participants accurately judged their n-back errors 58.48% (652 responses) of the time, while they overestimated errors 34.71% (387 responses) and under-estimated errors 6.82% (76 responses) of the time. When participants correctly recalled errors made, they generally thought they made no errors (65.34%), reported their environment as Not at All (28.07%) to Very Little (28.99%) distracting, and self-reported feeling Very Much (40.18%) mentally sharp. Similar patterns emerged when participants incorrectly judged their errors. More specifically, when participants underestimated or overestimated their errors, they generally thought they made no errors if underestimated (69.74%) or 1-2 errors if overestimated (48.84%); they described their environment as Not at All (23.68% and 18.09%, respectively) to Very Little (26.32% and 20.16%, respectively) distracting, and self-reported feeling Very Much (32.89% and 33.59%, respectively) mentally sharp. Cross correlations between error detection and current experience responses were small.

Conclusions:

At the group level, community-dwelling midlife and older adults tended to primarily rate their errors accurately, which means that they were accurately assessing their performance on the 45-second n-back cognitive test. When they inaccurately rated their errors, they tended to overestimate errors made. Across error judgments, there was no differentiation in participants’ ratings of feeling distracted from their environment and feeling highly mentally alert. This could suggest that other factors not captured by the current EMA questions may be playing a role in differentiating error monitoring performance.