Search for: All records

This study was performed to investigate the validity of a real world version of the Trail Making Test (TMT) across age strata, compared to the current standard TMT which is delivered using a pen-paper protocol. We developed a real world version of the TMT, the Can-TMT, that involves the retrieval of food cans, with numeric or alphanumerical labels, from a shelf in ascending order. Eye tracking data was acquired during the Can-TMT to calculate task completion time and compared to that of the Paper-TMT. Results indicated a strong significant correlation between the real world and paper tasks for both TMTA and TMTB versions of the tasks, indicative of the validity of the real world task. Moreover, the two age groups exhibited significant differences on the TMTA and TMTB versions of both task modalities (paper and can), further supporting the validity of the real world task. This work will have a significant impact on our ability to infer skill or impairment with visual search, spatial reasoning, working memory, and motor proficiency during complex real-world tasks. Thus, we hope to fill a critical need for an exam with the resolution capable of determining deficits which subjective or reductionist assessments may otherwise miss. 

Composite temporal event sequence visualizations have included sentinel event alignment techniques to cope with data volume and variety. Prior work has demonstrated the utility of using single-event alignment for understanding the precursor, co-occurring, and aftereffect events surrounding a sentinel event. However, the usefulness of single-event alignment has not been sufficiently evaluated in composite visualizations. Furthermore, recently proposed dual-event alignment techniques have not been empirically evaluated. In this work, we designed tasks around temporal event sequence and timing analysis and conducted a controlled experiment on Amazon Mechanical Turk to examine four sentinel event alignment approaches: no sentinel event alignment (NoAlign), single-event alignment (SingleAlign), dual-event alignment with left justification (DualLeft), and dual-event alignment with stretch justification (DualStretch). Differences between approaches were most pronounced with more rows of data. For understanding intermediate events between two sentinel events, dual-event alignment was the clear winner for correctness-71% vs. 18% for NoAlign and SingleAlign. For understanding the duration between two sentinel events, NoAlign was the clear winner: correctness-88% vs. 36% for DualStretch- completion time-55 seconds vs. 101 seconds for DualLeft-and error-1.5% vs. 8.4% for DualStretch. For understanding precursor and aftereffect events, there was no significant difference among approaches. A free copy of this paper, the evaluation stimuli and data, and source code are available at osf.io/78fs5