. Patients with Alzheimer’s disease perform worse on Neurotrack’s digital cognitive assessments than cognitively healthy controls. INTRODUCTION Globally, the prevalence of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is expected to triple by 2050 1 . Lengthy and complex cognitive assessments, as well as lack of access to cognitive testing, can result in delayed or missed diagnoses and less effective interventions 2 . Thus, the development of a valid, brief, and easily accessible method of assessment is critical for continued monitoring of cognitive health. To address this need, we investigated the use of Neurotrack’s digital cognitive assessment suite as a viable clinical solution. METHOD As part of ongoing data collection efforts, 26 patients from a neurosurgery clinic in Japan were given the Japanese version of the Neurotrack digital assessments: • 16 patients diagnosed with AD (Mean age = 80.8, 60% female) • 10 cognitively healthy controls (Mean age = 75.6, 50% female) • 50% of the patients in both groups had a college degree The assessments were completed on a tablet. Each assessment took less than 5 minutes to complete and measured the following cognitive processes: processing speed, executive function, inhibition, associative learning, associative memory, and attention (Table 1). As Neurotrack’s digital assessments are designed for self- administration, nurses at the clinic only provided assistance to patients as needed during testing. RESULTS A series of independent samples t-tests were conducted to assess differences in cognitive performance between patients with AD and cognitively healthy controls. A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied with an adjusted p-value of .008. Results showed that patients with AD performed significantly worse than the cognitively healthy controls in processing speed, t(23) = 5.33, p <.0005, g = 2.10; executive function, t(21) = 2.89, p = .004, g = 1.26; inhibition, t(23) = 2.92, p = .004, g = 1.77; associative learning, t(22) = 2.63, p = .008, g = 1.05; and associative memory, Welch’s t(22) = 3.58, p = .002, M D = .21. Based on the adjusted p-value there was no significant difference in attention, t(22) = 2.286, p =.016. Mean score comparisons are shown in Figure 1. CONCLUSION Neurotrack’s digital cognitive assessments are a promising method for the assessments of cognitive impairment as evidenced by poorer cognitive performance by patients with AD as compared to their cognitively healthy counterparts. Further investigation of the efficacy of this platform as a brief, valid, and easily accessible diagnostic tool is currently underway. REFERENCES 1. Hebert LE, Beckett LA, Scherr PA, Evans DA. Annual incidence of Alzheimer disease in the United States projected to the years 2000 through 2050. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 2001;15(4):169-73. 2. Geddes, M. R., O'Connell, M. E., Fisk, J. D., Gauthier, S., Camicioli, R., & Ismail, Z. (2020). Remote cognitive and behavioral assessment: Report of the Alzheimer Society of Canada task force on dementia care best practices for COVID-19. Alzheimer's & Dementia: Diagnosis, Assessment & Disease Monitoring, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1002/dad2.12111 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS & ETHICAL STATEMENT The authors would like to thank the staff and patients at the Ebina Neurosurgery Clinic for their time and effort towards this project. This project was approved by the University of Arkansas Institutional Review Board. DISCLOSURE STATEMENT JRM, RAMM, ENM, KO, and JMG report income and equity received from employment at Neurotrack Technologies, Inc. JEH received paid consultancy and has options in Neurotrack Technologies, Inc. Curious about our research? Scan the code to explore our library of scientific publications. Utilization of a Novel Digital Neuropsychological Assessment Suite in Patients with Alzheimer’s Disease and Cognitively Healthy Controls: A Preliminary Investigation Jennifer Rae Myers 1 , Satoshi Ozaki 2 , Erica N. Madero 1 , John E. Harrison 3,4,5, Rachel A. Mak-McCully 1 , Kaori Onguchi 1 , Michelle Gray 6 , Jordan M. Glenn 1,6 1 Neurotrack Technologies, Redwood City CA, USA 2 Ebina Neurosurgery Clinic, Tokyo, Japan 3 Metis Cognition Ltd, Wiltshire, UK 4Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King’s College London, London, UK 5 Alzheimer Center Amsterdam, Department of Neurology, Amsterdam, the Netherlands 6 University of Arkansas—Exercise Science Research Center, Fayetteville, AR, USA Assessment Cognitive Domain Description Primary Scoring Metric* Symbol Match Processing Speed Patients use a legend to indicate whether 2 symbols are equal or unequal. They must complete as many trials as they can in a 2- minute period. Rate correct Path Points Executive Function Patients connect dots alternating between number and letter in ascending order. This is based on the Trail-Making-Test Part B. Completion time, s Light Reaction Inhibition Patients are asked to respond when a green light appears on the screen and refrain from responding when a red light appears. Response time, ms Item Price Associative Learning Patients learn prices of various produce items and must identify the correct produce-price pair in subsequent trials. Number of items correct Image Pairs Associative Memory Patients are shown a series of images and then are asked to correctly identify previously viewed image pairs in subsequent trials. Composite score; (accuracy & eye-tracking novelty preference) Arrow Match Attention Patients indicate which direction the center arrow is pointing among 4 distractors. This is based on the Flanker paradigm. Rate correct Figure 1. Mean Score Comparisons of Patients with Alzheimer’s Disease and Cognitively Healthy Controls *Additional data metrics are captured for each assessment Processing Speed Inhibition Associative Memory Associative Learning Executive Function Attention Table 1. Descriptions of Neurotrack’s Digital Cognitive Assessments Mean score comparisons by group for Neurotrack’s digital cognitive assessments: processing speed, p <.0005; executive function, p = .004, inhibition, p = .004; associative learning, p = .008; associative memory, p = .002; and attention, p = .016. “*” indicates statistical significance, ns = not significant, adjusted p-value = .008. * ns * * * *