Evaluation of the Reaction Time and Accuracy Rate in Normal Subjects, MCI, and Dementia Using Serious Games
, Natan Derek 1, Shuo-Bin Huang 1, Min-Wei Huang 2,3 and You-Yu Wang 4Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript presents an interesting analysis of reaction time and accuracy-rate measures in normal, MCI, and Dementia subjects using two ad-hoc developed serious games. The manuscript is generally well written and clearly presented, and after some minor revision could be suitable for publication.
- Page 2, row 5: “Furthermore, the authors in [42] also noted that the accuracy-rate can correlate significantly with episodic memory performance and other cognitive functions” Is the reference [42] correct? I do not find any mention of “accuracy-rate” in https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0899900710002509
- Section 2: Please include more details on the board-button you have designed. What are the key design guidelines you have followed for elderly users? E.g: How much force does it take to press a button? How big is the button size? What is the distance between each button?
- Section 2.2.2: Please include more details on how participants were instructed before playing.
- 2.2. Experimental Design: How many times each subject played each speed level? What about intraindividual variability?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors developed two new games for testing cognitive performance of elderly people with and without cognitive impairment. It's two new potential tests enabled for measurement of the response time and accuracy rate of performer. This two measures pretty accurate representing stage of dementia.
The article have good description of conducted experiments with three groups of elderly people categorized according to Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) test into: normal, mild cognitive impairment, and moderate-to-severe. Authors in the Conclusion discuss that existing number of involved participants are small and presented achieved results as good indicators that need broader test with more participants to come to more qualitative evaluation of developed games for defined purpose.
The article needs additional spelling check - in chapter introduction, page 2 when explain abbreviation of MCI use brackets or some other delimitator instead of ;. In chapter conclusion - page 14 - authors used term Serous Games?
Why is page 4 with so small amount of text?
The authors defined three groups according to MMSE test and used that groups in tables for presenting results but not always consistent - table 6 and 7 and table 10 and 11 not used descriptive meaning of MMSE group but exact numbers of MMSE test -- why? Try to be consistent in all results presentation for both variables - response time and accuracy rate.
when you select game for test you are clear with selection whack-a-mole game - people play physical variant of the game - it was popular in Taiwan, but it's is not fully clear selection of hit-a-ball (even is visible some problems with selected concept in results analysis). Elaborate little bit more about selection of games.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
