80 Ecological Momentary Assessment of the Fluctuations in Cognitive Performance and Contextual States of Community-Dwelling Older Adults

Objective:Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) allows for tracking participant responses across multiple timepoints within the context of typical daily experiences. This study used EMA delivered via smartwatches to investigate dynamic associations between older adults’ fluctuations in cognitive performance as measured by an n-back test and self-reports of current internal (i.e., mental sharpness, fatigue, stress) and external (i.e., environmental distractions, time of day) contextual states over seven days. We hypothesized that 1) cognitive test fluctuations throughout the week would be meaningful beyond average cognitive test scores and 2) cognitive test scores would fluctuate in response to internal and external contexts.Participants and Methods:Participants were 28 community-dwelling older adults recruited for a larger clinical trial assessing the influence of lifestyle factors and compensatory strategy use on cognitive health. During week one of the trial, participants received a smartwatch which sent prompts four times a day for seven consecutive days. The prompts included a 45-second one-back shape test, along with Likert-style questions about their current experience. Questions assessing participants’ internal contexts asked about participants’ experience “right now” of mental sharpness, physical fatigue, and stress. External context was assessed via the EMA prompt, “Right now my environment is distracting,” and time of day of the response.Results:Data was screened such that all data points outside the 7-day prompt window were removed, one participant who did not respond to any prompts was removed, and participants who responded to less than 60% of the shape test prompts were removed (n = 10). The sample used for this preliminary analysis included 17 participants (Age, M = 71.94 years; Education, M = 14 years; 88% Female; 88% White) with an average compliance of 75% (Range = 17 - 26 shape test responses) and an average shape test accuracy of > 92%. Hypothesis 1 was supported by the large fluctuations of the average cognitive test scores across timepoints (M = 24.35, Min = 16, Max = 27, SD = 2.54) and by repeated-measures ANOVA of average cognitive test scores by day (F(1,7) = 5.24, p < 0.01). Hypothesis 2: Cross-correlation lags 0 to 4 were assessed. For internal contexts, cross-correlation showed a medium correlation between mental sharpness and cognition for lags 0 (r = 0.46) and 1 (r = 0.4); a small to medium correlation between physical fatigue