Fig 1.
Consort diagram showing the flow of participants through the study.
Table 1.
Baseline participant characteristics including patients whose data were imputed (23–25).
Fig 2.
Object layout for simple tea at assessment.
(a) Simple and (b) Complex Tea Layout Mat to scale (80x50cm); kettle (15cm diameter) bowls & water jug (12.8cm), cups, milk and coffee (8cm), cutlery (13.7–17.7cm), sweetener (4.5cm). Coffee was used as a distractor.
Fig 3.
a) As the patient completes tea-making with the items on the table layout, cues are presented on the “patient display” (foreground) when an error is detected (in this case non-recoverable). The healthcare professional monitors task progression via the “clinician display” (background). b) Each correct step is acknowledged by the system by displaying a visual reminder of the completed sub-action at the top of the patient display. Here, the patient has completed “Add water from jug to kettle”, “Boil water”, “Add teabag to cup”, “Add sugar”, “Add milk” and is performing the sub-action of “Add boiled water to cup”. We acknowledge The Stroke Association, UK, as the source of this figure. The individuals in this figure have given written informed consent (as outlined in the PLOS consent form) to publish their image.
Fig 4.
Mapping of actions and errors to neuropsychological classification.
From left to right are the sub-actions which are performed during simple tea making, action errors which may result during performance of the sub-actions, and their relation to the neuropsychological error categories which were used for analysis. In addition to errors which were trained by the Cogwatch subsystem, 4 additional errors were identified during the assessment (in boxes with broken line borders).
Table 2.
Error types and definitions.
Fig 5.
(a) error (b) time taken for the two patient groups (Group 1: Baseline (1), Post-training (2), Post-control (3), Follow-up (4); Group 2: Baseline (1), Post-control (2), Post-training (3), Follow-up (4)). Tea making change scores (c) Recoverable and nonrecoverable errors (d) time as a function of condition. Experimental, control and follow-up scores were calculated 1–2, 2–3, 2–4 (where experimental, control and follow-up were calculated as Group1) and 2–3,1–2, 3–4 (Group 2). Statistically significant contrasts are shown across the top of (c, d).
Fig 6.
Number of three types of non-recoverable (addition N-ADD, object substitution N-OSUB, kettle error N-KET) and six types of recoverable errors (addition N-ADD, object substitution N-OSUB, kettle error N-KET) before (dark shade bars) and after tea-making training (light shade bars). Note that only data from complete cases (n = 22) are included in this figure as error type data were not imputed.
Fig 7.
Relative proportions of the three types of non-recoverable errors (addition N-ADD, object substitution N-OSUB, kettle error N-KET in shades of green) and six types of recoverable errors (continuous perseveration R-CP, execution R-EX, recurrent perseveration R-RP, sequence R-SEQ, quantity underestimation R-QU, step omission R-SOM in shades of blue) pre and post-tea making training. Note that no non-recoverable step omission errors occurred during the pre and post-tea making sessions.
Fig 8.
(a) Proportion of complex tea making errors as a function of training condition. (b) Mean change in complex tea making errors across contrasts.