ISC Cognitive Model

Cognitive assessment

The ISC Cognitive Model: Automated and comprehensive interpretation of cognitive functioning

Sign up for news and updates in cognitive assessment

Stay up-to-date and subscribe.

Join your peers, sign-up to stay informed and receive insights into healthcare innovations, straight to your inbox.

(Please be sure to check the box to receive communications from Philips)

Contact information

* This field is mandatory
*

Contact details

*
*
*

Company details

*
*
*

Clinicians aim to interpret a patient’s performance on a (set of) cognitive tests in terms of the underlying cognitive processes. For example, an interpretation of poor performance on a word recall test is only informative when it goes beyond the raw test score and provides insight regarding memory functioning. Digital testing offers the potential to automate the interpretation process. However, providing a standardized mapping between test scores and cognitive domains is not trivial. No cognitive test provides a perfect measure for a single cognitive domain. In fact, performance on most cognitive tests involves multiple cognitive domains.

Philips IntelliSpace Cognition (ISC) provides a comprehensive measurement of cognitive functioning that is driven both by neuropsychological theory and by data. A cognitive overview interprets a patient’s test performance in terms of established cognitive domains that go beyond the scores on individual tests. The cognitive domain scores are calculated using the ISC Cognitive Model, which is based on Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). The central idea of this SEM approach is that the scores from certain cognitive tests cluster together as they are caused by the same underlying cognitive domain. Even though the cognitive domains are not measured directly, the model estimates them mathematically by accounting for the relations between outcome measures. The model’s exact input measures, number of existing cognitive domains, and how these all relate are fully based on established neuropsychological literature and the expert opinion of several experienced neuropsychologists. Within the constraints of this theory-driven framework, the model searches for an optimal mathematical solution. Additionally, the model is able to automatically search for additional patterns in the data that in many cases are difficult to detect manually. For example, the ISC cognitive model found that a portion of Trail Making Test variance was related to the working memory domain, despite there being no direct link between TMT and working memory. This suggests that a part of Trail Making Test performance relies on Working memory. The model uses such patterns to break down test scores into distinct components that are associated with different cognitive processes.

Figure 1 presents a visualization of how the individual tests contribute to the cognitive domain scores. Conventional outcome measures of six cognitive tests provide the input for the model, resulting in the estimation of six cognitive domains: memory, working memory, processing speed, verbal processing, executive functioning, and visual spatial processing. Most tests contribute to at least two cognitive domain scores. This means that cognitive domains comprise multiple test scores, with greater contributions of test scores that form a purer measure of that cognitive domain. The Cognitive Model uses a normative data set consisting of 297 healthy adults. Sampling of the normative data was stratified by education level and race/ethnicity in line with the US census (CPS ASEC 2017). The Cognitive Model was found to provide an excellent fit to the data.”


Figure 1. Relative strength of the relationships between test scores and cognitive domains in the ISC Cognitive model. Darker shades represent stronger relationships

ISC Cognitive model chart
The ISC Cognitive Model provides substantial advantages over other existing (digital) test batteries, which often only provide simple one-on-one mappings (i.e., test score of x equals cognitive domain y). Given the difficulties outlined above, this solution is typically overly simplistic as demonstrated in Figure 1. For example, 2 out of 11 test scores contribute to some degree to executive functioning, likely reflecting the fact that they all require executive/attentional control. Simple one-on-one mappings are unable to capitalize on such patterns, resulting in cognitive domain scores that inevitably lump together aspects of several cognitive processes. In contrast, the ISC cognitive domain scores only contain aspects of test performance that are reliably related to the particular domain, leaving out aspects of performance that are due to other cognitive domains. This is beneficial in differentiating specific cognitive impairments in some domains while other domains remain intact. Thus, The ISC Cognitive Model adds important clinical intelligence in a fully automated fashion.

More articles

References

 

1 MarkeTech Group, Davis, CA, study of 75 neurologists with clinical practices, commissioned by Philips 2018.
 

2 Vermeent S, Dotsch R, Schmand B, et al. Evidence of validity for a newly developed digital cognitive test battery. Frontiers. 2019 [article under revision]
 

3 Based on a 2019 Philips study of 100 neurologists in the US
 

4 Scharre D. The digital future of cognitive screening. Practical Neurology. 2017.

Justin Miller interview.

Our site can best be viewed with the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Firefox.