KR102606336B1 - Test method and apparatus for evaluating cognitive function decline - Google Patents

Abstract

The present invention relates to a test method and device for evaluating cognitive decline.
A test method for evaluating cognitive decline according to an embodiment of the present invention tests the user to see how much he/she performs the presented mission for each of a plurality of test items, and calculates the test score for each of the plurality of test items. A test step for calculating, a category classification step for classifying at least one test item among a plurality of test items into one neurocognitive category among a plurality of neurocognitive categories, and a test score for the test item classified into the neurocognitive category. Based on this, an evaluation step may be included to evaluate whether there is cognitive decline in the neurocognitive category.

Description

Test method and device for evaluating cognitive decline {TEST METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR EVALUATING COGNITIVE FUNCTION DECLINE}

The present invention relates to a test method and device for evaluating cognitive decline.

As the aging society continues, the number of dementia patients is rapidly increasing. However, there is no cure for dementia. Therefore, the most innovative alternative to dementia is early detection of mild cognitive impairment, which is likely to develop into dementia, and provide preventive treatment. Mild cognitive impairment refers to a high-risk condition in the pre-dementia stage. Approximately 10-15% of patients with mild cognitive impairment are reported to have dementia.

However, there is no standardized diagnosis method for mild cognitive impairment, and doctors treat patients face-to-face and make a comprehensive review of the patient's condition. Conventional tests to evaluate cognitive decline are mainly composed of tests to evaluate memory, so they are effective tests for evaluating Alzheimer's disease dementia, which is characterized by memory decline, but they are also effective for evaluating other dementias, which are characterized by cognitive decline other than memory. There is a problem in that accuracy is low.

The above-mentioned background technology is technical information that the inventor possessed for deriving the present invention or acquired in the process of deriving the present invention, and cannot necessarily be said to be known art disclosed to the general public before filing the application for the present invention.

Domestic Patent Publication No. 10-2018-0109529 (2018.10.08)

One object of the present invention is to provide a clear and easy-to-understand user interface when performing an online test to evaluate cognitive decline.

One object of the present invention is to allow the user to directly intervene and perform the test when assessing cognitive decline online and to minimize the intervention of the examiner.

One object of the present invention is to check test results immediately after an online test to evaluate cognitive decline is completed and to enable tracking by checking stored past results.

The problem to be solved by the present invention is not limited to the problems mentioned above, and other problems and advantages of the present invention that are not mentioned can be understood through the following description and can be understood more clearly through the examples of the present invention. It will be. In addition, it can be seen that the problems and advantages to be solved by the present invention can be realized by the means and combinations thereof indicated in the patent claims.

A test method for evaluating cognitive decline according to an embodiment of the present invention is a test method for evaluating cognitive decline performed by a processor of a testing device for evaluating cognitive decline, and is performed on multiple users. A test step of examining how much of the presented mission is performed for each test item and calculating a test score for each of the plurality of test items, and selecting at least one test item among the plurality of test items among the plurality of neurocognitive categories. It may include a category classification step to classify into one neurocognitive category, and an evaluation step to evaluate whether there is a decline in cognitive function in the neurocognitive category based on test scores for test items classified into the neurocognitive category.

A testing device for evaluating cognitive decline according to an embodiment of the present invention includes a processor and a memory operably connected to the processor and storing at least one code to be executed by the processor, and the memory is to be executed through the processor. At this time, the processor checks how much of the mission presented to the user is performed for each of the plurality of inspection items, executes an inspection process that calculates the inspection score for each of the plurality of inspection items, and checks at least one of the plurality of inspection items. A category classification process is performed to classify one test item into one of a plurality of neurocognitive categories, and cognitive decline in the neurocognitive category is determined based on the test scores for the test items classified into the neurocognitive category. You can store code that causes an evaluation process to be run to evaluate whether something is present or not.

In addition, another method for implementing the present invention, another system, and a computer-readable recording medium storing a computer program for executing the method may be further provided.

Other aspects, features and advantages in addition to those described above will become apparent from the following drawings, claims and detailed description of the invention.

According to the present invention, an elderly user can perform a test to evaluate cognitive decline without difficulty by providing an explicit and easy-to-understand user interface when performing an online test to evaluate cognitive decline.

In addition, when performing an online test to evaluate cognitive decline, the user can directly intervene and perform the test, and the test accuracy for the user can be improved by minimizing the examiner's intervention.

In addition, after the online test to evaluate cognitive decline is completed, the test results can be checked immediately and the saved past results can be checked and tracked, making it possible to provide a quick and accurate diagnosis and preventive measures to the patient.

The effects of the present invention are not limited to those mentioned above, and other effects not mentioned will be clearly understood by those skilled in the art from the description below.

Figure 1 is an exemplary diagram of a testing environment for evaluating cognitive decline in this embodiment.
Figure 2 is a block diagram schematically illustrating the configuration of a testing device for evaluating cognitive decline according to this embodiment.
FIG. 3 is a block diagram schematically illustrating the configuration of the test management unit of the test device for evaluating cognitive decline in FIG. 2.
4 to 15 are exemplary diagrams of screens provided to the user terminal to conduct a test to evaluate cognitive decline according to this embodiment.
Figure 16 is a block diagram schematically illustrating the configuration of a testing device for evaluating cognitive decline according to another embodiment.
17 to 20 are flowcharts explaining a test method for evaluating cognitive decline according to this embodiment.

The advantages and features of the present invention and methods for achieving them will become clear by referring to the embodiments described in detail together with the accompanying drawings. However, the present invention is not limited to the embodiments presented below, but may be implemented in various different forms, and should be understood to include all conversions, equivalents, and substitutes included in the spirit and technical scope of the present invention. . The embodiments presented below are provided to ensure that the disclosure of the present invention is complete and to fully inform those skilled in the art of the scope of the invention. In describing the present invention, if it is determined that a detailed description of related known technologies may obscure the gist of the present invention, the detailed description will be omitted.

The terms used in this application are only used to describe specific embodiments and are not intended to limit the invention. Singular expressions include plural expressions unless the context clearly dictates otherwise. In this application, terms such as “comprise” or “have” are intended to designate the presence of features, numbers, steps, operations, components, parts, or combinations thereof described in the specification, but are not intended to indicate the presence of one or more other features. It should be understood that this does not exclude in advance the possibility of the existence or addition of elements, numbers, steps, operations, components, parts, or combinations thereof. Terms such as first, second, etc. may be used to describe various components, but the components should not be limited by these terms. The above terms are used only for the purpose of distinguishing one component from another.

Additionally, in this application, a “part” may be a hardware component, such as a processor or circuit, and/or a software component executed by the hardware component, such as a processor.

Hereinafter, embodiments according to the present invention will be described in detail with reference to the accompanying drawings. In the description with reference to the accompanying drawings, identical or corresponding components are assigned the same drawing numbers and duplicate descriptions thereof are omitted. I decided to do it.

Figure 1 is an exemplary diagram of a testing environment for evaluating cognitive decline in this embodiment. Referring to FIG. 1, the testing environment 1 for evaluating cognitive decline includes a testing device 100 (hereinafter referred to as testing device) for evaluating cognitive decline, a user terminal 200, and a network 300. may include.

The inspection device 100 may inspect the user to see how much of the presented mission is performed for each of the plurality of inspection items and execute an inspection process that calculates an inspection score for each of the plurality of inspection items. In this embodiment, the inspection process may be expressed as an inspection step in the claims described later.

In this embodiment, the inspection device 100 may execute inspection processes including the first through eleventh inspection processes.

The first test process is a test of the first test item that evaluates how much the word corresponding to the preset presentation category is uttered within a time limit (for example, 30 seconds) and the drawing of the instructed design is performed within the time limit. It may include a process of executing and calculating a first inspection score. Here, the first test item may include a fluency test.

In this embodiment, the first inspection process may include a 1-1 inspection process and a 1-2 inspection process.

The 1-1 test process executes a test on the 1-1 test item to evaluate how many words corresponding to the preset presentation category are uttered within the first time limit and calculates the 1-1 test score. Can include processes. Here, test item 1-1 may include a language fluency test. From this, the 1-1 test process may include a process of executing a language fluency test on the user and calculating the 1-1 test score.

The 1-2 inspection process may include a process of executing inspection on the 1-2 inspection items to evaluate how much drawing of the instructed design is performed within the second time limit and calculating the 1-2 inspection score. there is. Here, the first-second test items may include a design fluency test. From this, the 1-2 inspection process may include a process of executing a design fluency test for the user and calculating the 1-2 inspection score.

The differences comparing the fluency test included in the first test process according to this embodiment and the conventional fluency test may be as follows. The fluency test according to this embodiment can use voice recognition technology to record what the user says and convert it into text in real time. Additionally, the test score can be calculated by comparing the text with the correct answer. Among the fluency tests according to this embodiment, the design fluency test can receive the results of the user dragging and connecting shapes on the screen provided to the user terminal 200.

The second inspection process may be executed after completion of execution of the first inspection process. The second test process learns words while providing preset category clues and performs a test on the second test item to evaluate how much of the learned words are remembered after a preset time (e.g., 20 minutes) has elapsed. and may include a process for calculating a second inspection score. Here, the second test item may include a verbal cue memory test.

In this embodiment, the second inspection process may include a 2-1 inspection process and a 2-2 inspection process.

The 2-1 test process includes the process of executing a test on the 2-1 test items to evaluate the extent to which the ability to learn words is performed while providing preset category clues and calculating the 2-1 test score. can do. Here, the 2-1 test item may include a learning test among the verbal cue memory tests. From this, the 2-1 test process may include a process of executing a learning test among the language cue memory test for the user and calculating the 2-1 test score.

The 2-2 inspection process may be executed after the execution of the 2-1 inspection process is completed and a preset time has elapsed. In this embodiment, other inspection processes may be executed from the time execution of the 2-1 inspection process is completed to a preset time. For example, after completing the execution of the 2-1 inspection process, rather than executing the 2-2 inspection process, complete the execution of the 2-1 inspection process and then run the 3rd to 7th inspection processes. Only after execution, the 2-2 inspection process can be executed.

The 2-2 test process runs a test on the 2-2 test item that evaluates how much of the words learned in the 2-1 test process is remembered after a preset time has elapsed, and calculates the 2-2 test score. It may include a calculation process. Here, the 2-2 test item may include cue recall and recognition tests among the verbal cue memory tests. From this, the 2-2 test process may include a process of executing a cue recall and recognition test among the verbal cue memory test for the user and calculating the 2-2 test score.

In the verbal cue memory test included in the second test process according to this embodiment, episodic memory and long-term memory can be formed through the processes of 1) registration or encoding, 2) storage and maintenance, and 3) retrieval. In addition, based on a detailed and comprehensive evaluation of the three processes described above, a memory evaluation can be performed including whether episodic memory is damaged, the degree or characteristics of the damage, etc. Through the verbal cue memory test according to this embodiment, memory function can be accurately identified and diagnostic value can be secured in evaluating the type of dementia. Here, being able to accurately understand memory function may include determining whether it is a retrieval failure problem or a memory strategy problem.

The differences comparing the verbal cue memory test included in the second test process according to this embodiment and the conventional verbal cue memory test may be as follows. The conventional verbal cue memory test can be said to be a test in which multiple words are called and it is checked how many words can be recalled. However, the verbal cue memory test according to this embodiment provides learning by providing clues that indicate the category to which the word belongs, and even in free recall, questions can be asked while indicating the category to which the word belongs.

The normal group and mild cognitive impairment, and the normal group and Alzheimer's disease dementia can be evaluated through the verbal cue memory test included in the second test process according to this embodiment. The verbal cue memory test according to this embodiment may show a significant correlation with the gray matter volume of the parahippocampus, a brain region related to episodic memory. Therefore, the verbal cue memory test according to this embodiment can accurately evaluate verbal memory in a short time.

The third inspection process can be executed after completing execution of the 2-1 inspection process. The third test process runs a test on the third test item that learns a preset presentation image and evaluates how much the learned presentation image is remembered after a preset time (e.g. 20 minutes) has passed. A process for calculating scores may be included. Here, the third test item may include a visual schema memory test.

In this embodiment, the third inspection process may include a 3-1 inspection process and a 3-2 inspection process.

The 3-1 test process shows a preset first presented image, executes a test on the 3-1 test item that inputs the visual perception stimulus through the process of identifying the number of colors inside the first presented image, and 3-1 May include a process for calculating inspection scores. Here, the 3-1 test item may include a learning test among the visual schema memory tests. From this, the 3-1 test process may include a process of executing a learning test among the visual schema memory test for the user and calculating the 3-1 test score.

The 3-2 inspection process may be executed after the execution of the 3-1 inspection process is completed and a preset time has elapsed. In this embodiment, other inspection processes may be executed from the time execution of the 3-1 inspection process is completed to a preset time. For example, after completing the execution of the 3-1 inspection process, rather than executing the 3-2 inspection process, complete the execution of the 3-1 inspection process and then run the 4th to 7th inspection processes. Only after executing and executing the 2-2 inspection process can the 3-2 inspection process be executed.

In this embodiment, the execution order of the inspection process may be as follows. First, execute the first inspection process, then execute the 2-1 inspection process, then execute the 3-1 inspection process, and then sequentially execute the 4th to 7th inspection processes. And then the 2-2 test process can be executed, then the 3-2 test process can be executed, and then the 8th to 11th test processes can be sequentially executed.

In this embodiment, the 2-2 inspection process and the 3-2 inspection process are initiated as being executed after the execution of the 7th inspection process is completed, but the process is not limited to this. That is, the 2-2 inspection process and the 3-2 inspection process may be executed at the same time as the completion of execution of any one of the 4th to 11th processes.

The 3-2 test process executes a test on the 3-2 test item that evaluates how much of the presented image learned in the 3-1 test process is remembered after a preset time has elapsed, and the 3-2 test score is calculated. It may include a process for calculating . Here, the 3-2 test item may include a recognition test among the visual schema memory tests. From this, the 3-2 test process may include a process of executing a recognition test among the visual schema memory test for the user and calculating the 3-2 test score.

The differences between the visual schema memory test included in the third test process according to this embodiment and the conventional visual schema memory test may be as follows. The visual schema memory test according to this embodiment uses abstract images that cannot be verbalized, so interference by semantic memory can be excluded. Additionally, images can be composed into a set by varying the color, pattern, and degree of overlap. Additionally, when performing a recognition test during a visual schema memory test, images included in the same set as the learned images can be presented as interference images. Additionally, by randomly selecting and presenting images from a set containing the same clues, the learning effect of selecting familiar images based on past test execution can be excluded.

The fourth inspection process can be executed after completing execution of the 3-1 inspection process. The fourth test process may include a process of executing a test on a fourth test item to evaluate whether the preset suggested word and the color of the preset suggested word are correctly uttered and calculating a fourth test score. Here, the fourth test item may include the Stroop test.

In this embodiment, the fourth inspection process may include a 4-1 inspection process and a 4-2 inspection process.

The 4-1 test process may include a process of executing a test on the 4-1 test item to evaluate whether a preset word is correctly uttered and calculating a 4-1 test score. Here, the 4-1 test item may include the first Stroop test. From this, the 4-1 process may include a process of executing the first Stroop test for the user and calculating the 4-1 test score.

The 4-2 test process may include a process of executing a test on the 4-2 test item to evaluate whether the color of the preset suggested word is correctly uttered and calculating a 4-2 test score. Here, the 4-2 test item may include the second Stroop test. From this, the 4-2 process may include a process of executing the second Stroop test on the user and calculating the 4-2 test score.

The differences comparing the Stroop test included in the fourth inspection process according to this embodiment and the conventional Stroop test may be as follows. The conventional Stroop test was a method of performing an audit using a test paper, reading given words consecutively, and calculating the test score by counting the number of words read correctly. However, the Stroop test according to this embodiment may include a word reading task in which a word is selected the same as a word in which the color name is written, and a color reading task in which a word matching the color of the word is selected. The Stroop test according to this embodiment can shorten the performance time by considering the time for showing meaningful test results and evaluate the number of correct responses during the performance time.

The fifth inspection process can be executed after completing execution of the fourth inspection process. The fifth inspection process may include a process of executing a inspection on the fifth inspection item to evaluate whether a line having a similar angle to a preset presentation line is found and calculating a fifth inspection score. Here, the fifth test item may include a linear angle perception test. From this, the fifth inspection process may include a process of executing a linear angle perception test for the user and calculating a fifth inspection score.

The differences comparing the linear angle perception test included in the fifth inspection process according to this embodiment and the conventional linear angle perception test may be as follows. The line angle perception test according to this embodiment may be a test that compares a pair of presented lines and a plurality of previously presented selection lines to find a selection line corresponding to the presented line. The line angle perception test according to this embodiment can evaluate the level of decline in spatiotemporal perception while reducing the angle (slope) difference between a pair of presented lines and a plurality of selected lines.

The sixth inspection process can be executed after completing execution of the fifth inspection process. The sixth inspection process may include a process of executing an inspection on the sixth inspection item to evaluate whether a shape of a color different from the color of the preset presented shape is found and calculating a sixth inspection score. Here, the sixth test item may include a color perception test. From this, the sixth inspection process may include a process of executing a color perception inspection on the user and calculating a sixth inspection score.

The differences comparing the color perception test included in the sixth test process according to this embodiment and the conventional color perception test may be as follows. The Farnsworth Munsell 100 hue test, a conventional color perception test, is based on the three properties of color: hue, saturation, and brightness, and lists similar colors into four color areas. The user checks whether the differences in colors are distinguishable by arranging the colors in order based on the colors at both ends. On the other hand, the color perception test according to this embodiment can be configured by selecting colors based on the green and blue color system, considering that Parkinson's disease dementia patients have difficulty distinguishing between blue and green. . The color perception test according to this embodiment is not a method of listing all colors like a conventional test, but two colors can be selected, and those with a small color difference can be configured to have high difficulty and those with many color differences can have low difficulty. there is.

The seventh inspection process can be executed after completing execution of the sixth inspection process. The seventh test process may execute a test on the seventh test item to evaluate whether the sizes and weights of preset presented objects are listed in descending order and calculate the seventh test score. Here, the seventh inspection item may include size and weight inspection.

In this embodiment, the 7th inspection process may include a 7-1 inspection process and a 7-2 inspection process.

The 7-1 inspection process may execute a check on the 7-1 inspection item to evaluate whether the sizes of the preset presented objects are arranged in descending order and calculate the 7-1 inspection score. Here, inspection item 7-1 may include size inspection. From this, the 7-1 inspection process may include a process of executing a size inspection for the user and calculating the 7-1 inspection score.

The 7-2 inspection process may execute a inspection on the 7-2 inspection item to evaluate whether the weights of the preset presented objects are listed in descending order and calculate the 7-2 inspection score. Here, inspection item 7-2 may include weight inspection. From this, the 7-2 inspection process may include a process of executing a weight inspection for the user and calculating the 7-2 inspection score.

The differences comparing the size and weight inspection included in the seventh inspection process according to this embodiment and the conventional size and weight inspection may be as follows. The size and weight test according to this embodiment classifies objects according to size and objects according to weight into a plurality of categories (for example, 5), and the difficulty level can be configured as low/medium/high through grouping by level between categories. there is. Combinations between categories with large differences in weight and size may have low difficulty. Combination of categories with small differences in weight and size can be difficult. Also, you can consist of easy questions in the beginning and difficult questions in the second half. The image of the object is a line drawing and can be composed to clearly show the characteristics of the object (e.g., animals, objects, etc.). Additionally, it can be configured to exclude objects that are unfamiliar to Korean elderly people.

The 8th inspection process can be executed after completing the execution of the 3-2 inspection process. The eighth test process may include a process of executing a test on the eighth test item to evaluate whether the intensity of emotion appearing in a preset face presentation image is recognized and calculating an eighth test score. Here, the eighth test item may include a facial emotion test. From this, the eighth test process may include a process of executing a facial emotion test on the user and calculating the eighth test score.

The differences comparing the facial emotion test included in the eighth test process according to this embodiment and the conventional facial emotion test may be as follows. In general, dementia patients may experience emotion recognition difficulties due to changes in cognitive function. Additionally, dementia patients may experience difficulties in exchanging emotions with others compared to normal people, and their ability to empathize in interpersonal relationships may also decline. In particular, frontotemporal dementia can show changes in interpersonal behavior such as apathy, errors in social processing, and impaired social cognition. Additionally, frontotemporal dementia may result in decreased facial emotion recognition compared to the normal group. Accordingly, the facial emotion test according to this embodiment includes a first face presentation image containing six basic emotions (happy, fearful, sad, angry, disgusted, and surprising), and an image containing no emotion, that is, no emotion. By providing a plurality of second face images, it is possible to check whether the emotions contained in each facial expression are sensitively recognized.

The ninth inspection process can be executed after completing execution of the eighth inspection process. The 9th inspection process may include a process of executing a check on the 9th inspection item to evaluate whether the preset presentation paragraph is correctly uttered and calculating a 9th inspection score. Here, the ninth test item may include a paragraph reading test. From this, the ninth inspection process may include a process of executing a paragraph reading test for the user and calculating the ninth inspection score.

The differences comparing the paragraph reading test included in the ninth inspection process according to this embodiment and the conventional paragraph reading test may be as follows. In general, primary progressive aphasia (PPA) may include a disease in which language function declines gradually without other cognitive dysfunction. Depending on the symptoms, PPA can be classified into progressive non-fluent aphasia, semantic dementia, and logopenic variant primary progressive aphasia. Patients with progressive non-fluent aphasia know the meaning of words, but have difficulty speaking on their own, make many grammatical errors, and may exhibit phonemic aphasia or stuttering when naming. Patients with semantic dementia maintain relative fluency in speech, but may have severe naming difficulties from the beginning due to a lack of concepts for words or objects. Patients with logopanic progressive aphasia maintain relatively good language comprehension and fluency, but may have difficulty recalling the names of objects, have a slow speech rate, and may have difficulty understanding and repeating long sentences.

The paragraph reading test according to this embodiment can construct standardized paragraphs with the frequencies of each grapheme adjusted to create phonetically balanced sentences. Additionally, the content of the paragraph can be composed of content that is familiar to older people. The paragraph reading test according to this embodiment can record speech content and measure speech speed. In addition, the paragraph reading test according to this embodiment can evaluate reading ability by checking phonological processing abilities such as phonological substitution, omission, addition, and synthesis using speech recognition technology. The paragraph reading test according to this embodiment can calculate a test score by extracting errors from the speech text, and can evaluate speech speed, pause length, voice pitch, etc. by analyzing the recorded speech voice.

The tenth inspection process can be executed after completing execution of the ninth inspection process. The 10th test process may execute a test on the 10th test item to evaluate whether the position and order of the preset presented figures are remembered and calculate the 10th test score. Here, the tenth test item may include a spatiotemporal attention test.

In this embodiment, the 10th inspection process may include a 10-1 inspection process and a 10-2 inspection process.

The 10-1 inspection process executes a test on the 10-1 inspection item to evaluate whether the position and order in which the preset presented figure appears within the preset area is sequentially remembered, and calculates the 10-1 inspection score. You can. Here, the 10-1 test item may include the first spatiotemporal attention test. From this, the 10-1 test process may include a process of executing the first spatiotemporal attention test for the user and calculating the 10-1 test score.

The 10-2 inspection process executes a test on the 10-2 inspection item that evaluates whether the position and order in which the preset presented figure appears within the preset area is remembered in reverse and calculates the 10-2 inspection score. there is. Here, the 10-2 test item may include the second spatiotemporal attention test. From this, the 10-2 test process may include a process of executing a second spatiotemporal attention test on the user and calculating the 10-2 test score.

The differences comparing the visuospatial attention test included in the tenth test process according to this embodiment and the conventional visuospatial attention test may be as follows. The visuospatial attention test according to this embodiment may include a test to evaluate working memory, particularly spatial working memory, among the areas of executive function. The spatiotemporal attention test according to this embodiment can measure attention by remembering the position and order in which shapes are presented and repeatedly inputting the positions of the shapes sequentially. Additionally, the visuospatial attention test according to this embodiment can measure working memory by repeatedly entering the position of a figure in reverse. In the visuospatial attention test according to this embodiment, the number of shapes presented increases, and the number of times the user succeeds in accurately remembering the location and order can be the memory span. The visuospatial attention test according to this embodiment automatically records test results, and if input fails, the test may be stopped. The spatiotemporal attention test according to this embodiment can evaluate reaction speed by measuring the reaction time to select a shape.

The 11th inspection process can be executed after completing execution of the 10th inspection process. The 11th test process may execute a test on the 11th test item to evaluate whether words corresponding to the condition are correctly selected so that the preset presented incomplete sentence becomes a complete sentence, and calculate the 11th test score. Here, the 11th inspection item may include a hailing inspection.

In this embodiment, the 11th inspection process may include an 11-1 inspection process and an 11-2 inspection process.

The 11-1 inspection process may execute a check on the 11-1 inspection item to evaluate whether the correct word is selected so that the preset presented incomplete sentence becomes a complete sentence and calculate the 11-1 inspection score. Here, the 11-1 test item may include the first hailing test. From this, the 11-1 inspection process may include a process of executing the first hailing inspection for the user and calculating the 11-1 inspection score.

The 11-2 inspection process may execute a check on the 11-2 inspection item to evaluate whether an awkward word is selected so that a preset presented incomplete sentence becomes a complete sentence and calculate the 11-2 inspection score. Here, the 11-2 inspection item may include a second hailing inspection. From this, the 11-2 inspection process may include a process of executing the second hailing inspection for the user and calculating the 11-2 inspection score.

The differences comparing the hailing test included in the 11th test process according to this embodiment and the conventional hailing test may be as follows. The conventional Hayling test was a test in which people came up with words to create natural or unnatural sentences. However, the Hayling test according to this embodiment can present words that fit the conditions and awkward words (miswords) and allow the user to select one of the two. The Hayling test according to this embodiment can measure language inhibition by shortening the time required to retrieve words. In the Hayling test according to this embodiment, test scores are automatically calculated, and automatic condition (natural word selection) responses and suppression condition (awkward word selection) responses can be compared.

After completing execution of the first to eleventh test processes, the test apparatus 100 performs a category classification process to classify at least one test item among the plurality of test items into one neurocognitive category among the plurality of neurocognitive categories. You can run . In this embodiment, the category classification process may be expressed as a category classification step in the claims described later.

The test device 100 may classify the second test item (verbal cue memory test) and the third test item (visual schema memory test) into a first neurocognitive category that can evaluate cognitive decline in memory.

The test device 100 may classify the eighth test item (facial emotion test) into a second neurocognitive category that can distinguish neurocognitive disorders related to social cognition. Here, the second neurocognitive category is a new addition to the test for evaluating cognitive decline according to this embodiment.

The test device 100 may classify the 7th test item (size and weight test) and the 9th test item (paragraph reading test) into a third neurocognitive category that can evaluate cognitive decline in language.

The test device 100 may classify the fifth test item (linear perception test) and the sixth test item (color perception test) into the fourth neurocognitive category that can evaluate the decline in cognitive function for perception.

The test device 100 uses the first test item (fluency test), the fourth test item (Stroop test), the tenth test item (visual-temporal attention test), and the eleventh test item (Hailing test) to execute attention. It can be classified into the fifth neurocognitive category, which can evaluate cognitive decline.

After completing the execution of the category classification process, the testing device 100 may execute an evaluation process to evaluate whether there is a decline in cognitive function in the neurocognitive category based on the test scores for the test items classified into the neurocognitive category. there is. In this embodiment, the evaluation process may be expressed as an evaluation step in the claims described later.

The testing device 100 evaluates whether there is a decline in cognitive function for the first neurocognitive category as memory based on the second test score (verbal cue memory test score) and the third test score (visual schema memory test score). A first evaluation process may be performed.

The test device 100 may execute a second evaluation process to evaluate whether there is a decline in cognitive function for the second neurocognitive category as social cognition based on the eighth test score (facial emotion test score).

The test device 100 evaluates whether there is a decline in cognitive function for the third neurocognitive category as language based on the 7th test score (size and weight test score) and the 9th test score (paragraph reading test score). 3 The evaluation process can be implemented.

The test device 100 evaluates whether there is a decline in cognitive function for the fourth neurocognitive category as perception based on the fifth test score (line perception test score) and the sixth test score (color perception test score). A fourth evaluation process can be implemented.

The test device 100 is configured to measure a first test score (fluency test score), a fourth test score (Stroop test score), a tenth test score (visual-temporal attention test score), and an eleventh test score (Hailing test score). Based on this, the fifth evaluation process can be implemented to evaluate whether there is a decline in cognitive function for the fifth neurocognitive category as attention execution.

In this embodiment, the testing device 100 can exist independently in the form of a server, or the testing function for evaluating cognitive function decline provided by the testing device 100 can be implemented in the form of an application and mounted on the user terminal 200. there is.

The user terminal 200 can receive a test service for evaluating cognitive decline by accessing a test application for evaluating cognitive decline provided by the testing device 100 and/or a testing site for evaluating cognitive decline. there is. Here, the user terminal 200 may include a terminal provided by the user to be tested, that is, the subject.

This user terminal 200 may include a communication terminal capable of performing the functions of a computing device (not shown), and in addition to the desktop computer 201, smartphone 202, and laptop 203 operated by the user, Tablet PCs, smart TVs, mobile phones, PDAs (personal digital assistants), media players, micro servers, GPS (global positioning system) devices, e-readers, digital broadcasting terminals, navigation, kiosks, MP3 players, digital cameras, home appliances, and It may be, but is not limited to, any other mobile or non-mobile computing device. Additionally, the user terminal 200 may be a wearable terminal such as a watch, glasses, hair band, or ring equipped with communication functions and data processing functions. This user terminal 200 is not limited to the above-described content, and any terminal capable of web browsing may be used without limitation.

The network 300 may serve to connect the testing device 100 and the user terminal 200. This network 300 may be, for example, a wired network such as a local area network (LAN), a wide area network (WAN), a metropolitan area network (MAN), or an integrated service digital network (ISDN), a wireless LAN (WLAN), or a code division multiple access (CDMA) network. -division multiple access), and may encompass wireless networks such as satellite communication, but the scope of the present invention is not limited thereto. Additionally, the network 300 may transmit and receive information using short-range communication and/or long-distance communication. Here, short-range communication may include Bluetooth, radio frequency identification (RFID), infrared data association (IrDA), ultra-wideband (UWB), ZigBee, and Wi-Fi technology, and long-distance communication may include code-division multiple access (CDMA). ), frequency-division multiple access (FDMA), time-division multiple access (TDMA), orthogonal frequency-division multiple access (OFDMA), and single carrier frequency-division multiple access (SC-FDMA) technology.

Network 300 may include connections of network elements such as hubs, bridges, routers, and switches. Network 300 may include one or more connected networks, including public networks such as the Internet and private networks such as secure enterprise private networks, such as a multi-network environment. Access to network 300 may be provided through one or more wired or wireless access networks.

Furthermore, the network 300 includes CAN (controller area network) communication, V2I (vehicle to infrastructure) communication, V2X (vehicle to everything) communication, wave (wireless access in vehicular environment) communication technology, objects, etc. It can support IoT (Internet of Things) networks and/or 5G communications that exchange and process information between distributed components.

delete

Figure 2 is a block diagram schematically illustrating the configuration of a testing device for evaluating cognitive decline according to this embodiment. In the following description, parts that overlap with the description of FIG. 1 will be omitted. Referring to FIG. 2, the test device 100 may include a communication unit 110, a storage medium 120, a program storage unit 130, a database 140, a test management unit 150, and a control unit 160. .

The communication unit 110 may work with the network 300 to provide a communication interface necessary to provide transmission and reception signals between the testing device 100 and the user terminal 200 in the form of packet data. Furthermore, the communication unit 110 may transmit request information from the test management unit 150 to the user terminal 200 and receive response information from the user terminal 200. Here, the communication network refers to a medium that serves to connect the testing device 100 and the user terminal 200, and is a connection path that allows the user terminal 200 to transmit and receive information after connecting to the testing device 100. It may include a path that provides . Additionally, the communication unit 110 may be a device that includes hardware and software necessary to transmit and receive signals such as control signals or data signals through wired or wireless connections with other network devices.

The storage medium 120 functions to temporarily or permanently store data processed by the control unit 160. Here, the storage medium 120 may include magnetic storage media or flash storage media, but the scope of the present invention is not limited thereto. This storage medium 120 may include internal memory and/or external memory, volatile memory such as DRAM, SRAM, or SDRAM, one time programmable ROM (OTPROM), PROM, EPROM, EEPROM, mask ROM, flash ROM, etc. , non-volatile memory such as NAND flash memory, or NOR flash memory, SSD. It may include a flash drive such as a compact flash (CF) card, SD card, Micro-SD card, Mini-SD card, Xd card, or memory stick, or a storage device such as an HDD.

The program storage unit 130 tests the user to see how much of the mission presented for each of the plurality of inspection items is performed and executes an inspection process that calculates the inspection score for each of the plurality of inspection items. The task of executing a category classification process to classify at least one of the test items into one of a plurality of neurocognitive categories, a neurocognitive category based on the test score for the test items classified into the neurocognitive category. It is equipped with control software that performs tasks such as executing an evaluation process to evaluate whether there is cognitive decline.

The database 140 may include a management database that stores test information for evaluating cognitive decline. For example, the management database includes information about the first to eleventh test processes, information about the first to fifth neurocognitive category classification processes, and first to fifth evaluation processes. Information about, information about the process of evaluating Alzheimer's disease dementia, information about the process of evaluating frontotemporal dementia, information about the process of evaluating Parkinson's disease dementia and Lewy body dementia, etc. may be stored.

Additionally, the correct answer corresponding to the instruction described later may be stored in the management database. For example, the management database contains the correct answer text corresponding to the 1-1 instruction, the correct answer sequence corresponding to the 1-2 instruction, the correct answer word corresponding to the 2-1-1 instruction, and the 2-1- 2 The correct answer text corresponding to the instruction 2-2-1, the correct answer text corresponding to the instruction 2-2-2, the correct word corresponding to the instruction 2-2-2, the correct answer text corresponding to the instruction 3-1, and the third -2 The correct answer corresponding to the instruction, the correct answer corresponding to the 4-1 instruction and the 4-2 instruction, the correct answer line corresponding to the 5th instruction, the correct answer line corresponding to the 6th instruction, and the 7th instruction. -The correct answer corresponding to instruction 1 and instruction 7-2, the correct answer corresponding to instruction 8, the number of correct words corresponding to instruction 9, and the correct answer corresponding to instruction 10-1 and instruction 10-2. And, the correct answers corresponding to instructions 11-1 and 11-2 may be stored.

Additionally, a method for calculating inspection scores may be stored in the management database. In this embodiment, the test score can be calculated by comparing a series of inputs and correct answers received from the user terminal 200 in response to the instructions, and counting the number of incorrect answers compared to the total correct answers. Here, the greater the number of incorrect answers, the lower the test score, and the smaller the number of incorrect answers, the higher the test score.

In this embodiment, the inspection score may vary depending on the count result of the required time, which will be described later. For example, if the count result of the time required exceeds the time limit, the inspection score may be lowered.

Additionally, standard scores for evaluating cognitive decline may be stored in the management database. Here, the standard score calculation process can be explained as follows.

In the first process, first to eleventh test processes may be performed on the normal group. Here, the normal group is a group of normal people without cognitive decline and can be classified differently depending on gender/education/age. As a result of executing the first to eleventh test processes for the normal group, the first to eleventh test scores of the normal group may be calculated.

In the second process, the first to eleventh average values and the first to eleventh standard deviations can be calculated for the first to eleventh test scores of the normal group.

In the third process, at least one of the first to eleventh test items for the normal group may be classified into one of the first to fifth neurocognitive categories. The 2nd and 3rd test items for the normal group are classified into the 1st neurocognitive category, the 8th test item for the normal group is classified into the 2nd neurocognitive category, and the 7th test items and The 9th test item is classified into the 3rd neurocognitive category, the 5th and 6th test items for the normal group are classified into the 4th neurocognitive category, and the 1st and 4th test items for the normal group are classified into the 4th neurocognitive category. The items, the 10th test item, and the 11th test item can be classified into the 5th neurocognitive category.

In the fourth process, the first to eleventh Z-scores can be calculated using the first to eleventh average values and the first to eleventh standard deviations for the first to eleventh test scores. Here, the Z-score can be said to be a score that shows how far the test score is from the average value when looking at the standard deviation as a unit.

In this embodiment, if the Z-score is below the first standard deviation (eg, -1.5 SD), it can be assessed that there is cognitive decline in the neurocognitive category including the corresponding test item. From this, the reference score can be said to be the test score of the normal group whose Z-score is the first standard deviation (for example, -1.5 SD). In this embodiment, the standard score may include first to eleventh standard scores. In this embodiment, the Z-score may also include the first to eleventh Z-scores.

In an alternative embodiment, the standard score may be expressed as a normative cut-off score. Here, the standard cut-off score can be said to be the test score of the normal group whose Z-score is the first standard deviation (for example, -1.5 SD). In this embodiment, the cutoff score of the standard may include the cutoff scores of the first to eleventh standards.

In this embodiment, the standard score may be updated periodically. In order to perform a test to evaluate cognitive decline, the user executes a test application to evaluate cognitive decline through the user terminal 200 or accesses a test site to evaluate cognitive decline, in real time. The standard score can be updated.

Additionally, the database 140 may include a user database that stores information on users who will be provided with testing services for evaluating cognitive decline. Here, the user's information includes unique information about the user, including the user's name, affiliation, personal information, gender, age, education, contact information, email, address, image, etc., and ID (or email) and password ( It may include information about the user's authentication (login) such as password, connection country, connection location, information about the device used for connection, and information related to the connection such as the connected network environment.

In addition, the user database includes user information, information and/or category history provided by users who access the test application to evaluate cognitive decline or a test site to evaluate cognitive decline, environmental setting information set by the user, Resource usage information used by the user and billing and payment information corresponding to the user's resource usage may be stored.

The test management unit 150 may inspect the user to see how much the presented mission is performed for each of the plurality of test items and execute an test process that calculates an test score for each of the plurality of test items.

After completing the execution of the test process, the test management unit 150 may execute a category classification process to classify at least one test item among the plurality of test items into one neurocognitive category among the plurality of neurocognitive categories.

After completing the execution of the category classification process, the test management unit 150 may execute an evaluation process to evaluate whether there is a decline in cognitive function in the neurocognitive category based on the test scores for the test items classified into the neurocognitive category. .

After completing the execution of the evaluation process, the test management unit 150 may transmit the evaluation results to the user terminal 200 and/or the terminal (not shown) of the practitioner (eg, doctor).

The control unit 160 is a type of central processing unit and can control the entire operation of the inspection device 100 by running control software mounted on the program storage unit 130. The control unit 160 may include all types of devices that can process data, such as a processor. Here, 'processor' may mean, for example, a data processing device built into hardware that has a physically structured circuit to perform a function expressed by code or instructions included in a program. Examples of data processing devices built into hardware include a microprocessor, central processing unit (CPU), processor core, multiprocessor, and application-specific integrated (ASIC). circuit) and FPGA (field programmable gate array), etc., but the scope of the present invention is not limited thereto.

FIG. 3 is a block diagram schematically illustrating the configuration of the test management unit of the test device for evaluating cognitive decline in FIG. 2, and FIGS. 4 to 15 are diagrams for evaluating cognitive decline according to the present embodiment. This is an example of a screen provided to a user terminal to perform a test. In the following description, parts that overlap with the description of FIGS. 1 and 2 will be omitted. Referring to FIGS. 3 to 15, the test management unit 150 according to this embodiment includes a provision unit 151, a first processing unit 152, a second processing unit 153, a third processing unit 154, and a transmission unit 155. ) may include.

The provision unit 151 may provide various information for a test to the user terminal 200 connected to a test application for evaluating cognitive decline and/or a test site for evaluating cognitive decline. Hereinafter, the drawings shown in FIGS. 4 to 15 can be said to be screens output to the user terminal 200 through processing by the providing unit 151.

FIG. 4 is an exemplary diagram of a first screen provided by the providing unit 151 to the user terminal 200 to perform a test to evaluate cognitive decline. Referring to FIG. 4, the first screen may include an icon and text representing the inspection. In one embodiment, the provider 151 may provide the user terminal 200 with an icon and text (first test) representing the first test for the first test process. Here, the first test expressed in text is an abbreviation for the first test process, and can be provided simply and clearly considering the elderly. In this way, the provider 151 may provide icons and text representing the second to eleventh tests to the user terminal 200 for the second to eleventh test processes.

Data processed in the first processing unit 152 to third processing unit 154 may be provided to the user terminal 200 by the providing unit 151. In particular, the series of data provided by the first processing unit 152 is originally provided by the providing unit 151, but for convenience of explanation, it will be described assuming that the first processing unit 152 provides it.

The first processing unit 152 may perform a first inspection process including a 1-1 inspection process and a 1-2 inspection process. In this embodiment, the first processing unit 152 may perform the first test process excluding the practice test multiple times.

When performing the 1-1 inspection process, the first processing unit 152 provides the user terminal 200 with a 1-1 instruction to utter one or more words corresponding to a preset presentation category within a first time limit. You can.

The first processing unit 152 may receive speech results for one or more words corresponding to a preset presentation category corresponding to the 1-1 directive from the user terminal 200 and convert them into speech text.

The first processing unit 152 may calculate the 1-1 test score by comparing the utterance text with the correct answer text. In this embodiment, the 1-1 test score may be calculated higher as the number of utterance texts found to be correct is greater compared to the total number of times the 1-1 test process is executed.

In this embodiment, before performing the 1-1 inspection process, the first processing unit 152 provides the user terminal 200 with a text on how to execute the 1-1 inspection process, and executes the 1-1 inspection process. You can run a practice test for .

The first processing unit 152 may execute the 1-2 inspection process after completing execution of the 1-1 inspection process.

When executing the 1-2 inspection process, the first processing unit 152 sends a 1-2 instruction to the user terminal 200 to draw one or more designs by connecting at least two of the plurality of shapes within a second time limit. ) can be provided.

The first processing unit 152 may receive and store the order of drawing and connecting at least two of the plurality of shapes in response to the 1-2 directive from the user terminal 200.

The first processing unit 152 may calculate the 1-2 test score by comparing the order of drawing and connection with the order of correct answers. In this embodiment, the 1-2 inspection score may be calculated higher as the number of drawing connection sequences determined to be correct is higher compared to the total number of times the 1-2 inspection process is executed.

In this embodiment, before performing the 1-2 inspection process, the first processing unit 152 provides the user terminal 200 with a text on how to execute the 1-2 inspection process, and executes the 1-2 inspection process. You can run a practice test for .

In an optional embodiment, the first processing unit 152 may calculate the first inspection score by adding the 1-1 inspection score and the 1-2 inspection score. In addition, the first processing unit 152 does not add up the 1-1 test score and the 1-2 test score, but can use each of the 1-1 test score and the 1-2 test score when evaluating cognitive decline. . In this example, if the first test score is higher than the cut-off score of the first standard, fluency can be evaluated as good, and if the first test score is lower than the cut-off score of the first standard, fluency can be evaluated as poor. You can.

Figure 5 is an example view of a screen provided to the user terminal 200 to perform the first inspection process. Referring to FIG. 5, FIGS. 5A to 5H are exemplary diagrams of screens explaining the 1-1 inspection process, and FIGS. 5I to 5S are exemplary diagrams of screens explaining the 1-2 inspection process.

Figure 5A shows the start screen of the 1-1 inspection process. When an input from the start button 501 is received, the screen may be switched to the next screen.

FIG. 5B provides a method of executing the 1-1 test process in text and shows a screen notifying the start of a practice test process (1-1 practice test process) for the 1-1 test process. When the practice start button 502 is input, the screen can be switched to the next screen.

Figure 5c shows a screen for executing the 1-1 practice inspection process. After checking the 1-1 practice instruction, the user can input the microphone button 503 and utter a word while looking at the progress bar 504. In this embodiment, the progress bar 504 may execute one or more of a function that counts a time limit and a function that shows the progress of a task.

Figure 5d shows a screen notifying the re-execution of the 1-1 practice test process. If the user does not input the microphone button 503, the number of words uttered is less than a preset number (e.g., 3), or the utterance volume is small, the 1-1 practice check process may be re-executed. .

FIG. 5E shows a screen notifying that execution of the 1-1 practice test process has been completed and execution of the main test has been completed.

Figure 5f shows a screen notifying the start of the 1-1 instruction and the 1-1 inspection process. When the start button 505 is input, the screen can be switched to the next screen.

Figure 5g shows a screen for executing the 1-1 inspection process. After checking the 1-1 instruction, the user can input the microphone button 506 and utter a word corresponding to the 1-1 instruction while looking at the progress bar 507.

Figure 5h shows a screen indicating completion of execution of the 1-1 test process and the start of the next test process.

Figure 5i shows the start screen of the 1-2 inspection process. When an input from the start button 508 is received, the screen may be switched to the next screen.

Figure 5j shows a screen that provides text on how to execute the 1-2 inspection process.

FIG. 5K shows a screen notifying the start of a practice test process (1-2 practice test process) for the 1-2 test process. When the practice start button 509 is input, the screen can be switched to the next screen.

Figures 5l, 5m, and 5n show screens for executing the 1-2 practice test process. After checking the 1-2 practice instructions, the user can draw the same design as the left area on the right area. When the drawing of the design is completed and the confirmation button (510, 511, 512) is pressed, the screen can be switched to the next screen. 5L, 5M, and 5N may further include a progress bar (not shown).

Figure 5O shows a screen notifying the re-execution of the 1-2 practice test process. If the drawing of the design fails to start within the time limit, or if the execution result of the 1-2 practice check process is an incorrect answer, the 1-2 practice check process may be re-executed.

Figure 5p shows a screen notifying that the execution of the 1-2 practice test process is completed and the main test is executed.

Figure 5q shows a screen notifying the time limit applied when executing the 1-2 inspection process.

Figure 5r shows a screen for executing the 1-2 inspection process. After checking the 1-2 instructions, the user can press the start button 513 and draw the same design as the left area on the right area while looking at the progress bar 514. When the drawing of the design is completed and the confirmation button 515 is input, the screen can be switched to the next screen.

Figure 5s shows a screen indicating completion of execution of the first and second inspection processes and the start of the next inspection process.

Returning to FIG. 3, the first processing unit 152 may perform a second inspection process including a 2-1 inspection process and a 2-2 inspection process. In this embodiment, the first processing unit 152 may perform the second inspection process multiple times.

When performing the 2-1 inspection process, the first processing unit 152 displays a plurality of suggested words and issues a 2-1-1 instruction to select a word corresponding to a preset category clue among the plurality of suggested words. It can be provided to the user terminal 200.

The first processing unit 152 may receive a word selection result of selecting one of a plurality of suggested words in response to the 2-1-1 directive from the user terminal 200.

The first processing unit 152 can calculate the 2-1-1 test score by comparing the word selection result and the correct word. In this embodiment, the 2-1-1 test score can be calculated higher as the number of word selection results determined to be correct is greater compared to the total number of times the 2-1-1 process has been executed.

The first processing unit 152 does not provide a view of the plurality of suggested words, but sends a 2-1-2 instruction to the user terminal (200) to recall and utter a word belonging to a preset category clue among the plurality of suggested words shown above. ) can be provided.

The first processing unit 152 may receive a speech result for a word belonging to a preset category clue in response to the 2-1-2 directive from the user terminal 200.

The first processing unit 152 may convert the speech result into speech text and compare the speech text with the correct answer text to calculate the 2-1-2 test score. In this embodiment, the 2-1-2 inspection score can be calculated higher as the number of utterance texts that are determined to be correct is greater compared to the total number of times the 2-1-2 process has been executed.

In this embodiment, the first processing unit 152 may provide the user terminal 200 with a text on how to execute the 2-1 inspection process before performing the 2-1 inspection process.

The first processing unit 152 may complete execution of the 2-1 inspection process and execute the 2-2 inspection process after a preset time has elapsed.

When executing the 2-2 test process, the first processing unit 152 is instructed to recall and utter the suggested word corresponding to the category clue among the plurality of suggested words shown in the 2-1 test step. Instructions may be provided to the user terminal 200.

The first processing unit 152 receives the utterance result for the presented word corresponding to the category clue among the plurality of presented words seen when executing the 2-1 test step in response to the 2-2-1 instruction from the user terminal 200. can receive.

The first processing unit 152 may convert the speech result into speech text and compare the speech text with the correct answer text to calculate the 2-2-1 test score. In this embodiment, the 2-2-1 inspection score can be calculated higher as the number of utterance texts that are determined to be correct is greater than the total number of times the 2-2-1 process has been executed.

The first processing unit 152 may provide the user terminal 200 with a 2-2-2 instruction to select whether the preset suggested word is a word seen in a previous test, along with the preset suggested word.

The first processing unit 152 can calculate the 2-2-2 test score by comparing the selected result and the correct word to determine whether the preset presented word in response to the 2-2-2 instruction is a word seen in the previous test. there is. In this embodiment, the 2-2-2 inspection score can be calculated higher as the number of selection results determined to be correct is greater than the total number of times the 2-2-2 process has been executed.

In this embodiment, the first processing unit 152 may provide the user terminal 200 with a text on how to execute the 2-2 inspection process before performing the 2-2 inspection process.

In an optional embodiment, the first processing unit 152 sums up one or more of the 2-1-1 inspection score, the 2-1-2 inspection score, the 2-2-1 inspection score, and the 2-2-2 inspection score. This can be calculated as the second inspection score. In addition, the first processing unit 152 does not add up the 2-1-1 inspection score, the 2-1-2 inspection score, the 2-2-1 inspection score, and the 2-2-2 inspection score, and -1-1 test score, 2-1-2 test score, 2-2-1 test score, and 2-2-2 test score can each be used when evaluating cognitive decline. In this example, if the second test score is higher than the cut-off score of the second standard, verbal memory can be evaluated as good, and if the second test score is lower than the cut-off score of the second standard, verbal memory can be evaluated as deteriorated. can be evaluated.

Figure 6 is an example view of a screen provided to the user terminal 200 to perform the second inspection process. Referring to FIG. 6, FIGS. 6A to 6F are exemplary diagrams of screens explaining the 2-1 inspection process, and FIGS. 6G to 6M are exemplary diagrams of screens explaining the 2-2 inspection process.

Figure 6a shows the start screen of the 2-1 inspection process. When an input from the start button 601 is received, the screen can be switched to the next screen.

FIG. 6B provides a method of executing the 2-1 inspection process in text and shows a screen notifying the start of the 2-1 inspection process. When the start button 602 is input, the screen can be switched to the next screen.

Figure 6c shows a screen executing part of the 2-1 inspection process. After checking the 2-1-1 instruction, the user can select one word from among the plurality of suggested words while looking at the progress bar 603.

FIG. 6D shows a screen notifying an invitation to recall a plurality of suggested words shown in FIG. 6C.

Figure 6e shows a screen for executing the remainder of the 2-1 inspection process. After checking the 2-1-2 instruction, the user inputs the microphone button 604, looks at the progress bar 605, and can recall and utter words belonging to a preset category clue among the plurality of suggested words shown above. there is.

Figure 6f shows a screen indicating completion of execution of the 2-1 test process and the start of the next test process.

Figure 6g shows the start screen of the 2-2 inspection process. When an input from the start button 606 is received, the screen may be switched to the next screen. Here, the start screen of the 2-2 test processor may be provided to the user terminal 200 after execution of the 7th test process is completed.

FIG. 6H provides a method of executing part of the 2-2 test process in text and shows a screen notifying the start of part of the 2-2 test process. When the start button 607 is input, the screen can be switched to the next screen.

Figure 6i shows a screen executing part of the 2-2 inspection process. After checking the 2-2-1 instruction, the user can input the microphone button 608 and, while looking at the progress bar 609, recall and utter words belonging to a preset category clue among the plurality of suggested words shown above. there is.

FIG. 6J shows a screen notifying that execution of part of the 2-2 test process is completed and execution of the remaining part of the 2-2 test process. When the start button 610 is input, the screen can be switched to the next screen.

FIG. 6K provides text on how to execute the remainder of the 2-2 inspection process and shows a screen notifying the start of the remainder of the 2-2 inspection process. When the start button 611 is input, the screen can be switched to the next screen.

Figure 6l shows a screen for executing the remainder of the 2-2 inspection process. After checking the 2-2-2 instruction, the user can select one of the Yes button 613 and the No button 614 while looking at the progress bar 612.

Figure 6m shows a screen indicating completion of execution of the 2-2 inspection process and the start of the next inspection process.

Returning to FIG. 3, the first processing unit 152 may perform a third inspection process including a 3-1 inspection process and a 3-2 inspection process. In this embodiment, the first processing unit 152 may perform the third inspection process multiple times.

When performing the 3-1 inspection process, the first processing unit 152 displays a preset first presented image and instructs the third processor 152 to select whether the number of colors inside the preset first presented image is greater than or equal to the preset number. A -1 instruction may be provided to the user terminal 200.

The first processing unit 152 receives a result of selecting whether the number of colors inside the first presented image preset in response to the 3-1 instruction is more than the preset number from the user terminal 200, and converts the selected result into the correct answer and By comparing, the 3-1 inspection score can be calculated. In this embodiment, the 3-1 test score may be calculated higher as the number of selection results determined to be correct is greater than the total number of times the 3-1 test process is executed.

In this embodiment, the first processing unit 152 may provide the user terminal 200 with a text on how to execute the 3-1 inspection process before performing the 3-1 inspection process.

The first processing unit 152 may complete execution of the 3-1 inspection process and execute the 3-2 inspection process after a preset time has elapsed.

When executing the 3-2 inspection process, the first processing unit 152 displays a preset second presented image and determines whether the preset second presented image is the same as the previously shown first preset image. A 3-2 instruction to make a selection may be provided to the user terminal 200.

The first processing unit 152 receives a result of selecting whether the preset second image corresponding to the 3-2 instruction is the same as the previously shown first presented image from the user terminal 200, and receives the selection result. can be compared with the correct answer.

The first processing unit 152 may count the first time required from the time the 3-2 instruction is provided to the time of selecting whether the preset second image is the same as the previously shown first preset image. .

The first processing unit 152 may calculate the 3-2 inspection score by reflecting the result of the comparison and the result of counting the first time required. In this embodiment, the 3-2 inspection score may be calculated differently depending on the selection result determined to be correct relative to the total number of times the 3-2 inspection process is executed and the result of counting the first time required. Even if there are many selection results that turn out to be correct compared to the total number of times the 3-2 inspection process has been executed, if the result of counting the first time required is large, the 3-2 inspection score may be lowered. In addition, even if the number of selection results determined to be correct is small compared to the total number of times the 3-2 inspection process is executed, the 3-2 inspection score may increase if the result of counting the first time required is small.

In this embodiment, the first processing unit 152 may provide the user terminal 200 with a text on how to execute the 3-2 inspection process before performing the 3-2 inspection process.

In an optional embodiment, the first processing unit 152 may calculate the third inspection score by adding the 3-1 inspection score and the 3-2 inspection score. In addition, the first processing unit 152 does not add up the 3-1 test score and the 3-2 test score, but can use each of the 3-1 test score and the 3-2 test score when evaluating cognitive decline. . In this embodiment, if the third test score is higher than the cut-off score of the third standard, visual perceptual memory can be evaluated as good, and if the third test score is lower than the cut-off score of the third standard, visual perceptual memory is deteriorated. It can be evaluated as having been done.

Figure 7 is an example view of a screen provided to the user terminal 200 to perform the third inspection process. Referring to FIG. 7, FIGS. 7A to 7D are exemplary diagrams of screens explaining the 3-1 inspection process, and FIGS. 7E to 7H are exemplary diagrams of screens explaining the 3-2 inspection process.

Figure 7a shows the start screen of the 3-1 inspection process. When an input from the start button 701 is received, the screen may be switched to the next screen.

FIG. 7B provides a method of executing the 3-1 inspection process in text and shows a screen notifying the start of the 3-1 inspection process. When the start button 702 is input, the screen can be switched to the next screen.

Figure 7c shows a screen for executing the 3-1 inspection process. After checking the 3-1 instruction, the user can select one of the yes button 703 and the no button 704 in response to whether the number of colors inside the first presented image is more than a preset number. Here, a progress bar (not shown) that executes one or more of a function for counting the time limit and a function for showing the progress of a task may be further included.

Figure 7d shows a screen indicating completion of execution of the 3-1 inspection process and the start of the next inspection process.

Figure 7e shows the start screen of the 3-2 inspection process. When an input from the start button 705 is received, the screen may be switched to the next screen. Here, the start screen of the 3-2 test processor may be provided to the user terminal 200 after execution of the 2-2 test process is completed.

FIG. 7F shows a screen notifying a recommendation to recall the first presented image provided when executing the 3-1 inspection process.

Figure 7g shows a screen for executing the 3-2 inspection process. After checking the 3-2 instruction, the user can select one of the yes button 706 and the no button 707 in response to whether the second presented image is the same as the first presented image. Here, a progress bar (not shown) that executes one or more of a function for counting the time limit and a function for showing the progress of a task may be further included.

Figure 7h shows a screen indicating completion of execution of the 3-2 inspection process and the start of the next inspection process.

Returning to FIG. 3, the first processing unit 152 may perform a fourth inspection process including a 4-1 inspection process and a 4-2 inspection process. In this embodiment, the first processing unit 152 may perform the fourth test process excluding the practice test multiple times.

When performing the 4-1 inspection process, the first processing unit 152 displays a preset suggested word and two selection words, and selects the same word as the preset suggested word from the two selection words. 1 Instructions may be provided to the user terminal 200.

The first processing unit 152 receives the result of selecting the same word as the preset suggested word in response to the 4-1 instruction from the user terminal 200 among the two selected words, compares the selected result with the correct answer, and selects the 4-1 directive. 1 The inspection score can be calculated. In this embodiment, the 4-1 inspection score may be calculated higher as the number of selection results determined to be correct is greater than the total number of times the 4-1 inspection process is executed.

In this embodiment, before performing the 4-1 inspection process, the first processing unit 152 provides the user terminal 200 with a method of executing the 4-1 inspection process in text, and executes the 4-1 inspection process. You can run a practice test for .

The first processing unit 152 may complete execution of the 4-1 inspection process and execute the 4-2 inspection process.

When performing the 4-2 inspection process, the first processing unit 152 displays a preset suggested word and two color selection words, and selects a word having the same color as the preset suggested word from among the two color selection words. A 4-2 instruction to make a selection may be provided to the user terminal 200.

The first processing unit 152 receives the result of selecting a word having the same color as the preset suggested word in response to the 4-2 instruction from the user terminal 200 among the two color selection words, and compares the selected result with the correct answer. Thus, the 4-2 inspection score can be calculated. In this embodiment, the 4-2 inspection score may be calculated higher as the number of selection results determined to be correct is greater than the total number of times the 4-2 inspection process is executed.

In this embodiment, before performing the 4-2 inspection process, the first processing unit 152 provides the user terminal 200 with a text on how to execute the 4-2 inspection process, and executes the 4-2 inspection process. You can run a practice test for .

In an optional embodiment, the first processing unit 152 may calculate the fourth inspection score by adding the 4-1 inspection score and the 4-2 inspection score. In addition, the first processing unit 152 does not add up the 4-1 test score and the 4-2 test score, but can use each of the 4-1 test score and the 4-2 test score when evaluating cognitive decline. . In this example, if the fourth test score is higher than the cut-off score of the fourth standard, the inhibitory function can be evaluated as good, and if the fourth test score is lower than the cut-off score of the fourth standard, the inhibitory function can be evaluated as poor. can be evaluated.

Figure 8 is an example view of a screen provided to the user terminal 200 to perform the fourth inspection process. Referring to FIG. 8, FIGS. 8A to 8I are exemplary diagrams of screens explaining the 4-1 inspection process, and FIGS. 8J to 8N are exemplary diagrams of screens explaining the 4-2 inspection process.

Figure 8A shows the start screen of the fourth inspection process. When an input from the start button 801 is received, the screen may be switched to the 4-1 inspection process screen.

FIG. 8B provides a method of executing the 4-1 inspection process in text and shows a screen notifying the start of a practice inspection process (4-1 practice inspection process) for the 4-1 inspection process. When the practice start button 802 is input, the screen can be switched to the next screen.

Figure 8c shows a screen for executing the 4-1 practice inspection process. After checking the 4-1 practice instruction, the user can select the same word as the suggested word from among the first selection word 803 and the second selection word 804. Here, a progress bar (not shown) that executes one or more of a function for counting the time limit and a function for showing the progress of a task may be further included.

FIG. 8D shows a screen indicating that the result of selecting the first selected word 805 from FIG. 8C is the correct answer. Here, the first selection word 805 is the same as the first selection word 803 in FIG. 8C.

Figure 8e shows a screen notifying the re-execution of the 4-1 practice inspection process. If the execution result of the 4-1 practice test process is an incorrect answer, the 4-1 practice test process may be re-executed.

FIG. 8F shows a screen notifying that execution of the 4-1 practice test process has been completed and execution of the main test has been completed.

Figure 8g shows a screen for executing the 4-1 inspection process. After checking the 4-1 instruction, the user can select the same word as the suggested word among the first selection word 807 and the second selection word 808 while looking at the progress bar 806.

FIG. 8h shows a screen indicating that the result of selecting the first selected word 809 from FIG. 8g is the correct answer. Here, the first selection word 809 is the same as the first selection word 807 in FIG. 8G.

Figure 8i shows a screen indicating completion of execution of the 4-1 inspection process and the start of the next inspection process.

FIG. 8J provides a method of executing the 4-2 inspection process in text and shows a screen notifying the start of a practice inspection process for the 4-2 inspection process (4-2 practice inspection process). When the practice start button 810 is input, the screen can be switched to the next screen.

Figure 8k shows a screen for executing the 4-2 practice inspection process. After checking the 4-2 practice instruction, the user can select a word with the same color as the suggested word from among the first selection word 811 and the second selection word 812. Here, a progress bar (not shown) that executes one or more of a function for counting the time limit and a function for showing the progress of a task may be further included. FIG. 8K shows an example in which the user selects the second selection word 812.

Figure 8l shows a screen indicating completion of execution of the 4-2 practice inspection process and execution of the main inspection.

Figure 8m shows a screen for executing the 4-2 inspection process. After checking the 4-2 instruction, the user can select a word with the same color as the presented word from among the first selection word 814 and the second selection word 815 while looking at the progress bar 813. Figure 8m shows an example in which the user selects the second selection word 815.

Figure 8n shows a screen indicating completion of execution of the 4-2 inspection process and the start of the next inspection process.

Returning to FIG. 3, the first processing unit 152 may perform a fifth inspection process. In this embodiment, the first processing unit 152 may perform the fifth inspection process multiple times excluding the practice inspection.

When performing the fifth inspection process, the first processing unit 152 displays a plurality of selection lines having different angles from a preset presentation line and instructs the fifth selection line to select the line with the most similar angle to the presentation line from the plurality of selection lines. Instructions may be provided to the user terminal 200.

The first processing unit 152 receives the result of selecting the line with the most similar angle to the presented line from a plurality of selection lines in response to the fifth instruction from the user terminal 200, and compares the selected result with the correct answer line to determine the fifth inspection score. It can be calculated. In this embodiment, the fifth test score may be calculated higher as the number of selection results determined to be correct is greater compared to the total number of times the fifth test process is executed.

In this embodiment, before performing the fifth inspection process, the first processing unit 152 provides the user terminal 200 with a text on how to execute the fifth inspection process and executes a practice inspection for the fifth inspection process. You can do it.

In this example, if the 5th test score is higher than the cut-off score of the 5th standard, the spatiotemporal perception can be evaluated as good, and if the 5th test score is lower than the cut-off score of the 5th standard, the spatiotemporal perception can be evaluated as poor. can be evaluated. In addition, as shown in FIG. 9 below, by changing the positions of the presentation line and a plurality of selection lines, it is possible to interpret unilateral abnormality from the test results.

Figure 9 is an example view of a screen provided to the user terminal 200 to perform the fifth inspection process.

Referring to FIG. 9, FIG. 9A shows the start screen of the fifth inspection process. When an input from the start button 901 is received, the screen may be switched to the next screen.

FIG. 9B provides a method of executing the fifth inspection process in text and shows a screen notifying the start of a practice inspection process (fifth practice inspection process) for the fifth inspection process. When the practice start button 902 is input, the screen can be switched to the next screen.

Figure 9C shows a screen for executing the fifth practice inspection process. After checking the fifth practice instruction, the user can select the line whose angle is most similar to the suggested line shown on the left from the plurality of selection lines shown on the right. Here, a progress bar (not shown) that executes one or more of a function for counting the time limit and a function for showing the progress of a task may be further included. If the user selects a line and presses the OK button 903, the screen can be switched to the next screen.

Figure 9d shows a screen notifying the re-execution of the fifth practice inspection process. If the execution result of the fifth practice test process is an incorrect answer, the fifth practice test process may be re-executed.

FIG. 9E shows a screen indicating completion of execution of the fifth practice inspection process and execution of the main inspection.

Figure 9f shows an example of a screen executing the fifth inspection process. After checking the fifth instruction, the user can view the progress bar 904 and select the line whose angle is most similar to the presented line shown on the left from the plurality of selection lines shown on the right. If the user selects a line and then presses the OK button 905, the screen can be switched to the next screen.

Figure 9g shows another example of a screen executing the fifth inspection process. After checking the fifth instruction, the user can view the progress bar 906 and select the line whose angle is most similar to the presented line shown on the right from the plurality of selection lines shown on the left. If the user selects a line and presses the OK button 907, the screen can be switched to the next screen.

Figure 9h shows a screen indicating completion of execution of the fifth inspection process and the start of the next inspection process.

Returning to FIG. 3, the first processing unit 152 may perform a sixth inspection process. In this embodiment, the first processing unit 152 may perform the sixth test process multiple times excluding the practice test.

When performing the sixth inspection process, the first processing unit 152 displays a plurality of preset presented figures and sends a sixth instruction to the user terminal 200 to select a figure with a different color from the plurality of preset presented figures. can be provided.

The first processing unit 152 receives the result of selecting a shape with a different color from a plurality of preset presented shapes in response to the sixth instruction from the user terminal 200, and compares the selected result with the correct answer to calculate the sixth test score. can do. In this embodiment, the sixth test score may be calculated higher as the number of selection results determined to be correct is greater than the total number of times the sixth test process has been executed.

In this embodiment, before performing the sixth inspection process, the first processing unit 152 provides the user terminal 200 with a text on how to execute the sixth inspection process and executes a practice inspection for the sixth inspection process. You can do it.

In this embodiment, if the 6th test score is higher than the cut-off score of the 6th standard, the color discrimination ability can be evaluated as good, and if the 6th test score is lower than the cut-off score of the 6th standard, the color discrimination ability is deteriorated. It can be evaluated as having been done.

Figure 10 is an example view of a screen provided to the user terminal 200 to perform the sixth inspection process.

Referring to FIG. 10, FIG. 10A shows the start screen of the sixth inspection process. When an input from the start button 1001 is received, the screen may be switched to the next screen.

FIG. 10B provides a method of executing the sixth inspection process in text and shows a screen notifying the start of a practice inspection process (sixth practice inspection process) for the sixth inspection process. When the practice start button 1002 is input, the screen can be switched to the next screen.

Figure 10C shows a screen for executing the sixth practice inspection process. After checking the sixth practice instruction, the user can select a shape with a different color from a plurality of preset presented shapes while looking at the progress bar 1003. When the selection of the shape is completed or the time limit is counted, the screen can be switched to the next screen.

FIG. 10D shows an execution result screen of the sixth practice inspection process shown in FIG. 10C. If the selected shape is the correct answer, the correct answer can be output using the correct answer symbol and/or the correct answer sound effect. If the selected shape is the wrong answer, the incorrect answer can be output using the incorrect answer symbol and/or the incorrect answer sound effect.

Figure 10e shows a screen notifying the re-execution of the sixth practice inspection process. If the execution result of the sixth practice test process is an incorrect answer, the sixth practice test process may be re-executed.

FIG. 10F shows a screen indicating completion of execution of the sixth practice inspection process and execution of the main inspection.

FIG. 10G provides a method of executing the sixth inspection process in text and shows a screen notifying the start of the sixth inspection process. When the start button 1004 is input, the screen can be switched to the next screen.

Figure 10h shows a screen for executing the sixth inspection process. After checking the sixth instruction, the user can select a shape with a different color from a plurality of preset presented shapes while looking at the progress bar 1005. When the selection of the shape is completed or the time limit is counted, the screen can be switched to the next screen.

FIG. 10I shows an execution result screen of the sixth inspection process shown in FIG. 10H. If the selected shape is the correct answer, the correct answer can be output using the correct answer symbol and/or the correct answer sound effect. Additionally, if the selected shape is an incorrect answer, the incorrect answer can be output using an incorrect answer symbol and/or an incorrect answer sound effect.

Figure 10j shows a screen indicating completion of execution of the sixth inspection process and the start of the next inspection process.

Returning to FIG. 3, the first processing unit 152 may perform a seventh inspection process including a 7-1 inspection process and a 7-2 inspection process. In this embodiment, the first processing unit 152 may perform the seventh inspection process multiple times.

When performing the 7-1 inspection process, the first processing unit 152 displays a plurality of first object presentation images including a name for the first object and a shape for the first object, and each of the first object A 7-1 instruction may be provided to the user terminal 200 to determine the size and select a plurality of first object presented images in descending order.

The first processing unit 152 receives the results of selecting the first object presentation image in descending order in response to the 7-1 instruction from the user terminal 200, and compares the selected result with the correct answer to calculate the 7-1 test score. can do. In this embodiment, the 7-1 inspection score can be calculated higher as the number of selection results determined to be correct is greater than the total number of times the 7-1 process has been executed.

In this embodiment, the first processing unit 152 may provide the user terminal 200 with a text on how to execute the 7-1 inspection process before performing the 7-1 inspection process.

The first processing unit 152 may complete execution of the 7-1 inspection process and execute the 7-2 inspection process.

When performing the 7-2 inspection process, the first processing unit 152 displays a plurality of images presented with the second object including the shape of the second object, determines the weight of each of the second objects, and determines the plurality of images presented. A 7-2 instruction to select the presented images of the second objects in descending order may be provided to the user terminal 200.

The first processing unit 152 receives the results of selecting the presented images of the second object in descending order in response to the 7-2 instruction from the user terminal 200, and compares the selected results with the correct answer to calculate the 7-2 test score. can do.

In this embodiment, the first processing unit 152 may provide the user terminal 200 with a text on how to execute the 7-2 inspection process before performing the 7-2 inspection process. In this embodiment, the 7-2 inspection score can be calculated higher as the number of selection results determined to be correct is greater than the total number of times the 7-2 process has been executed.

In an optional embodiment, the first processing unit 152 may calculate the 7th inspection score by adding the 7-1 inspection score and the 7-2 inspection score. In addition, the first processing unit 152 does not add up the 7-1 test score and the 7-2 test score, but can use each of the 7-1 test score and the 7-2 test score when evaluating cognitive decline. . In this example, if the 7th test score is higher than the cut-off score of the 7th standard, semantic memory can be evaluated as good, and if the 7th test score is lower than the cut-off score of the 7th standard, semantic memory can be evaluated as deteriorated. can be evaluated.

Figure 11 is an example of a screen provided to the user terminal 200 to perform the seventh inspection process. Referring to FIG. 11, FIGS. 11A to 11E are exemplary diagrams of screens explaining the 7-1 inspection process, and FIGS. 11F to 11H are exemplary diagrams of screens explaining the 7-2 inspection process.

Figure 11A shows the start screen of the seventh inspection process. When the input of the start button 1101 is received, the screen may be switched to the 7-1 inspection process screen.

FIG. 11B provides a method of executing the 7-1 inspection process in text and shows a screen notifying the start of the 7-1 inspection process. When the start button 1102 is input, the screen can be switched to the next screen.

Figure 11c shows a screen for executing the 7-1 inspection process. After checking the 7-1 instruction, the user can select a plurality of first object presented images in order of size while looking at the progress bar 1103. When the user needs to modify the selection, he/she inputs the input correction button 1104 to re-select. When the user completes the selection and presses the confirmation button 1105, the screen can be switched to the next screen.

Figure 11d shows the execution result screen of the 7-1 inspection process. A number indicating the order selected by the user may be output on the first object presented image.

Figure 11e shows a screen indicating completion of execution of the 7-1 inspection process and the start of the next inspection process.

FIG. 11F provides a method of executing the 7-2 inspection process in text and shows a screen notifying the start of the 7-2 inspection process. When the start button 1106 is input, the screen can be switched to the next screen.

Figure 11g shows a screen for executing the 7-2 inspection process. After checking the 7-2 instruction, the user can select a plurality of presented images of the second object in order of weight while looking at the progress bar 1107. When the user needs to modify the selection, he or she inputs the input correction button 1108 to re-select. When the user completes the selection and presses the confirmation button 1109, the screen can be switched to the next screen.

Figure 11h shows a screen indicating completion of execution of the 7-2 inspection process and the start of the next inspection process.

Returning to FIG. 3, the first processing unit 152 may perform an eighth inspection process. In this embodiment, the first processing unit 152 may perform the eighth test process multiple times excluding the practice test.

When performing the eighth inspection process, the first processing unit 152 shows a preset face presentation image expressing emotions, a plurality of buttons for selecting the intensity of the emotion, and the emotions shown in the preset face presentation image. An eighth instruction may be provided to the user terminal 200 to select the intensity with one of a plurality of buttons.

The first processing unit 152 receives the result of selecting the intensity of emotion shown in the preset face presentation image with one of a plurality of buttons in response to the eighth instruction from the user terminal 200, compares the selected result with the correct answer, and 8 Inspection scores can be calculated. In this embodiment, the 8th inspection score can be calculated higher as the number of selected results that turn out to be correct is greater compared to the total number of times the 8th inspection process is executed.

In this embodiment, before performing the eighth inspection process, the first processing unit 152 provides the user terminal 200 with a text on how to execute the eighth inspection process and executes a practice inspection for the eighth inspection process. You can do it.

In this embodiment, if the 8th test score is higher than the cut-off score of the 8th standard, the emotional intensity recognition ability can be evaluated as good, and if the 8th test score is lower than the cut-off score of the 8th standard, the emotional intensity recognition ability can be evaluated as good. This can be evaluated as degraded.

Figure 12 is an example view of a screen provided to the user terminal 200 to perform the eighth inspection process.

Referring to FIG. 12, FIG. 12A shows the start screen of the eighth inspection process. When an input from the start button 1201 is received, the screen may be switched to the next screen.

FIG. 12B provides a method of executing the 8th inspection process in text and shows a screen notifying the start of a practice inspection process (8th practice inspection process) for the 8th inspection process. When the practice start button 1202 is input, the screen can be switched to the next screen.

Figure 12C shows a screen for executing the eighth practice inspection process. After checking the eighth practice instruction, the user can select the intensity of emotion shown in the presented face image with one of the plurality of buttons 1203. Here, a progress bar (not shown) that executes one or more of a function for counting the time limit and a function for showing the progress of a task may be further included. In this embodiment, the larger the size of the plurality of buttons 1203, the stronger the intensity of emotion.

Figure 12d shows an execution result screen of the eighth inspection process. The intensity of the emotion selected by the user may be output to one of the plurality of buttons 1204.

Figure 12e shows a screen indicating completion of execution of the eighth practice inspection process and execution of the main inspection.

Figure 12f shows an example of a screen executing the eighth inspection process. After checking the eighth instruction, the user can view the progress bar 1205 and select the intensity of emotion shown in the face image using one of the plurality of buttons 1206. When the user completes selection of one of the plurality of buttons 1206 or the count of the time limit is completed, the screen may be switched to the next screen.

Figure 12g shows a screen indicating completion of execution of the eighth inspection process and the start of the next inspection process.

Returning to FIG. 3, the first processing unit 152 may perform a ninth inspection process. In this embodiment, the first processing unit 152 may perform the ninth inspection process multiple times.

When performing the ninth inspection process, the first processing unit 152 displays a preset presented paragraph, a recording start button, and a recording end button, inputs the recording start button, utters the preset presented paragraph, and then When the utterance is completed, a ninth instruction to input the recording end button may be provided to the user terminal 200.

After receiving the input of the recording start button in response to the ninth instruction from the user terminal 200, the first processing unit 152 receives and stores the speech result for the preset presented paragraph, and receives the input of the recording end button. can do.

The first processing unit 152 may count the second time taken from the time the recording start button input is received to the time the recording end button input is received.

The first processing unit 152 may convert the speech result for the preset presented paragraph into a paragraph speech text, and compare the number of words included in the paragraph speech text with the number of correct word words.

The first processing unit 152 may calculate the ninth inspection score by reflecting the result of the comparison and the result of counting the second required time. In this embodiment, the 9th test score may be calculated differently depending on the result of counting the number of words determined to be correct and the second time required compared to the total number of times the 9th test process was executed. Even if the number of words determined to be correct is greater than the total number of times the ninth inspection process has been executed, if the result of counting the second required time is large, the ninth inspection score may be lowered. In addition, even if the number of words found to be correct is small compared to the total number of times the ninth inspection process has been executed, the ninth inspection score can be increased if the result of counting the second required time is small.

In this embodiment, the first processing unit 152 may provide the user terminal 200 with text on how to execute the ninth inspection process before performing the ninth inspection process.

In this embodiment, if the 9th test score is higher than the cut-off score of the 9th standard, reading ability can be evaluated as good, and if the 9th test score is lower than the cut-off score of the 9th standard, reading ability can be evaluated as poor. can be evaluated.

Figure 13 is an example of a screen provided to the user terminal 200 to perform the ninth inspection process.

Referring to FIG. 13, FIG. 13A shows the start screen of the ninth inspection process. When an input from the start button 1301 is received, the screen can be switched to the next screen.

FIG. 13B provides a method of executing the ninth inspection process in text and shows a screen notifying the start of the ninth inspection process. When the start button 1302 is input, the screen can be switched to the next screen.

Figure 13C shows a screen for executing the ninth practice inspection process. The user can check the ninth practice instruction, input the start button 1303, utter the suggested paragraph, and input the end button 1304 after completing utterance of the suggested paragraph. Here, a progress bar (not shown) that executes one or more of a function for counting the time limit and a function for showing the progress of a task may be further included.

Figure 13D shows a screen indicating completion of execution of the ninth inspection process and the start of the next inspection process.

Returning to FIG. 3, the first processing unit 152 may perform a tenth inspection process including a 10-1 inspection process and a 10-2 inspection process. In this embodiment, the first processing unit 152 may perform the tenth test process multiple times excluding the practice test.

When performing the 10-1 inspection process, the first processing unit 152 shows a preset area, recalls the position and order in which the preset presented figure appears in the preset area, and sequentially inputs the 10-10-1. 1 Instructions may be provided to the user terminal 200.

The first processing unit 152 may provide the user terminal 200 with a first demonstration video in which preset presentation shapes sequentially appear within a preset area while providing the 10-1 instruction.

After the first demonstration video ends, the first processing unit 152 recalls the first demonstration video from the user terminal 200 and sequentially inputs the position and order in which the preset presented figure appears within the preset area. can receive. Here, the user can recall the first demonstration video and sequentially input the positions and orders in which the presented shapes appear.

The first processing unit 152 may calculate the 10-1 test score by comparing the result of sequentially inputting the position and order in which the preset presented figure appears within the preset area with the correct answer. In this embodiment, the 10-1 inspection score can be calculated higher as the number of input results determined to be correct is greater compared to the total number of times the 10-1 inspection process is executed.

In this embodiment, before performing the 10-1 inspection process, the first processing unit 152 provides the user terminal 200 with a text on how to execute the 10-1 inspection process, and executes the 10-1 inspection process. You can run a practice test for .

The first processing unit 152 may execute the 10-2 test process after completing execution of the 10-1 test process.

When executing the 10-2 inspection process, the first processing unit 152 displays a preset area, recalls the position and order in which the preset presented figure appears within the preset area, and inputs the 10-2 in reverse order. Instructions may be provided to the user terminal 200.

The first processing unit 152 may provide the user terminal 200 with a second demonstration video in which a preset presentation figure sequentially appears within a preset area while providing the 10-2 instruction.

After the second demonstration video ends, the first processing unit 152 recalls the second demonstration video from the user terminal 200 and inputs the result of reversing the position and order in which the preset presented figure appears within the preset area. You can receive it. Here, the user can recall the second demonstration video and input the position and order in which the presented shapes appear in reverse.

The first processing unit 152 may calculate the 10-2 test score by comparing the result of inputting the position and order in which the preset presented figure appears within the preset area in reverse with the correct answer. In this embodiment, the 10-2 inspection score may be calculated higher as the number of input results determined to be correct is greater compared to the total number of times the 10-2 inspection process is executed.

In this embodiment, before performing the 10-2 inspection process, the first processing unit 152 provides the user terminal 200 with a text on how to execute the 10-2 inspection process, and executes the 10-2 inspection process. You can run a practice test for .

In an optional embodiment, the first processing unit 152 may calculate the 10th inspection score by adding the 10-1 inspection score and the 10-2 inspection score. In addition, the first processing unit 152 does not add up the 10-1 test score and the 10-2 test score, but can use each of the 10-1 test score and the 10-2 test score when evaluating cognitive decline. . In this embodiment, if the 10th test score is higher than the cut-off score of the 10th standard, attention and working memory can be evaluated as good, and if the 10th test score is lower than the cut-off score of the 10th standard, attention and working memory can be evaluated as good. This can be evaluated as degraded.

Figure 14 is an example of a screen provided to the user terminal 200 to perform the tenth inspection process. Referring to FIG. 14, FIGS. 14A to 14H are exemplary diagrams of screens explaining the 10-1 inspection process, and FIGS. 14I to 14O are exemplary diagrams of screens explaining the 10-2 inspection process.

Figure 14A shows the start screen of the tenth inspection process. When the input of the start button 1401 is received, the screen may be switched to the 10-1 inspection process screen.

FIG. 14B provides a method of executing the 10-1 test process in text and shows a screen notifying the start of a practice test process for the 10-1 test process (10-1 practice test process). When the practice start button 1402 is input, the screen can be switched to the next screen.

Figure 14c shows an example of a screen executing the 10-1 practice inspection process. Figure 14c shows the first practice demonstration video along with the 10-1 practice instructions. It may also include an input modification button 1403 for modifying the input and a confirmation button 1404 for completing the input.

Figure 14D shows another example of a screen for executing the 10-1 practice inspection process. The user can recall the first practice demonstration video of FIG. 14C and sequentially input the positions and orders in which the presented shapes appear in the preset area. If the user needs to modify the input, he or she can modify the input by pressing the input modification button 1405. The user can press the confirmation button 1406 when the input is completed.

Figure 14e shows a screen indicating completion of execution of the 10-1 practice inspection process and execution of the main inspection.

Figure 14f shows a screen notifying the start of the 10-1 instruction and the 10-1 inspection process. When the start button 1407 is input, the screen can be switched to the next screen.

Figure 14g shows a screen for executing the 10-1 inspection process. Figure 14g shows a screen that appears after playback of the first demonstration video. The user can recall the first demonstration video and sequentially input the positions and orders in which the presented shapes appear in the preset area. If the user needs to modify the input, he or she can modify the input by pressing the input modification button 1408. When the input is completed, the user can press the confirmation button 1409.

Figure 14h shows a screen indicating completion of execution of the 10-1 test process and the start of the next test process.

Figure 14i shows a screen notifying the start of a practice test process (10-2 practice test process) for the 10-2 test process. When the practice start button 1410 is input, the screen can be switched to the next screen.

Figure 14j shows an example of a screen for executing the 10-2 practice inspection process. Figure 14j shows the second exercise demonstration video along with the 10-2 exercise instructions. It may also include an input modification button 1411 for modifying the input and a confirmation button 1412 for completing the input.

Figure 14k shows another example of a screen for executing the 10-2 practice inspection process. The user can recall the second practice demonstration video of FIG. 14J and reversely input the position and order in which the suggested shapes appear in the preset area. If the user needs to modify the input, he or she can modify the input by pressing the input modification button 1413. When the input is completed, the user can press the confirmation button 1414.

FIG. 14L shows a screen indicating completion of execution of the 10-2 practice inspection process and notification of execution of the main inspection.

Figure 14m shows a screen notifying the start of the 10-2 instruction and the 10-2 inspection process. When the start button 1415 is input, the screen can be switched to the next screen.

Figure 14n shows a screen for executing the 10-2 inspection process. Figure 14n shows a screen that appears after playing the second demonstration video. The user can recall the second demonstration video and input the position and order in which the presented shapes appear in the preset area in reverse order. If the user needs to modify the input, he or she can modify the input by pressing the input modification button 1416. When the input is completed, the user can press the confirmation button 1417.

Figure 14o shows a screen indicating completion of execution of the 10-2 test process and the start of the next test process.

Returning to FIG. 3, the first processing unit 152 may perform an 11th inspection process including an 11-1 inspection process and an 11-2 inspection process. In this embodiment, the first processing unit 152 may perform the 11th inspection process multiple times excluding the practice inspection.

When performing the 11-1 inspection process, the first processing unit 152 displays the first presented incomplete sentence with a missing word and the two first selected words, and provides an accurate method to complete the first presented incomplete sentence. An 11-1 instruction to select a word from among the two first selection words may be provided to the user terminal 200.

The first processing unit 152 receives the result of selecting the correct word that can complete the first presented incomplete sentence in response to the 11-1 instruction from the user terminal 200 among the two first selection words, and selects the result of the selection. The 11-1 test score can be calculated by comparing it with the correct answer. In this embodiment, the 11-1 inspection score may be calculated higher as the number of selection results determined to be correct is greater compared to the total number of times the 11-1 inspection process is executed.

In this embodiment, before performing the 11-1 inspection process, the first processing unit 152 provides the user terminal 200 with a text on how to execute the 11-1 inspection process, and executes the 11-1 inspection process. You can run a practice test for .

The first processing unit 152 may execute the 11-2 test process after completing execution of the 11-1 test process.

When executing the 11-2 inspection process, the first processing unit 152 displays a second presented incomplete sentence with a missing word and two second selected words, and displays an awkward word that can complete the second presented incomplete sentence. An 11-2 instruction to select a word from among two second selection words may be provided to the user terminal 200.

The first processing unit 152 receives the result of selecting an awkward word that can complete the second presented incomplete sentence from the two second selection words in response to the 11-2 instruction from the user terminal 200, and selects the selected result. You can calculate the 11-2 test score by comparing it with the correct answer. In this embodiment, the 11-2 test score may be calculated higher as the number of selection results determined to be correct is greater compared to the total number of times the 11-2 test process is executed.

In this embodiment, before performing the 11-2 inspection process, the first processing unit 152 provides the user terminal 200 with a text on how to execute the 11-2 inspection process, and executes the 11-2 inspection process. You can run a practice test for .

In an optional embodiment, the first processing unit 152 may calculate the 11th inspection score by adding the 11-1 inspection score and the 11-2 inspection score. In addition, the first processing unit 152 does not add up the 11-1 test score and the 11-2 test score, but can use each of the 11-1 test score and the 11-2 test score when evaluating cognitive decline. . In this example, if the 11th test score is higher than the cut-off score of the 11th standard, verbal inhibition can be evaluated as good, and if the 11th test score is lower than the cut-off score of the 11th standard, verbal inhibition can be evaluated as poor. It can be evaluated as having been done.

Figure 15 is an example of a screen provided to the user terminal 200 to perform the 11th inspection process.

Referring to FIG. 15, FIG. 15A shows the start screen of the 11th inspection process. When an input from the start button 1501 is received, the screen can be switched to the next screen.

FIG. 15B provides a method of executing the 11-1 test process in text and shows a screen notifying the start of a practice test process for the 11th test process (the 11th practice test process). When the practice start button 1502 is input, the screen can be switched to the next screen.

FIG. 15C shows an example of a screen executing the 11-2 practice test process among the 11th practice test processes. Figure 15c shows the 11-2 practice instruction, the incomplete sentence presented in the second practice, and the first word button 1503 and the second word button 1504 that can complete the incomplete sentence presented in the second practice.

FIG. 15D shows the second word button 1505 selected by the user in response to the 11-2 exercise instruction from the screen of FIG. 15C. If the selected word is the correct answer, the correct answer can be output using the correct answer symbol and/or the correct answer sound effect. Additionally, if the selected word is an incorrect answer, the incorrect answer can be output using an incorrect answer symbol and/or an incorrect answer sound effect.

Figure 15e shows a screen indicating completion of execution of the 11th practice inspection process and execution of the main inspection.

Figure 15f shows a screen notifying the start of the 11th inspection process. When the start button 1506 is input, the screen can be switched to the next screen.

Figure 15g shows an example of a screen for executing the 11-1 inspection process. Figure 15g shows the 11-1 instruction, the first presented incomplete sentence, and the first word button 1507 and the second word button 1508 that can complete the first presented incomplete sentence.

FIG. 15h shows the first word button 1509 selected by the user in response to the 11-1 instruction from the screen of FIG. 15g.

Figure 15i shows an example of a screen for executing the 11-2 inspection process. Figure 15i shows the 11-2 instruction, the second presented incomplete sentence, and the first word button 1510 and the second word button 1511 that can complete the second presented incomplete sentence.

FIG. 15J shows the second word button 1512 selected by the user in response to the 11-2 instruction from the screen of FIG. 15I.

FIG. 15K shows a screen indicating completion of execution of the 11th inspection process and waiting for inspection result output.

Returning to FIG. 3, when execution of the first to eleventh test processes of the first processing unit 152 is completed, the second processing unit 153 divides at least one test item among the plurality of test items into a plurality of neurocognitive categories. A categorization process can be performed to classify into one of the neurocognitive categories.

The second processing unit 153 may classify the second and third test items into the first neurocognitive category. The second processing unit 153 may classify the eighth test item into the second neurocognitive category. The second processing unit 153 may classify the seventh and ninth test items into the third neurocognitive category. The second processing unit 153 may classify the fifth and sixth test items into the fourth neurocognitive category. The second processing unit 153 may classify the first test item, the fourth test item, the tenth test item, and the eleventh test item into the fifth neurocognitive category.

When the category classification process of the second processing unit 153 is completed, the third processing unit 154 evaluates whether there is a decline in cognitive function in the neurocognitive category based on the test scores for the test items classified into the neurocognitive category. An evaluation process can be implemented.

In this embodiment, the third processing unit 154 generates an evaluation result that outputs to the user that there is a possibility of mild cognitive impairment when it is assessed that there is a decline in cognitive function in one or more of the first to fifth neurocognitive categories. can do.

In this embodiment, the evaluation process may include a first to a fifth evaluation process.

The third processing unit 154 may execute a first evaluation process to evaluate whether there is a decline in cognitive function in the first neurocognitive category based on the second test score and the third test score.

When executing the first evaluation process, the third processing unit 154 compares the second inspection score for the second inspection item with the second reference score, and, if the second inspection score is less than the second reference score, Comparison results can be generated. In this embodiment, the second test score may include a verbal cue memory test score. In this embodiment, the second reference score may include the second test score of the normal group whose second Z-score is the first standard deviation (eg, -1.5 SD).

In this embodiment, the first comparison result may include a 1-1 comparison result and a 1-2 comparison result. The 1-1 comparison result may be generated when the second test score is less than the second standard score. From the 1-1 comparison results, it can be seen that the user's verbal memory has deteriorated. The 1-2 comparison result may be generated when the second test score is greater than or equal to the second standard score. From comparison results 1-2, it can be seen that the user's verbal memory is good. In this embodiment, the first comparison result may be replaced with the 1-1 comparison result.

The third processing unit 154 may compare the third inspection score for the third inspection item with the third standard score, and generate a second comparison result according to the third inspection score being less than the third standard score. In this embodiment, the third test score may include a visual schema memory test score. In this embodiment, the third reference score may include the third test score of the normal group whose third Z-score is the first standard deviation (eg, -1.5 SD).

In this embodiment, the second comparison result may include the 2-1 comparison result and the 2-2 comparison result. The 2-1 comparison result may be generated when the third test score is less than the third standard score. From the results of comparison 2-1, it can be seen that the user's visual and perceptual memory has deteriorated. The 2-2 comparison result can be generated when the third test score is greater than or equal to the third standard score. From the 2-2 comparison results, it can be seen that the user's visual perception memory is good. In this embodiment, the second comparison result may be replaced with the 2-1 comparison result.

The third processing unit 154 may evaluate whether there is a decline in cognitive function in the first neurocognitive category, that is, memory, as one or more of the first comparison result and the second comparison result are generated.

The third processing unit 154 may execute a second evaluation process to evaluate whether there is a decline in cognitive function in the second neurocognitive category based on the eighth test score.

When executing the second evaluation process, the third processing unit 154 compares the 8th inspection score for the 8th inspection item with the 8th standard score, and if the 8th inspection score is less than the 8th standard score, the 3rd processing unit 154 Comparison results can be generated. In this embodiment, the eighth test score may include a facial emotion test score. In this embodiment, the 8th reference score may include the 8th test score of the normal group whose 8th Z-score is the first standard deviation (eg, -1.5 SD).

In this embodiment, the third comparison result may include the 3-1 comparison result and the 3-2 comparison result. The 3-1 comparison result can be generated when the 8th inspection score is less than the 8th standard score. From the comparison results of 3-1, it can be seen that the ability to recognize the intensity of emotions toward the user has decreased. The 3-2 comparison result can be generated when the 8th inspection score is higher than the 8th standard score. From the comparison results of 3-2, it can be seen that the recognition ability of the intensity of emotion for the user is good. In this embodiment, the third comparison result may be replaced with the 3-1 comparison result.

As the third comparison result is generated, the third processing unit 154 may evaluate whether there is a decline in cognitive function in the second neurocognitive category, that is, social cognition.

The third processing unit 154 may execute a third evaluation process to evaluate whether there is a decline in cognitive function in the third neurocognitive category based on the seventh and ninth test scores.

When executing the third evaluation process, the third processing unit 154 compares the 7th inspection score for the 7th inspection item with the 7th standard score, and if the 7th inspection score is less than the 7th standard score, the 4th inspection score is Comparison results can be generated. In this embodiment, the seventh inspection score may include size and weight inspection scores. In this embodiment, the 7th reference score may include the 7th test score of the normal group whose 7th Z-score is the first standard deviation (eg, -1.5 SD).

In this embodiment, the fourth comparison result may include the 4-1 comparison result and the 4-2 comparison result. The 4-1 comparison result can be generated when the 7th inspection score is less than the 7th standard score. From the results of comparison 4-1, it can be seen that the user's semantic memory has deteriorated. The 4-2 comparison result can be generated when the 7th inspection score is higher than the 7th standard score. From the comparison results of 4-2, it can be seen that the user's semantic memory is good. In this embodiment, the fourth comparison result may be replaced with the 4-1 comparison result.

The third processing unit 154 may compare the 9th inspection score for the 9th inspection item with the 9th standard score, and generate a 5th comparison result according to the 9th inspection score being less than the 9th standard score. In this embodiment, the ninth test score may include a paragraph reading test score. In this embodiment, the 9th reference score may include the 9th test score of the normal group whose 9th Z-score is the first standard deviation (eg, -1.5 SD).

In this embodiment, the fifth comparison result may include the 5-1 comparison result and the 5-2 comparison result. The 5-1 comparison result can be generated when the 9th inspection score is less than the 9th standard score. From the results of comparison 5-1, it can be seen that the user's reading ability has decreased. The 5-2 comparison result can be generated when the 9th inspection score is higher than the 9th standard score. From the comparison results of 5-2, it can be seen that the user's reading ability is good. In this embodiment, the 5th comparison result can be replaced with the 5-1 comparison result.

The third processing unit 154 may evaluate whether there is a decline in cognitive function in the third neurocognitive category, that is, language, as one or more of the fourth and fifth comparison results are generated.

The third processing unit 154 may execute a fourth evaluation process to evaluate whether there is a decline in cognitive function in the fourth neurocognitive category based on the fifth test score and the sixth test score.

When executing the fourth evaluation process, the third processing unit 154 compares the fifth inspection score for the fifth inspection item with the fifth standard score, and if the fifth inspection score is less than the fifth standard score, the third processing unit 154 compares the fifth inspection score for the fifth inspection item with the fifth standard score. Comparison results can be generated. In this embodiment, the fifth test score may include a linear angle perception test score. In this embodiment, the fifth reference score may include the fifth test score of the normal group whose fifth Z-score is the first standard deviation (eg, -1.5 SD).

In this embodiment, the sixth comparison result may include the 6-1 comparison result and the 6-2 comparison result. The 6-1 comparison result can be generated when the 5th inspection score is less than the 5th standard score. From the results of comparison 6-1, it can be seen that the user's spatiotemporal perception has deteriorated. The 6-2 comparison result can be generated when the 5th inspection score is higher than the 5th standard score. From the comparison results of No. 6-2, it can be seen that the user's spatiotemporal perception is good. In this embodiment, the 6th comparison result can be replaced with the 6-1 comparison result.

The third processing unit 154 may compare the sixth inspection score for the sixth inspection item with the sixth standard score, and generate a seventh comparison result according to the sixth inspection score being less than the sixth standard score. In this embodiment, the sixth test score may include a color perception test score. In this embodiment, the sixth reference score may include the sixth test score of the normal group whose sixth Z-score is the first standard deviation (eg, -1.5 SD).

In this embodiment, the 7th comparison result may include the 7-1 comparison result and the 7-2 comparison result. The 7-1 comparison result can be generated when the 6th inspection score is less than the 6th standard score. From the comparison results of Chapter 7-1, it can be seen that the user's color discrimination ability has deteriorated. The 7-2 comparison result can be generated when the 6th inspection score is higher than the 6th standard score. From the comparison results of Chapter 7-2, it can be seen that the user's color discrimination ability is good. In this embodiment, the 7th comparison result can be replaced with the 7-1 comparison result.

The third processing unit 154 may evaluate whether there is a decline in cognitive function in the fourth neurocognitive category, that is, perception, as one or more of the sixth and seventh comparison results are generated.

The third processing unit 154 performs a fifth evaluation to evaluate whether there is a decline in cognitive function in the fifth neurocognitive category based on the first test score, the fourth test score, the tenth test score, and the eleventh test score. The process can be run.

When executing the fifth evaluation process, the third processing unit 154 compares the first inspection score for the first inspection item with the first reference score, and if the first inspection score is less than the first reference score, Comparison results can be generated. In this embodiment, the first test score may include a fluency test score. In this embodiment, the first reference score may include the first test score of the normal group whose first Z-score is the first standard deviation (eg, -1.5 SD).

In this embodiment, the 8th comparison result may include the 8-1 comparison result and the 8-2 comparison result. The 8-1 comparison result can be generated when the first inspection score is less than the first standard score. From the comparison results of Chapter 8-1, it can be seen that the user's fluency has decreased. The 8-2 comparison result can be generated when the first inspection score is greater than or equal to the first standard score. From the comparison results of Chapter 8-2, it can be seen that the user's fluency is good. In this embodiment, the 8th comparison result can be replaced with the 8-1 comparison result.

The third processing unit 154 may compare the fourth inspection score for the fourth inspection item with the fourth standard score, and generate a ninth comparison result as the fourth inspection score is less than the fourth standard score. In this embodiment, the fourth test score may include a Stroop test score. In this embodiment, the fourth reference score may include the fourth test score of the normal group whose fourth Z-score is the fourth standard deviation (eg, -1.5 SD).

In this embodiment, the 9th comparison result may include the 9-1 comparison result and the 9-2 comparison result. 9-1 Comparison results can be generated when the fourth inspection score is less than the fourth standard score. From the comparison results of Chapter 9-1, it can be seen that the user's inhibition function has decreased. 9-2 Comparison results can be generated when the fourth inspection score is higher than the fourth standard score. From the comparison results of Chapter 9-2, it can be seen that the user's suppression function is good. In this embodiment, the 9th comparison result can be replaced with the 9-1 comparison result.

The third processing unit 154 may compare the 10th inspection score for the 10th inspection item with the 10th standard score, and generate a 10th comparison result according to the 10th inspection score being less than the 10th standard score. In this embodiment, the 10th test score may include a spatiotemporal attention test score. In this embodiment, the 10th reference score may include the 10th test score of the normal group whose 10th Z-score is the 10th standard deviation (eg, -1.5 SD).

In this embodiment, the 10th comparison result may include the 10-1 comparison result and the 10-2 comparison result. The 10-1 comparison result can be generated when the 10th inspection score is less than the 10th standard score. From the comparison results of No. 10-1, it can be seen that the user's attention and working memory have decreased. The 10-2 comparison result can be generated when the 10th test score is higher than the 10th standard score. From the comparison results of No. 10-2, it can be seen that the user's attention and working memory are good. In this embodiment, the 10th comparison result can be replaced with the 10-1 comparison result.

The third processing unit 154 may compare the 11th inspection score for the 11th inspection item with the 11th standard score, and generate an 11th comparison result according to the 11th inspection score being less than the 11th standard score. In this embodiment, the 11th inspection score may include a hailing inspection score. In this embodiment, the 11th reference score may include the 11th test score of the normal group whose 11th Z-score is the 11th standard deviation (eg, -1.5 SD).

In this embodiment, the 11th comparison result may include the 11-1 comparison result and the 11-2 comparison result. The 11-1 comparison result can be generated when the 11th inspection score is less than the 11th standard score. From the comparison results of No. 11-1, it can be seen that the user's verbal inhibition power has decreased. The 11-2 comparison result can be generated when the 11th test score is higher than the 11th standard score. From the comparison results of No. 11-2, it can be seen that the user's verbal inhibition ability is good. In this embodiment, the 11th comparison result can be replaced with the 11-1 comparison result.

As one or more of the 8th comparison result, the 9th comparison result, the 10th comparison result, and the 11th comparison result are generated, the third processing unit 154 determines that there is a decline in cognitive function in the fifth neurocognitive category, that is, attention execution. can be evaluated.

After completing the execution of the discrimination process, the transmission unit 155 may transmit the discrimination result to the user terminal 200 and/or the terminal (not shown) of the practitioner (eg, doctor).

Figure 16 is a block diagram schematically illustrating the configuration of a testing device for evaluating cognitive decline according to another embodiment. In the following description, parts that overlap with the description of FIGS. 1 to 15 will be omitted. Referring to FIG. 16, a testing device 100 according to another embodiment may include a processor 170 and a memory 180.

In this embodiment, the processor 170 includes the communication unit 110, storage medium 120, program storage unit 130, database 140, test management unit 150, and control unit 160 disclosed in FIGS. 2 and 3. The function it performs can be processed.

This processor 170 can control the entire operation of the inspection device 100. Here, 'processor' may mean, for example, a data processing device built into hardware that has a physically structured circuit to perform a function expressed by code or instructions included in a program. Examples of data processing devices built into hardware include processing devices such as microprocessors, central processing units, processor cores, multiprocessors, ASICs, and FPGAs, but the scope of the present invention is not limited thereto. .

The memory 180 is operatively connected to the processor 170 and can store at least one code in association with an operation performed by the processor 170.

Additionally, the memory 180 may perform a function of temporarily or permanently storing data processed by the processor 170 and may include data established as the database 140. Here, the memory 180 may include a magnetic storage medium or a flash storage medium, but the scope of the present invention is not limited thereto. Such memory 180 may include internal memory and/or external memory, such as volatile memory such as DRAM, SRAM, or SDRAM, OTPROM, PROM, EPROM, EEPROM, mask ROM, flash ROM, NAND flash memory, or NOR. It may include non-volatile memory such as flash memory, flash drives such as SSD, CF card, SD card, Micro-SD card, Mini-SD card, xD card, or memory stick, or storage devices such as HDD.

17 to 20 are flowcharts explaining a test method for evaluating cognitive decline according to this embodiment. In the following description, parts that overlap with the description of FIGS. 1 to 16 will be omitted. The test method for evaluating cognitive decline according to this embodiment will be described assuming that the test device 100 is performed by the processor 170 with the help of peripheral components.

Referring to FIG. 17, in step S1710, the processor 170 can check how much the user performs the mission presented for each of the plurality of inspection items and calculate the inspection score for each of the plurality of inspection items. there is. In this embodiment, step S1710 may be expressed as an inspection step in the claims described later.

Figure 18 shows a detailed flow chart of the inspection step. Referring to FIG. 18, in step S1710-1, the processor 170 determines how much the user utters the word corresponding to the preset presentation category within the time limit and draws the indicated design within the time limit. A first inspection step of executing an inspection on the first inspection item to be evaluated and calculating a first inspection score may be performed.

In step S1710-2, after completing the execution of the first test step, the processor 170 learns the word while providing a preset category clue and evaluates how much of the learned word is remembered after a preset time. 2 The second inspection step can be performed by executing the inspection of the inspection items and calculating the second inspection score.

In step S1710-3, after completing execution of the second test step, the processor 170 performs a third test to learn a preset presented image and evaluate how much of the learned presented image is remembered after a preset time has elapsed. A third inspection step can be performed in which inspection of items is performed and a third inspection score is calculated.

In step S1710-4, after completing execution of the third test step, the processor 170 executes a test on the fourth test item to evaluate whether the preset suggested word and the color of the preset suggested word are correctly uttered, and 4 The fourth inspection step to calculate the inspection score can be performed.

In step S1710-5, after completing the execution of the fourth inspection step, the processor 170 executes a inspection on the fifth inspection item to evaluate whether a line having a similar angle to the preset presented line is found and calculates the fifth inspection score. The fifth inspection step can be performed to calculate .

In step S1710-6, after completing the execution of the fifth inspection step, the processor 170 executes a check on the sixth inspection item to evaluate whether a shape with a color different from the color of the preset presented shape is found, and The sixth inspection step of calculating the inspection score can be performed.

In step S1710-7, after completing execution of the sixth test step, the processor 170 executes a test on the seventh test item to evaluate whether the sizes and weights of the preset presented objects are listed in descending order, and performs the seventh test. The seventh inspection step to calculate the score can be performed.

In step S1710-8, after completing execution of the seventh test step, the processor 170 executes a test on the eighth test item to evaluate whether the intensity of emotion appearing in the preset face presentation image is recognized, and performs the eighth test item. The eighth inspection step, which calculates the inspection score, can be performed.

In step S1710-9, after completing the execution of the 8th test step, the processor 170 executes a test on the 9th test item to evaluate whether the preset presented sentence is uttered correctly and calculates the 9th test score. 9 inspection steps can be performed.

In step S1710-10, after completing the execution of the 9th test step, the processor 170 executes a test on the 10th test item to evaluate whether the position and order of the preset presented figure is remembered and calculates the 10th test score. The 10th inspection step to calculate can be performed.

In step S1710-11, after completing the execution of the 10th check step, the processor 170 performs a check on the 11th check item to evaluate whether the word corresponding to the condition is correctly selected so that the preset presented incomplete sentence becomes a complete sentence. You can execute the 11th inspection step to calculate the 11th inspection score.

Returning to FIG. 17, in step S1720, after completing execution of the test step, the processor 170 may classify at least one test item among the plurality of test items into one neurocognitive category among the plurality of neurocognitive categories. . In this embodiment, step S1720 may be expressed as a category classification step in the claims described later.

Figure 19 shows a detailed flow chart of the category classification step. Referring to FIG. 19, in step S1720-1, the processor 170 may classify the second and third test items into a first neurocognitive category that can evaluate the decline in cognitive function regarding memory.

In step S1720-2, the processor 170 may classify the eighth test item into a second neurocognitive category that can evaluate cognitive decline in social cognition.

In step S1720-3, the processor 170 may classify the seventh and ninth test items into a third neurocognitive category that can evaluate the decline in cognitive function for language.

In step S1720-4, the processor 170 may classify the fifth and sixth test items into the fourth neurocognitive category that can evaluate the decline in cognitive function for perception.

In step S1720-5, the processor 170 divides the first test item, the fourth test item, the tenth test item, and the eleventh test item into a fifth neurocognitive category that can evaluate cognitive function decline in attention execution. Can be classified.

Returning to Figure 17, in step S1730, after completing the execution of the category classification step, the processor 170 determines whether there is a decline in cognitive function in the neurocognitive category based on the test scores for the test items classified into the neurocognitive category. can be evaluated. In this embodiment, step S1730 may be expressed as an evaluation step in the claims described later.

Figure 20 shows a detailed flow chart of the evaluation step. Referring to FIG. 20, in step S1730-1, the processor 170 may execute a first evaluation process. The processor 170 may compare the second inspection score for the second inspection item with the second reference score, and generate a first comparison result according to the second inspection score being less than the second reference score. The processor 170 may compare the third test score for the third test item with the third standard score, and generate a second comparison result according to the third test score being less than the third standard score. The processor 170 may evaluate whether there is a decline in cognitive function in the first neurocognitive category, that is, memory, as one or more of the first comparison result and the second comparison result are generated.

In step S1730-2, the processor 170 may execute a first evaluation process. When executing the second evaluation process, the processor 170 compares the 8th inspection score for the 8th inspection item with the 8th standard score, and if the 8th inspection score is less than the 8th standard score, the third comparison result can be created. As the third comparison result is generated, the processor 170 may evaluate whether there is a decline in cognitive function in the second neurocognitive category, that is, social cognition.

In step S1730-3, the processor 170 may execute a third evaluation process. When executing the third evaluation process, the processor 170 compares the 7th inspection score for the 7th inspection item with the 7th standard score, and if the 7th inspection score is less than the 7th standard score, the fourth comparison result can be created. The processor 170 may compare the 9th inspection score for the 9th inspection item with the 9th standard score, and generate a 5th comparison result according to the 9th inspection score being less than the 9th standard score. As one or more of the fourth and fifth comparison results are generated, the processor 170 may evaluate whether there is a decline in cognitive function in the third neurocognitive category, that is, language.

In step S1730-4, the processor 170 may execute a fourth evaluation process. When executing the fourth evaluation process, the processor 170 compares the fifth inspection score for the fifth inspection item with the fifth standard score, and if the fifth inspection score is less than the fifth standard score, the sixth comparison result can be created. The processor 170 may compare the sixth inspection score for the sixth inspection item with the sixth standard score, and generate a seventh comparison result according to the sixth inspection score being less than the sixth standard score. The processor 170 may evaluate whether there is a decline in cognitive function in the fourth neurocognitive category, that is, perception, as one or more of the sixth and seventh comparison results are generated.

In step S1730-5, the processor 170 may execute a fifth evaluation process. When executing the third evaluation process, the processor 170 compares the first inspection score for the first inspection item with the first reference score, and if the first inspection score is less than the first reference score, the eighth comparison result can be created. The processor 170 may compare the fourth inspection score for the fourth inspection item with the fourth standard score, and generate a ninth comparison result as the fourth inspection score is less than the fourth standard score. The processor 170 may compare the 10th inspection score for the 10th inspection item with the 10th standard score, and generate a 10th comparison result according to the 10th inspection score being less than the 10th standard score. The processor 170 may compare the 11th inspection score for the 11th inspection item with the 11th standard score, and generate an 11th comparison result according to the 11th inspection score being less than the 11th standard score. The processor 170 evaluates whether there is a decline in cognitive function in the fifth neurocognitive category, that is, attention execution, as one or more of the eighth comparison result, the ninth comparison result, the tenth comparison result, and the eleventh comparison result are generated. You can.

Embodiments according to the present invention described above may be implemented in the form of a computer program that can be executed through various components on a computer, and such a computer program may be recorded on a computer-readable medium. At this time, the media includes magnetic media such as hard disks, floppy disks, and magnetic tapes, optical recording media such as CD-ROMs and DVDs, magneto-optical media such as floptical disks, and ROM. , RAM, flash memory, etc., may include hardware devices specifically configured to store and execute program instructions.

Meanwhile, the computer program may be designed and configured specifically for the present invention, or may be known and available to those skilled in the art of computer software. Examples of computer programs may include not only machine language code such as that created by a compiler, but also high-level language code that can be executed by a computer using an interpreter or the like.

In the specification (particularly in the claims) of the present invention, the use of the term “above” and similar referential terms may refer to both the singular and the plural. In addition, when a range is described in the present invention, the invention includes the application of individual values within the range (unless there is a statement to the contrary), and each individual value constituting the range is described in the detailed description of the invention. It's the same.

Unless there is an explicit order or statement to the contrary regarding the steps constituting the method according to the invention, the steps may be performed in any suitable order. The present invention is not necessarily limited by the order of description of the above steps. The use of any examples or illustrative terms (e.g., etc.) in the present invention is merely to describe the present invention in detail, and unless limited by the claims, the scope of the present invention is limited by the examples or illustrative terms. It doesn't work. Additionally, those skilled in the art will recognize that various modifications, combinations and changes may be made depending on design conditions and factors within the scope of the appended claims or their equivalents.

Therefore, the spirit of the present invention should not be limited to the above-described embodiments, and the scope of the patent claims described below as well as all scopes equivalent to or equivalently changed from the scope of the claims are within the scope of the spirit of the present invention. It will be said to belong to

100: inspection device
200: user terminal
300: Network

Claims (11)

A test method for evaluating cognitive decline that is executed by a processor of a testing device for evaluating cognitive decline, comprising:
An inspection step of examining how well the user performs the mission presented for each of a plurality of inspection items and calculating an inspection score for each of the plurality of inspection items;
A category classification step of classifying at least one test item among the plurality of test items into one neurocognitive category among the plurality of neurocognitive categories; and
An evaluation step of evaluating whether there is a decline in cognitive function in the neurocognitive category based on the test scores for the test items classified into the neurocognitive category,
The inspection step is,
A second test step is to learn a word while providing preset category clues, run a test on the second test item to evaluate how much the learned word is remembered after a preset time, and calculate a second test score. Contains,
The second inspection step is,
2-1 inspection step; and
It includes a 2-2 test step that is executed after the execution of the 2-1 test step is completed and a preset time has elapsed,
The 2-1 inspection step is,
Showing a plurality of suggested words and providing a 2-1-1 instruction to select a word corresponding to the preset category clue among the plurality of suggested words;
Receiving a word selection result of selecting one of the plurality of suggested words in response to the 2-1-1 instruction;
Comparing the word selection result and the correct word to calculate a 2-1-1 test score;
providing a 2-1-2 instruction to recall and utter a word belonging to the preset category clue among the plurality of suggested words shown previously, without providing an example of the plurality of suggested words;
In response to the 2-1-2 instruction, the speech result for the word belonging to the preset category clue is received and converted into speech text, and the speech text is compared with the correct answer text to obtain the 2-1-2 test score. calculating step; and
Comprising the step of calculating the 2-1 inspection score by adding the 2-1-1 inspection score and the 2-1-2 inspection score,
Test method to evaluate cognitive decline. delete delete According to claim 1,
The 2-2 inspection step is,
Providing a 2-2-1 instruction to recall and utter a suggested word corresponding to the category clue among the plurality of suggested words shown when executing the 2-1 test step;
In response to the 2-2-1 instruction, receive a speech result for a suggested word corresponding to the category clue among the plurality of suggested words seen when executing the 2-1 inspection step and convert it into a speech text, Comparing the utterance text and the correct answer text to calculate a 2-2-1 test score;
Providing a 2-2-2 instruction to select, together with a preset suggested word, whether the preset suggested word is a word seen in a previous test;
Calculating a 2-2-2 test score by comparing the selection result and the correct word to determine whether the preset suggested word is a word seen in a previous test in response to the 2-2-2 instruction; and
Comprising the step of calculating the 2-2 inspection score by adding the 2-2-1 inspection score and the 2-2-2 inspection score.
Test method to evaluate cognitive decline. According to claim 1,
Before the 2-1 inspection step,
Further comprising providing a method of executing the 2-1 inspection step in text,
Before the 2-2 inspection step,
Further comprising providing a method of executing the 2-2 inspection step in text,
Test method to evaluate cognitive decline. According to claim 1,
The inspection step is,
Comprising a fourth test step of executing a test on a fourth test item to evaluate whether a preset suggested word and the color of the preset suggested word are correctly uttered and calculating a fourth test score;
The fourth inspection step is,
4-1 inspection step; and
Including a 42-2 inspection step that is executed after the execution of the 4-1 inspection step is completed,
Test method to evaluate cognitive decline. According to claim 6,
The 4-1 inspection step is,
Providing a 4-1 instruction showing the preset suggested word and two choice words, and instructing to select a word identical to the preset suggested word from the two choice words; and
In response to the 4-1 instruction, receiving a result of selecting the same word as the preset suggested word among the two selected words, and calculating a 4-1 test score by comparing the selected result with the correct answer. doing,
Test method to evaluate cognitive decline. According to claim 7,
The 4-2 inspection step is,
A step of providing a 4-2 instruction showing the preset suggested word and two color selected words and selecting a word having the same color as the preset suggested word from the two color selected words; and
In response to the 4-2 instruction, the result of selecting a word having the same color as the preset suggested word among the two color selection words is received, and the selected result is compared with the correct answer to calculate the 4-2 test score. Including the steps of:
Test method to evaluate cognitive decline. According to claim 6,
Before the 4-1 inspection step,
Providing a method of executing the 4-1 inspection step in text, and further comprising performing a practice inspection for the 4-1 inspection step,
Before the 4-2 inspection step,
Providing a method of executing the 4-2 inspection step in text, and further comprising performing a practice inspection for the 4-2 inspection step,
Test method to evaluate cognitive decline. A computer-readable recording medium storing a computer program for executing the method of any one of claims 1 and 4 to 9 using a computer. As a testing device for evaluating cognitive decline,
processor; and
a memory operably connected to the processor and storing at least one code to be executed by the processor;
When the memory is executed through the processor, the processor checks to what extent the processor performs the mission presented to the user for each of the plurality of inspection items, and calculates an inspection score for each of the plurality of inspection items. Run ,
Executing a category classification process to classify at least one test item among the plurality of test items into one neurocognitive category among the plurality of neurocognitive categories,
storing code that causes execution of an evaluation process to evaluate whether there is cognitive decline in the neurocognitive category based on test scores for the test items categorized in the neurocognitive category;
The memory allows the processor to:
When executing the test process, a test is performed on a second test item that learns a word while providing preset category clues and evaluates how much the learned word is remembered after a preset time, and a second test score is calculated. storing code that causes a second inspection process to be executed,
The second inspection process stores code that causes the second inspection process to include a 2-1 inspection process and a 2-2 inspection process that is executed after execution of the 2-1 inspection process is completed and a preset time has elapsed. And
The memory allows the processor to:
When executing the 2-1 inspection process, providing a 2-1-1 instruction to show a plurality of suggested words and select a word corresponding to the preset category clue among the plurality of suggested words,
Receiving a word selection result of selecting one of the plurality of suggested words in response to the 2-1-1 instruction,
Compare the word selection results with the correct word to calculate the 2-1-1 test score,
Provides a 2-1-2 instruction to recall and utter a word belonging to the preset category clue among the plurality of suggested words shown previously, without providing an example of the plurality of suggested words,
In response to the 2-1-2 instruction, the speech result for the word belonging to the preset category clue is received and converted into speech text, and the speech text is compared with the correct answer text to obtain the 2-1-2 test score. Calculate,
Storing a code that causes the 2-1 inspection score to be calculated by adding the 2-1-1 inspection score and the 2-1-2 inspection score,
A testing device to evaluate cognitive decline.

Images