2016
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0153952
|View full text |Cite|
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Computerized Test of Design Fluency

Abstract: Tests of design fluency (DF) assess a participant’s ability to generate geometric patterns and are thought to measure executive functions involving the non-dominant frontal lobe. Here, we describe the properties of a rapidly administered computerized design-fluency (C-DF) test that measures response times, and is automatically scored. In Experiment 1, we found that the number of unique patterns produced over 90 s by 180 control participants (ages 18 to 82 years) correlated with age, education, and daily comput… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
10
0
1

Year Published

2016
2016
2025
2025

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

3
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 48 publications
1
10
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Each CCAB test session included the following additional computerized tests and questionnaires: Finger tapping (Hubel et al, 2013a,b), simple reaction time (Woods et al, 2015a,d), Stroop, digit span forward and backward (Woods et al, 2011a,b), verbal fluency (Woods et al, 2016a), visuospatial span (Woods et al, 2015c,e), trail making (Woods et al, 2015b), vocabulary, design fluency (Woods et al, 2016b), the Wechsler Test of Adult Reading (WTAR), choice reaction time (Woods et al, 2015a,f), risk and loss avoidance, delay discounting, the Paced Auditory Serial Addition Task (PASAT) (Woods et al, under review), the Cognitive Failures Questionnaire (CFQ) and the Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist (PCL)(Woods et al, 2015g), and a local traumatic brain injury (TBI) questionnaire. Testing was performed in a quiet room using a pair of headphones and a Windows computer controlled by Presentation® software (Versions 13 and 14, NeuroBehavioral Systems, Berkeley CA).…”
Section: Experiments 1: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Each CCAB test session included the following additional computerized tests and questionnaires: Finger tapping (Hubel et al, 2013a,b), simple reaction time (Woods et al, 2015a,d), Stroop, digit span forward and backward (Woods et al, 2011a,b), verbal fluency (Woods et al, 2016a), visuospatial span (Woods et al, 2015c,e), trail making (Woods et al, 2015b), vocabulary, design fluency (Woods et al, 2016b), the Wechsler Test of Adult Reading (WTAR), choice reaction time (Woods et al, 2015a,f), risk and loss avoidance, delay discounting, the Paced Auditory Serial Addition Task (PASAT) (Woods et al, under review), the Cognitive Failures Questionnaire (CFQ) and the Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist (PCL)(Woods et al, 2015g), and a local traumatic brain injury (TBI) questionnaire. Testing was performed in a quiet room using a pair of headphones and a Windows computer controlled by Presentation® software (Versions 13 and 14, NeuroBehavioral Systems, Berkeley CA).…”
Section: Experiments 1: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Each CCAB test session included the following computerized tests and questionnaires: finger tapping [73, 74], simple reaction time [75, 76], Stroop, digit span forward and backward [77, 78], verbal list learning, visuospatial span [79, 80], trail making [81], vocabulary, design fluency [82], the Wechsler Test of Adult Reading (WTAR), choice reaction time [75, 83], risk and loss avoidance, delay discounting, the Paced Auditory Serial Addition Task (PASAT) [84], the Cognitive Failures Questionnaire (CFQ) and the Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist (PCL) [85], and a local traumatic brain injury questionnaire. Testing was performed in a quiet room using a standard Personal Computer (PC) controlled by Presentation® software (Versions 13 and 14, NeuroBehavioral Systems, Berkeley CA).…”
Section: Experiments 1 Demographic Influences On Verbal Fluencymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The assessment lasted about 5 min (i.e. 4 rounds of 60 s), and the dependent measure was the number of unique created patterns (for a detailed description see Woods, Wyma, Herron, & Yund, 2016).…”
Section: Higher-level Executive Function Testmentioning
confidence: 99%