Cognition Assessment in Virtual Reality (CAVIR): Associations with neuropsychological performance and activities of daily living in patients with mood or psychosis spectrum disorders.

Background: More ecologically valid tools are needed to better capture daily-life cognitive impairments in patients with mood or psychosis spectrum disorders in clinical settings and cognitive treatment trials. We developed the Cognition Assessment in Virtual Reality (CAVIR) test, which assesses daily-life cognitive skills in an immersive virtual reality kitchen scenario. This study investigated the validity and sensitivity of CAVIR, including its association with activities of daily living (ADL) ability.
Methods: 70 symptomatically stable patients with mood or psychosis spectrum disorders and 70 healthy controls completed CAVIR and standard neuropsychological tests and were rated for clinical symptoms, functional capacity, and subjective cognition. In addition, patients' ADL ability was evaluated with the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills (AMPS).
Results: Higher global CAVIR performance correlated moderately with better global neuropsychological test scores (r _s (138) = 0.60, p < 0.001) and showed a weak to moderate association with better ADL process ability in patients (r(45) = 0.40, p < 0.01), also after adjusting for sex and age (p _s  ≤ 0.03). In comparison, neuropsychological performance, interviewer- and performance-based functional capacity, and subjective cognition were not significantly associated with ADL process ability (p _s  ≥ 0.09). Further, CAVIR was sensitive to cognitive impairments in patients and was able to differentiate between patients with and without the ability to undertake regular employment.
Limitations: The modest sample size and concomitant medication.
Conclusion: Our results indicate that CAVIR is a sensitive measure of daily-life cognitive skills in patients with mood or psychosis spectrum disorders.
Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Kamilla Miskowiak has received consultancy fees from Lundbeck, Angelini, Gedeon Richter, and Janssen-Cilag in the past four years, and Maj Vinberg has received consultancy fees from Lundbeck and Janssen-Cilag within the past three years. The remaining authors report no conflicts of interest.
(Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier B.V.)