## 6 Conclusions  
The twofold research question that guided this experiment was \"Are there significant differences in mobile-device use among groups of people of different ages, and are they more characteristic when the interaction takes place on the move?\". Two hypotheses were formulated on the basis of this question.  
First, the aim was to check whether there are tasks performed on a smartphone that present different performance depending on the user's age. Statistically, there is a strong correlation between age and lower mobile device usage, with older adults using financial apps to a greater extent and entertainment, communication, and shopping apps to a lesser extent.  
The second hypothesis, regarding the characterization of usage taking into account differences while stationary and moving, showed that the difference in some communication tasks was particularly significant, with older adults characteristically performing significantly fewer actions on the move, such as opening conversations, viewing or sending multimedia items, or commenting on social network posts. In writing, older adults had a slower speed of writing and tended to correct more errors.  
In addition to these findings, the article provides a user profiling model that is used to classify them based on their mobile phone usage and age. Currently, this model, although it has been proven to classify with some effectiveness, requires a larger dataset. In any case, it has been shown to be a powerful tool for the future goal of helping to screen for cognitive impairments.  
Finally, an important contribution of this article is the dataset generated with more than 4.5 million interactions recorded for mobile phone use, from a total of 45 people. Considering only the data of people for whom a full, uninterrupted week was obtained, the dataset includes data from 29 users and more than 3.8 million records.  
Future work will focus on intra-user and long-term studies in which changes in mobile device use can be observed in the same person. These would make it possible to study causality in terms of cognitive decline. The present work lays the foundations for such a future study, providing as contributions the validity of the tools and methods applied in the present work.  
Conceptualization, R.H. and L.C.; methodology, R.H. and L.C.; software, L.C. and A.B.; validation, L.V., T.M. and R.H.; formal analysis, L.C. and A.B.; investigation, R.H., L.C. and A.B.; resources, L.V. and T.M.; data curation, L.V. and A.B.; writing--original draft preparation, L.C. and R.H.; writing--review and editing, R.H., A.B. and L.C.; visualization, L.C. and A.B.; supervision, R.H. and T.M.; project administration, R.H.; funding acquisition, R.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.  
This research was funded by the MINISTERIO DE CIENCIA, INNOVACION Y UNIVERSIDADES, grant number RTI2018-098780-B-I00 (national research project); the SSITH project, under Proyectos Prueba de Concepto (PDC2022-133457-100), and EQC2019-006053-P (WeCareLab), both funded by MINISTERIO DE CIENCIA, INNOVACION; and the S1911001D predoctoral contract by JUNTA DE COMUNIDADES DE CSTILLA-LA MANCHA.  
The authors assert that all procedures contributing to this work were accomplished in line with the ethical standards of the relevant national and institutional committees on human experimentation and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2008.  
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.  
The dataset generated and analyzed for this study can be found in LINK WILL BE PROVIDED IN FINAL VERSION.  
We would like to especially thank the people who helped us by participating in this experiment. Many thanks to [PERSON] for the technical support in the development of BIPApp.  
The authors declare no conflict of interest.