## 3 Results
### Satisfaction  
Among all participants, an overall satisfaction rating score of 7.8 \(\pm\) 1.7 (out of ten) was obtained, which increased to 7.9 \(\pm\) 1.0 and 8.3 \(\pm\) 0.4 after 6 and 12 weeks, respectively. However, nonsignificant differences were observed during this period. In addition, while the mean values increased in the home study (from 7.5 \(\pm\) 1.5 to 8.0 \(\pm\) 1.1 and 8.3 \(\pm\) 0.4), overall satisfaction among the participants in the clinical setting study decreased during the same time frame (from 8.5 \(\pm\) 1.9 to 7.8 \(\pm\) 1.0 and 8.0 \(\pm\) 0.0; Figure 4). Analyzing the data gathered via the UTAUT, with scores ranging from 1 to 7 for each item, the usefulness of the device was mainly praised among the performance expectancy items (5.3 \(\pm\) 1.4), with increases in productivity also resulting in an overall high score (4.5 \(\pm\) 1.9). With respect to effort expectancy, all the items resulted in good impressions, with the ease of developing the skills necessary to use COGNIVITRA obtaining higher values (6.0 \(\pm\) 1.5). For the social influence item, the participants thought that the management of the organization would support the use of the device (5.7 \(\pm\) 1.3), whereas in terms \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c} \hline \hline  & **Overall (n = 22)** & **Home Study (n = 14)** & **Clinical Setting Study** \\  & & & **(n = 8)** \\ \hline \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Windows**} \\ \hline Time realized, min (SD) & 18.3 (13.6) & 23.2 (15.3) & 11.3 (6.9) \\ \hline Total games played, n (SD) & 9.1 (6.0) & 11.2 (6.7) & 5.7 (2.4) \\ \hline Total errors, n (SD) & 2.8 (3.0) & 3.1 (3.4) & 2.3 (2.4) \\ \hline Errors/min, n (SD) & 0.1 (0.1) & 0.1 (0.1) & 0.2 (0.2) \\ \hline \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Trees**} \\ \hline Time realized, min (SD) & 13.5 (15.0) & 16.0 (17.5) & 8.9 (7.8) \\ \hline Total games played, n (SD) & 9.4 (6.0) & 10.6 (7.0) & 7.0 (2.9) \\ \hline Total errors, n (SD) & 2.7 (3.7) & 3.1 (4.3) & 1.8 (2.1) \\ \hline \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Errors/min, n (SD)**} & 0.1 (0.2) & 0.1 (0.2) & 0.1 (0.2) \\ \hline \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Mixed letters**} \\ \hline Time realized, min (SD) & 15.1 (14.1) & 15.1 (16.4) & 15.1 (10.3) \\ \hline Total games played, n (SD) & 7.9 (3.9) & 8.5 (5.1) & 7.2 (2.3) \\ \hline Total errors, n (SD) & 4.3 (3.5) & 4.7 (3.8) & 3.8 (3.6) \\ \hline \multicolumn{3}{c}{Errors/min, n (SD)} & 0.2 (0.2) & 0.2 (0.2) & 0.2 (0.2) \\ \hline \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Perception**} \\ \hline Time realized, min (SD) & 28.8 (31.0) & 34.9 (38.1) & 19.6 (13.2) \\ \hline Total games played, n (SD) & 20.7 (20.8) & 27.8 (24.9) & 11.9 (9.8) \\ \hline Total errors, n (SD) & 6.0 (4.3) & 7.0 (4.3) & 4.8 (4.3) \\ \hline Errors/min, n (SD) & 0.4 (0.3) & 0.4 (0.3) & 0.4 (0.4) \\ \hline \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Mirroredcolors**} \\ \hline Time realized, min (SD) & 8.7 (12.9) & 11.3 (15.2) & 4.7 (7.7) \\ \hline Total games played, n (SD) & 11.6 (10.5) & 14.3 (11.9) & 6.8 (6.2) \\ \hline Total errors, n (SD) & 3.1 (3.4) & 3.7 (3.8) & 2.0 (2.5) \\ \hline \multicolumn{3}{c}{Errors/min, n (SD)} & 0.3 (0.3) & 0.2 (0.2) & 0.4 (0.4) \\ \hline \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Mirroredsymbols**} \\ \hline Time realized, min (SD) & 21.2 (20.9) & 23.6 (26.2) & 17.0 (4.8) \\ \hline Total games played, n (SD) & 15.4 (12.7) & 19.8 (15.4) & 9.7 (4.6) \\ \hline Total errors, n (SD) & 4.6 (3.2) & 4.9 (3.6) & 4.3 (2.9) \\ \hline Errors/min, n (SD) & 0.3 (0.3) & 0.3 (0.3) & 0.3 (0.2) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: _Cont._of facilitating conditions, the participants felt that they had both the necessary resources (6.5 \(\pm\) 0.9) and knowledge (6.3 \(\pm\) 1.3) to use the tool. In terms of attitudes toward using the technology, the participants thought that using COGNIVITRA would be a good idea (6.4 \(\pm\) 1.0) and that working with it would be enjoyable (6.0 \(\pm\) 1.0), as well as they felt they would have the ability to complete a task using the system if someone taught them how to use it, with this self-efficacy item scoring high (6.1 \(\pm\) 1.4).