## 3 Results
### Usability and User Experience Evaluation  
In terms of usability, overall, higher SUS scores, which ranged from 0 to 100, were obtained among patients after 6 weeks compared to those at baseline, although the differences were not statistically significant (66.1 \(\pm\) 12.2 vs. 72.3 \(\pm\) 17.2, \(p\) = 0.061). However, these changes were different between the participants in the home study and clinical setting study. While significantly greater values were obtained in the former at 6 weeks than at baseline (65.0 \(\pm\) 14.9 vs. 79.0 \(\pm\) 10.9, \(p\) = 0.001), nonsignificant differences were reported in the clinical setting study participants (67.9 \(\pm\) 6.6 vs. 61.3 \(\pm\) 20.8, \(p\) = 0.545). Overall, after 6 weeks, higher values were reported for items such as ease of use of COGNIVITRA (2.9 \(\pm\) 1.5 vs. 3.9 \(\pm\) 1.0) and confidence in using the device (3.6 \(\pm\) 1.2 vs. 4.0 \(\pm\) 1.2), although significant differences were only obtained for the ease of use in the overall study (_p_ = 0.041) and home study (_p_ = 0.004) but not in the clinical setting study (_p_ = 0.611). On the other hand, overall values regarding difficulties in using COGNIVITRA, such as its complexity (2.4 \(\pm\) 1.3 vs. 2.2 \(\pm\) 1.3) or needing assistance (2.6 \(\pm\) 1.5 vs. 2.0 \(\pm\) 1.3) and the need to learn lots of things before using it (2.3 \(\pm\) 1.1 vs. 1.7 \(\pm\) 0.9), were lower (which means less difficulties using COGNIVITRA) after the 6-week period (Table 3). In the case of healthcare professionals, an overall SUS score of 68.9 \(\pm\) 12.2 was obtained, with these participants indicating the likelihood of frequent use of the device (4.1 \(\pm\) 0.8), noting its ease of use (3.7 \(\pm\) 1.3), ease of quickly learning how to use the tool, and confidence while using the product (3.6 \(\pm\) 1.1 for both; Table 4). For the ICF-US-I, in which the overall values ranged from \(-\)30 to 30, an overall score of 15.5 \(\pm\) 9.3 was obtained among all patients (Table 5). The items, which ranged from \(-\)3 to 3, concerning satisfaction with the use of the tool (1.9 \(\pm\) 0.8), ease of learning how to use it (1.8 \(\pm\) 1.1), how the application responded to the user's actions (1.8 \(\pm\) 1.1), and overall satisfaction (1.8 \(\pm\) 1.2), showed higher mean values. Overall, the ICF-US I scores were similar between participants from the home study and those from the clinical setting study (15.5 \(\pm\) 7.3 vs. 15.4 \(\pm\) 12.8), although some differences were observed among the items for which higher scores were obtained. In the home study, achieving the expected results (2.0 \(\pm\) 1.2), overall satisfaction (1.9 \(\pm\) 0.7), and the application's responsiveness (1.8 \(\pm\) 1.4) showed higher scores, whereas the participants in the clinical setting study primarily appreciated the application's use (2.3 \(\pm\) 0.7), responsiveness (1.9 \(\pm\) 0.6), and similarity in the operational mode of the different tasks (1.7 \(\pm\) 1.3). Among healthcare providers, overall satisfaction (1.8 \(\pm\) 0.8) and satisfaction with the use of the tool (1.7 \(\pm\) 1.2) scored the highest, with an overall ICF-US I score of 13.4 \(\pm\) 7.1 (Table 5). The ICF-US II was applied to three patients and five professionals. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline  & **Overall (n = 22)** & **Home Study (n = 14)** & **Clinical Setting Study (n = 8)** \\ \hline Timed 25-Foot Walk, mean seconds (SD) & & & \\ \hline One task & 6.5 (2.2) & 7.1 (2.7) & 5.8 (1.3) \\ \hline Two tasks & 7.7 (3.2) & 6.7 (1.8) & 8.6 (4.0) \\ \hline MoCA, mean score (SD) & 24.1 (3.2) & 25.0 (2.9) & 23.1 (3.4) \\ \hline \end{tabular} Note: MMSE: Mini Mental State Examination; MoCA: Montreal Cognitive Assessment Scale; SD: standard deviation.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: _Cont._