## 3 Results
### Satisfaction
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c} \hline \hline
**Patients** & **n (\%)** \\ \hline How was your experience with the COGNIVITRA system in an individual context? & \\ \hline Positive & 11 (91.7) \\ \hline Negative & 5 (41.7) \\ \hline Do you believe the system is an added value to your life? & \\ \hline Yes & 8 (66.7) \\ \hline No & 4 (33.3) \\ \hline What has changed in your daily routine with the introduction of COGNIVITRA? & \\ \hline Perceived cognitive improvement (memory, concentration) & 5 (41.7) \\ \hline No changes & 4 (33.3) \\ \hline Performed more cognitive training exercises & 2 (16.7) \\ \hline What are the advantages of the COGNIVITRA system? & \\ \hline Training the mind in different functions (attention, memory) & 5 (41.7) \\ \hline Learning new exercises & 3 (25.0) \\ \hline Including head and body movements to involve coordination & 1 (8.3) \\ \hline Possibility to check the results after the session & 1 (8.3) \\ \hline What are the disadvantages of the COGNIVITRA system? & \\ \hline No possibility to stop the game & 2 (16.7) \\ \hline Wrong movement detection & 2 (16.7) \\ \hline Some exercises can be stressful & 1 (8.3) \\ \hline Connecting the device requires technical knowledge & 1 (8.3) \\ \hline Repetitive exercises & 1 (8.3) \\ \hline Being aware of cognitive functions that the patient should improve & 1 (8.3) \\ \hline Visual impairment difficulties in interacting with the device & 1 (8.3) \\ \hline Including head and body movements to involve coordination & 1 (8.3) \\ \hline What aspects/functionalities do you think should be enhanced to improve COGNIVITRA? & \\ \hline Make it easier to interact with & 4 (33.3) \\ \hline Improve detection of movements & 2 (16.7) \\ \hline Improve the games & 2 (16.7) \\ \hline Provide adaptations to the interface for colorblind people & 1 (8.3) \\ \hline Add examples and clearer instructions regarding how to perform the exercises & 1 (8.3) \\ \hline
**Patients and caregivers** & \\ \hline Would you be willing to pay for COGNIVITRA? If so, how much would you be willing to pay? & \\ \hline No & 3 (25.0) \\ \hline Yes & 9 (75.0) \\ \hline Monthly (EUR 20–100) & 6 (66.7) \\ \hline Per session (EUR 6.5–30) & 3 (33.3) \\ \hline Purchase (EUR 50–200) & 3 (33.3) \\ \hline
**Professionals** & \\ \hline Make the interface and the avatar more friendly (graphic information, adding more colors, etc.) & 11 (64.7) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: Opinions about COGNIVITRA gathered from patients and professionals. For the T25-FW scale, a nonsignificant decrease in scores was observed after 6 weeks in both the one-task (from 6.0 \(\pm\) 2.0 to 5.5 \(\pm\) 1.1, \(p\) = 0.600) and two-task (from 6.9 \(\pm\) 2.3 to 6.4 \(\pm\) 1.6, \(p\) = 0.434) options. No significant differences were observed in the home study (from 6.8 \(\pm\) 2.5 to 5.5 \(\pm\) 0.9 in the one task option [\(p\) = 0.375] and from 6.8 \(\pm\) 1.9 to 6.1 \(\pm\) 1.0 [\(p\) = 0.405] in the two-tasks option) or clinical setting study (from 5.2 \(\pm\) 0.7 to 5.4 \(\pm\) 1.3 [\(p\) = 0.559] in the one task option and from 6.9 \(\pm\) 2.8 to 6.7 \(\pm\) 2.0 [\(p\) = 0.827] in the two-tasks option) (Figure 7). No statistically significant differences were reported in the MoCA scores, which ranged from 0 to 30, with slight improvements in both the overall study (from 24.6 \(\pm\) 3.2 to 25.0 \(\pm\) 3.8 after 6 weeks, \(p\) = 0.574) and clinical setting study (from 23.2 \(\pm\) 3.8 to 24.3 \(\pm\) 4.8  
Figure 6: Patient quality of life as measured through the VAS scale among the overall sample and patients from both the home study and the clinical setting study. Figure 7: Timed 25-Foot Walk scores for the patients at both baseline and after the 6-week study period. after 6 weeks, \(p=0.287\)). In the case of the home study, a small decrease in the MoCA score was observed (from 25.9 \(\pm\) 2.1 to 25.6 \(\pm\) 2.9 after 6 weeks, \(p=0.760\); Figure 8).