Research | MEVA by Mentage

How MEVA Is Designed

Five principles. Every one of them deliberate.

Real-world tasks

MEVA activities are drawn from everyday adult life: sorting, sequencing, recalling familiar things. Not abstract puzzles. Not colorful games built for children.

Consent-first sharing

When MEVA launches, users will always see their own engagement patterns first. Sharing with family or a provider is a deliberate, opt-in choice. Never automatic.

User-paced sessions

Every session moves at the user's pace. There are no time limits. No pressure. No penalty for going slowly.

One screen at a time

Each activity presents one clear task on one uncluttered screen. No competing information. No cognitive overload.

No scores. No rankings.

MEVA does not produce numeric scores for consumers. Engagement patterns are described in plain language. Nothing alarming. Nothing to misinterpret.

What Informed Our Design

We did not invent our approach. We built on what the research already showed.

Published research in aging and engagement has demonstrated that self-directed activity, real-world task engagement, and choice within structure produce measurably better engagement outcomes in older adults than passive or externally-directed interventions.

We used that body of work to answer specific design questions: what kinds of activities belong in MEVA, how sessions should be structured, and what choice and control look like for a 68-year-old on a tablet.

"MEVA's task architecture is informed by published Montessori-based engagement research for older adults. MEVA has not undergone independent clinical trials."

This distinction matters. The published research describes the design rationale. It does not establish that MEVA produces the same outcomes as the studies we drew from. Those are separate questions, and we will not conflate them.

Our Current Studies

Two independent IRB-approved studies. Both active. Both in progress.

Mentage is not building on theory. We are running structured research with independent institutional review. Here is what is active now.

Active

MEVA-WVP-001

Clinical partnership study in progress in North Carolina. IRB approved.

Study TypeTest-retest reliability and feasibility

SiteNorth Carolina clinical site

IRB OversightBRANY approved

EnrollmentActive

Expected Data2026-2027

Pre-enrollment

MEVA-PU-001

University-based usability study in IRB pipeline. Institutional partnership confirmed.

Study TypeUsability and engagement

PartnerPace University

IRB OversightInstitutional IRB process underway

EnrollmentPre-enrollment

Expected DataTBD

Research Progress

Stage 1 - Complete

Task architecture developed. Design informed by published aging and engagement research.

Stage 2 - In Progress

Two active studies underway. MEVA-WVP-001 enrolling at a North Carolina clinical site. MEVA-PU-001 in IRB pipeline at Pace University.

Stage 3 - Planned

Publication of findings. Expansion to additional institutional partners pending Stage 2 results.

Neither study has published results. We will share findings when they are available and not before. Study designs are available to institutional partners upon request.

What We Are Building Toward

Two questions we are investigating, and why we are telling you before we have the answers.

Mentage could wait until the data is published to talk about these questions. Most companies do. We think you deserve to know what we are working on and what we have not yet proven.

Question One

Does MEVA's task architecture perform consistently across ethnically and linguistically diverse populations?

Standard cognitive tools produce false positive rates of 21 to 79 percent in diverse groups (JAGS 2024). MEVA's task design was built with the intent to reduce literacy and cultural bias through real-world, language-light activities. Whether that design intent translates into measurably better performance across diverse populations is what our research will determine. We are not in a position to claim it does today.

Active investigation · No published results yet

Question Two

Does longitudinal engagement pattern tracking support better cognitive wellness conversations between older adults and their healthcare providers?

Our hypothesis is that when families and providers have access to a structured, week-over-week pattern record instead of a single-visit snapshot, the quality of the conversation changes. We are building the study design to test that hypothesis. We do not yet have the data to confirm it.

Active investigation · No published results yet

WHERE TO GO FROM HERE

For families

Start with the free Family Guide.

Plain language, no clinical jargon, one practical next step.

Get the Free Family Guide