Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Prevention trials

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Exercise programs involving aerobic and resistance training (i.e., multiple-modality) have shown promise in improving cognition and executive control in older adults at risk, or experiencing, cognitive decline. It is, however, unclear whether cognitive training within a multiple-modality program elicits an additive benefit to executive/cognitive processes. This is an important question to resolve in order to identify optimal training programs that delay, or ameliorate, executive deficits in persons at risk for further cognitive decline. In the present study, individuals with a self-reported cognitive complaint (SCC) participated in a 24-week multiple-modality (i.e., the M2 group) exercise intervention program. In addition, a separate group of individuals with a SCC completed the same aerobic and resistance training as the M2 group but also completed a cognitive-based stepping task (i.e., multiple-modality, mind-motor intervention: M4 group). Notably, pre- and post-intervention executive control was examined via the antisaccade task (i.e., eye movement mirror-symmetrical to a target). Antisaccades are an ideal tool for the study of individuals with subtle executive deficits because of its hands- and language-free nature and because the task's neural mechanisms are linked to neuropathology in cognitive decline (i.e., prefrontal cortex). Results showed that M2 and M4 group antisaccade reaction times reliably decreased from pre- to post-intervention and the magnitude of the decrease was consistent across groups. Thus, multi-modality exercise training improved executive performance in persons with a SCC independent of mind-motor training. Accordingly, we propose that multiple-modality training provides a sufficient intervention to improve executive control in persons with a SCC.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 38/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 0 of 12; Strength of evidence 1 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 2 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 0 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 22 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 38 of 100. Total 38 of 100.22 of the 58 points we could judge = 38 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 22 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 38 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 0 / 12 No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Strength of evidence 1 / 5 Rated “low” in our summary
Peer-review validation 10 / 10 Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent 2 / 5 2017 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 0 / 4 Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Effect reported 0 / 3 No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people 0 / 3 Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Randomised / blinded 0 / 2 No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited — / 7 No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score
Citations per year — / 5 No citation count or no year — left out of this score
Impact for its field and year — / 6 No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score
Cited by studies here — / 6 Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score
Still being cited — / 4 No yearly citation counts — left out of this score
Senior author's track record — / 4 Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record — / 3 No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score
Multi-centre collaboration — / 3 Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 27911298)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 22 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 22 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 38 out of 100.
Total 38 / 100 —

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

APA 7th

Heath, M., Shellington, E., Titheridge, S., Gill, D. P., & Petrella, R. J. (2017). A 24-Week Multi-Modality Exercise Program Improves Executive Control in Older Adults with a Self-Reported Cognitive Complaint: Evidence from the Antisaccade Task. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-160627

Vancouver

Heath M, Shellington E, Titheridge S, Gill DP, Petrella RJ. A 24-Week Multi-Modality Exercise Program Improves Executive Control in Older Adults with a Self-Reported Cognitive Complaint: Evidence from the Antisaccade Task. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. 2017. doi:10.3233/jad-160627. PMID: 27911298.

BibTeX

@article{heath2017-27911298,
  author  = {Heath, M. and Shellington, E. and Titheridge, S. and Gill, D. P. and Petrella, R. J.},
  title   = {{A 24-Week Multi-Modality Exercise Program Improves Executive Control in Older Adults with a Self-Reported Cognitive Complaint: Evidence from the Antisaccade Task}},
  journal = {Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD},
  year    = {2017},
  doi     = {10.3233/jad-160627},
  pmid    = {27911298},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-160627}
}

Related studies in Prevention trials

Similar studies

More on Prevention trials

See all studies in Prevention trials →