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 67 out of 100. Prevention trials

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Effective learning in old age, particularly in those at risk for dementia, is essential for prolonging independent living. Individual variability in learning, however, is remarkable; that is, months of cognitive training to improve learning may be beneficial for some individuals but not others. So far, little is known about which neurophysiological mechanisms account for the observed variability in learning induced by cognitive training in older adults. By combining Lövdén et al.'s (2010, A theoretical framework for the study of adult cognitive plasticity. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 659-676) framework proposing the role of adaptation capacity in neuroplasticity and a neurovisceral integration model of the relationship between autonomic nervous system (ANS) and brain with a novel shapelet analytical approach that allows for accurate and interpretable analysis of time series data, we discovered an acute, ECG-derived ANS segment in response to cognitive training tasks at baseline that predicted learning outcomes from a 6-week cognitive training intervention. The relationship between the ANS segment and learning was robust in both cross-participant and cross-task analyses among a group of older adults with amnestic mild cognitive impairment. Furthermore, the revealed ANS shapelet significantly predicted training-induced neuroplasticity in the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex and select frontal regions during task fMRI. Across outcome measures, individuals were less likely to prospectively benefit from the cognitive training if their ECG data were more similar to this particular ANS segment at baseline. Our findings are among the first empirical evidence to confirm that adaptation capacity, indexed by ANS flexibility, predicts individual differences in learning and associated neuroplasticity beyond individual characteristics (e.g., age, education, neurodegeneration, total training).

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 67/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 11 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 3 of 3; Randomised / blinded 1 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 2 of 2. 39 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 67 of 100. Total 67 of 100.39 of the 58 points we could judge = 67 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a randomised controlled trial. Scored zero for sample size and effect reported 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 39 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 67 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Human brain mapping)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 11 / 12 A randomised controlled trial (from PubMed type “Randomized Controlled Trial”)
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 2020 — 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 3 / 3 Studied in people (pubmed indexes it as a clinical or observational study)
Randomised / blinded 1 / 2 Randomised (as stated in the record)
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 32510759)
Free to read 2 / 2 Free to read
Points 39 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 39 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 67 out of 100.
Total 67 / 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. The record names 8 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

APA 7th

Chen, Q., Yang, H., Rooks, B., Anthony, M., Zhang, Z., Tadin, D., et al. (2020). Autonomic flexibility reflects learning and associated neuroplasticity in old age. Human brain mapping. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.25034

Vancouver

Chen Q, Yang H, Rooks B, Anthony M, Zhang Z, Tadin D, et al. Autonomic flexibility reflects learning and associated neuroplasticity in old age. Human brain mapping. 2020. doi:10.1002/hbm.25034. PMID: 32510759.

BibTeX

@article{chen2020-32510759,
  author  = {Chen, Q. and Yang, H. and Rooks, B. and Anthony, M. and Zhang, Z. and Tadin, D. and Heffner, K. L. and Lin, F. V.},
  title   = {{Autonomic flexibility reflects learning and associated neuroplasticity in old age}},
  journal = {Human brain mapping},
  year    = {2020},
  doi     = {10.1002/hbm.25034},
  pmid    = {32510759},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.25034}
}

Related studies in Prevention trials

Also tagged “cognitive-function”

1,118 studies in the library carry the topic tag “cognitive-function”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 1,118 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Prevention trials

See all studies in Prevention trials →