Home › Research › Prevention trials
Can training in a real-time strategy video game attenuate cognitive decline in older adults?
Basak C, Boot WR, Voss MW, Kramer AF.. Psychology and aging, 2008-12-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Declines in various cognitive abilities, particularly executive control functions, are observed in older adults. An important goal of cognitive training is to slow or reverse these age-related declines. However, opinion is divided in the literature regarding whether cognitive training can engender transfer to a variety of cognitive skills in older adults. In the current study, the authors trained older adults in a real-time strategy video game for 23.5 hr in an effort to improve their executive functions. A battery of cognitive tasks, including tasks of executive control and visuospatial skills, were assessed before, during, and after video-game training. The trainees improved significantly in the measures of game performance. They also improved significantly more than the control participants in executive control functions, such as task switching, working memory, visual short-term memory, and reasoning. Individual differences in changes in game performance were correlated with improvements in task switching. The study has implications for the enhancement of executive control processes of older adults.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Basak, C., Boot, W. R., Voss, M. W., & Kramer, A. F. (2008). Can training in a real-time strategy video game attenuate cognitive decline in older adults? Psychology and aging. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013494
Vancouver
Basak C, Boot WR, Voss MW, Kramer AF. Can training in a real-time strategy video game attenuate cognitive decline in older adults? Psychology and aging. 2008. doi:10.1037/a0013494. PMID: 19140648.
BibTeX
@article{basak2008-19140648,
author = {Basak, C. and Boot, W. R. and Voss, M. W. and Kramer, A. F.},
title = {{Can training in a real-time strategy video game attenuate cognitive decline in older adults?}},
journal = {Psychology and aging},
year = {2008},
doi = {10.1037/a0013494},
pmid = {19140648},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013494}
}
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.
Key findings
- The trainees improved significantly in the measures of game performance.
- They also improved significantly more than the control participants in executive control functions, such as task switching, working memory, visual short-term memory, and reasoning.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Prevention →
Study details
- Effect sizeor 23.5
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 66/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a randomised controlled trial. Scored zero for sample size 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 38 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 66 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Psychology and aging) |
| 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 | 1 / 5 | 2008 — within 20 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 | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| 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 19140648) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 38 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 38 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 66 out of 100. |
| Total | 66 / 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.
Related studies in Prevention trials
Also tagged “controlled”
1,118 studies in the library carry the topic tag “controlled”; 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.