Home › Research › Prevention trials
Cognitive and neural plasticity in old age: A systematic review of evidence from executive functions cognitive training
Nguyen L, Murphy K, Andrews G.. Ageing research reviews, 2019-05-30
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Cognitive training is a popular intervention aimed at attenuating age-related cognitive decline, however, the effects of this intervention on brain structure and function have not been thoroughly explored. Core executive functions (working memory, inhibition, cognitive flexibility) are dependent upon prefrontal brain regions-one of the most vulnerable areas of age-related decline. They are also implicated in numerous cognitive processes and higher-order functions. Training executive functions should therefore promote cognitive and neural enhancements in old age. This systematic review examined the effects of executive functions training on brain and cognition amongst healthy older adults across 20 studies. Behavioral performance consistently improved on trained cognitive tasks, though mixed findings were reported for untrained tasks. Training-related structural changes were reported, evidenced through increases in grey matter and cortical volume. Functional changes were not consistent, though a general pattern of increased subcortical and decreased frontal and parietal activation emerged across studies, indicating that training may potentially reduce reliance on compensatory neural mechanisms. Training executive functions appears to promote cognitive and neural plasticity in old age, though further research is required to develop a more comprehensive framework which connects and elucidates the mechanisms underlying cognitive training, cognitive transfer, and cognitive aging.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Nguyen, L., Murphy, K., & Andrews, G. (2019). Cognitive and neural plasticity in old age: A systematic review of evidence from executive functions cognitive training. Ageing research reviews. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arr.2019.100912
Vancouver
Nguyen L, Murphy K, Andrews G. Cognitive and neural plasticity in old age: A systematic review of evidence from executive functions cognitive training. Ageing research reviews. 2019. doi:10.1016/j.arr.2019.100912. PMID: 31154013.
BibTeX
@article{nguyen2019-31154013,
author = {Nguyen, L. and Murphy, K. and Andrews, G.},
title = {{Cognitive and neural plasticity in old age: A systematic review of evidence from executive functions cognitive training}},
journal = {Ageing research reviews},
year = {2019},
doi = {10.1016/j.arr.2019.100912},
pmid = {31154013},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arr.2019.100912}
}
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
- This systematic review examined the effects of executive functions training on brain and cognition amongst healthy older adults across 20 studies.
- Behavioral performance consistently improved on trained cognitive tasks, though mixed findings were reported for untrained tasks.
- Training-related structural changes were reported, evidenced through increases in grey matter and cortical volume.
- Functional changes were not consistent, though a general pattern of increased subcortical and decreased frontal and parietal activation emerged across studies, indicating that training may potentially reduce reliance on compensatory neural mechanisms.
- Training executive functions appears to promote cognitive and neural plasticity in old age, though further research is required to develop a more comprehensive framework which connects and elucidates the mechanisms underlying cognitive training, cognitive transfer, and cognitive aging.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Prevention →
Study details
- Study designsystematic review
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 66/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a systematic review of all the studies on the question. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported and studied in people 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 multicenter 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 (Ageing research reviews) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 12 / 12 | A systematic review of all the studies on the question |
| Strength of evidence | 5 / 5 | Rated “high” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 2 / 5 | 2019 — 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) |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | A review of other studies — randomization is not credited here |
| 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 |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 31154013) |
| 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 the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Prevention trials
Also tagged “controlled”
1,116 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 1,116 tagged studies.