Home › Research › Prevention trials
Cognitive Training in the Elderly: Bottlenecks and New Avenues
Zokaei N, MacKellar C, Čepukaitytė G, Patai EZ, Nobre AC.. Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 2016-11-29
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Development of measures to preserve cognitive function or even reverse cognitive decline in the ever-growing elderly population is the focus of many research and commercial efforts. One such measure gaining in popularity is the development of computer-based interventions that "exercise" cognitive functions. Computer-based cognitive training has the potential to be specific and flexible, accommodates feedback, and is highly accessible. As in most budding fields, there are still considerable inconsistencies across methodologies and results, as well as a lack of consensus on a comprehensive assessment protocol. We propose that the success of training-based therapeutics will rely on targeting specific cognitive functions, informed by comprehensive and sensitive batteries that can provide a "fingerprint" of an individual's abilities. Instead of expecting a panacea from training regimens, focused and personalized training interventions that accommodate individual differences should be developed to redress specific patterns of deficits in cognitive rehabilitation, both in healthy aging and in disease.
Key findings
- As in most budding fields, there are still considerable inconsistencies across methodologies and results, as well as a lack of consensus on a comprehensive assessment protocol.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Prevention →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 38/100
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.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of cognitive neuroscience) |
| 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 27897677) |
| 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
Zokaei, N., MacKellar, C., Čepukaitytė, G., Patai, E. Z., & Nobre, A. C. (2017). Cognitive Training in the Elderly: Bottlenecks and New Avenues. Journal of cognitive neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01080
Vancouver
Zokaei N, MacKellar C, Čepukaitytė G, Patai EZ, Nobre AC. Cognitive Training in the Elderly: Bottlenecks and New Avenues. Journal of cognitive neuroscience. 2017. doi:10.1162/jocn_a_01080. PMID: 27897677.
BibTeX
@article{zokaei2017-27897677,
author = {Zokaei, N. and MacKellar, C. and Čepukaitytė, G. and Patai, E. Z. and Nobre, A. C.},
title = {{Cognitive Training in the Elderly: Bottlenecks and New Avenues}},
journal = {Journal of cognitive neuroscience},
year = {2017},
doi = {10.1162/jocn_a_01080},
pmid = {27897677},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01080}
}
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.