Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Comparing Traditional and Technology-Based Methods for Executive Function and Attention Training in Moderate Alzheimer's Dementia
Jesús González-Moreno, Encarnación Satorres, Juan C. Meléndez, Gema Soria-Urios. Psicothema, 2025-01-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
The interventions proved effective in improving executive functions. The model for backward digits and categorical fluency was optimized with MMSE scores, highlighting the benefits of good cognitive performance and the negative impacts of age on categorical fluency. The similarity-abstraction variable demonstrated the beneficial effects of education and cognitive performance. Cognitive training is a valuable tool for improving executive functions and attention in moderate Alzheimer's, indicating significant practical benefits. Future research should focus on the mechanisms of skill transfer to optimize interventions and improve the quality of life for those affected.
Key findings
- The interventions proved effective in improving executive functions.
- The model for backward digits and categorical fluency was optimized with MMSE scores, highlighting the benefits of good cognitive performance and the negative impacts of age on categorical fluency.
- The similarity-abstraction variable demonstrated the beneficial effects of education and cognitive performance.
- Cognitive training is a valuable tool for improving executive functions and attention in moderate Alzheimer's, indicating significant practical benefits.
- Future research should focus on the mechanisms of skill transfer to optimize interventions and improve the quality of life for those affected.
Why it matters
In this randomized controlled trial, cognitive training improved executive functions and attention in people with moderate Alzheimer's dementia, with MMSE scores, age, and education influencing some outcomes. The authors conclude cognitive training is a valuable tool for these functions, but this is about managing symptoms, not curing or preventing the disease.
Study details
- Study designrandomized controlled trial
- Participants112
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 58/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a randomised controlled trial. Scored zero for effect reported because the record does not state it. We have no data on senior author's track record, so that was left out: it earned 56 of the 96 points we could judge it on, which is 58 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Psicothema) |
| Journal's citation record | 1 / 4 | Psicothema: journal h-index 77 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29) |
| Study design | 11 / 12 | A randomised controlled trial |
| 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 | 4 / 5 | 2025 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 112 participants |
| 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 (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 1 / 2 | Randomised (as stated in the record) |
| Times cited | 2 / 7 | Cited 5 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 1 / 5 | 1.7 citations a year over 3 year(s) since 2025 |
| Impact for its field and year | 3 / 6 | Cited 3.2× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI) |
| Cited by studies here | 1 / 6 | Cited by 1 other studies in this library |
| Still being cited | 1 / 4 | Cited 5 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | OpenAlex's profile for last-listed author Gema Soria-Urios holds only 4 work(s), too few to judge a track record — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | 0 / 3 | Valencian International University: institution h-index 69 (OpenAlex) |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 0 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 1 institution(s) in 1 country — scores zero (affiliation lists can be incomplete) |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 39840773) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 56 / 96 | Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 56 of the 96 points we could judge it on is 58 out of 100. |
| Total | 58 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).
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
González-Moreno, J., Satorres, E., Meléndez, J. C., & Soria-Urios, G. (2025). Comparing Traditional and Technology-Based Methods for Executive Function and Attention Training in Moderate Alzheimer's Dementia. Psicothema. https://doi.org/10.70478/psicothema.2025.37.05
Vancouver
González-Moreno J, Satorres E, Meléndez JC, Soria-Urios G. Comparing Traditional and Technology-Based Methods for Executive Function and Attention Training in Moderate Alzheimer's Dementia. Psicothema. 2025. doi:10.70478/psicothema.2025.37.05. PMID: 39840773.
BibTeX
@article{gonzalezmoreno2025-39840773,
author = {González-Moreno, Jesús and Satorres, Encarnación and Meléndez, Juan C. and Soria-Urios, Gema},
title = {{Comparing Traditional and Technology-Based Methods for Executive Function and Attention Training in Moderate Alzheimer's Dementia}},
journal = {Psicothema},
year = {2025},
doi = {10.70478/psicothema.2025.37.05},
pmid = {39840773},
url = {https://doi.org/10.70478/psicothema.2025.37.05}
}
Studies this one cites
Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here.
Later studies that cite this one
1 study in the alzhub library lists this one in its references.