Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Dynamic Useful Field of View Training to Enhance Older Adults' Cognitive and Motor Function: A Pilot Study
Hudak EM, Bell KL, Hall C, Grismore LD, LaVere J, Edwards JD.. Journal of cognitive enhancement : towards the integration of theory and practice, 2021-07-07
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Useful Field of View (UFOV) computerized cognitive training improves older adults' gait speed and balance and reduces dementia risk. We investigated a new form of UFOV training requiring physical movement, Training Under Cognitive Kinematics (TUCK). We hypothesized TUCK would be acceptable, feasible, and potentially efficacious to improve UFOV Test- and motor performance. Sixty-nine older adults were randomized to TUCK, computerized UFOV training, or an active control group. Cognitive- and motor function were assessed before and immediately after the intervention period. Participants rated TUCK as enjoyable, engaging and satisfying, indicating acceptability. Eighty-five percent of participants completed TUCK, demonstrating feasibility. Overall, effect sizes for TUCK did not indicate greater efficacy than computerized UFOV training relative to controls. UFOV training showed effect sizes indicating improved balance as measured by Turn 360 ( d =0.37) and Optogait ( d =0.51-0.69) from pre- to post- training relative to controls. Incorporating movement into UFOV cognitive training did not enhance cognitive or motor functional gains. Future investigations are needed to elucidate the underlying mechanisms of UFOV cognitive training to enhance motor function. Research should continue to investigate the association of cognitive and motor function and interventions to improve these outcomes among older adults. The trial and planned analyses were pre-registered: https://osf.io/7utgw.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Hudak, E. M., Bell, K. L., Hall, C., Grismore, L. D., LaVere, J., & Edwards, J. D. (2021). Dynamic Useful Field of View Training to Enhance Older Adults' Cognitive and Motor Function: A Pilot Study. Journal of cognitive enhancement : towards the integration of theory and practice. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41465-021-00219-2
Vancouver
Hudak EM, Bell KL, Hall C, Grismore LD, LaVere J, Edwards JD. Dynamic Useful Field of View Training to Enhance Older Adults' Cognitive and Motor Function: A Pilot Study. Journal of cognitive enhancement : towards the integration of theory and practice. 2021. doi:10.1007/s41465-021-00219-2. PMID: 36211324.
BibTeX
@article{hudak2021-36211324,
author = {Hudak, E. M. and Bell, K. L. and Hall, C. and Grismore, L. D. and LaVere, J. and Edwards, J. D.},
title = {{Dynamic Useful Field of View Training to Enhance Older Adults' Cognitive and Motor Function: A Pilot Study}},
journal = {Journal of cognitive enhancement : towards the integration of theory and practice},
year = {2021},
doi = {10.1007/s41465-021-00219-2},
pmid = {36211324},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s41465-021-00219-2}
}
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
- Overall, effect sizes for TUCK did not indicate greater efficacy than computerized UFOV training relative to controls.
Study details
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 48/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, 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 28 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 48 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of cognitive enhancement : towards the integration of theory and practice) |
| 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 | 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 | 3 / 5 | 2021 — within 6 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 | 1 / 2 | Randomized (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 |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 36211324) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 28 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 28 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 48 out of 100. |
| Total | 48 / 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 Cognitive tests and assessment
Also tagged “motor-function”
2 studies in the library carry the topic tag “motor-function”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 2 tagged studies.