Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100. Cognitive tests and assessment

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Aims Previous neuroimaging studies of vascular cognitive impairment, no dementia (VCIND), have reported functional alterations, but far less is known about the effects of cognitive training on functional connectivity (FC) of intrinsic connectivity networks (ICNs) and how they relate to intervention-related cognitive improvement. This study provides comprehensive research on the changes in intra- and inter-brain functional networks in patients with VCIND who received computerized cognitive training, with a focus on the underlying mechanisms and potential therapeutic strategies. Methods We prospectively collected 60 patients with VCIND who were randomly divided into the training group (N = 30) receiving computerized cognitive training and the control group (N = 30) receiving fixed cognitive training. Functional MRI scans and cognitive assessments were performed at baseline, at the 7-week training, and at the 6-month follow-up. Utilizing templates for ICNs, the study employed a linear mixed model to compare intra- and inter-network FC changes between the two groups. Pearson correlation was applied to calculate the relationship between FC and cognitive function. Results We found significantly decreased intra-network FC within the default mode network (DMN) following computerized cognitive training at Month 6 (p = 0.034), suggesting a potential loss of functional specialization. Computerized training led to increased functional coupling between the DMN and sensorimotor network (SMN) (p = 0.01) and between the language network (LN) and executive control network (ECN) at Month 6 (p < 0.001), indicating compensatory network adaptations in patients with VCIND. Notably, the intra-LN exhibited enhanced functional specialization after computerized cognitive training (p = 0.049), with significant FC increases among LN regions, which correlated with improvements in neuropsychological measures (p < 0.05), emphasizing the targeted impact of computerized cognitive training on language abilities. Conclusions This study provides insights into neuroplasticity and adaptive changes resulting from cognitive training in patients with VCIND, with implications for potential therapeutic strategies.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Li, Q. G., Xing, Y., Zhu, Z. D., Fei, X. L., Tang, Y., & Lu, J. (2024). Effects of computerized cognitive training on functional brain networks in patients with vascular cognitive impairment and no dementia. CNS neuroscience & therapeutics. https://doi.org/10.1111/cns.14779

Vancouver

Li QG, Xing Y, Zhu ZD, Fei XL, Tang Y, Lu J. Effects of computerized cognitive training on functional brain networks in patients with vascular cognitive impairment and no dementia. CNS neuroscience & therapeutics. 2024. doi:10.1111/cns.14779. PMID: 38828650.

BibTeX

@article{li2024-38828650,
  author  = {Li, Q. G. and Xing, Y. and Zhu, Z. D. and Fei, X. L. and Tang, Y. and Lu, J.},
  title   = {{Effects of computerized cognitive training on functional brain networks in patients with vascular cognitive impairment and no dementia}},
  journal = {CNS neuroscience \& therapeutics},
  year    = {2024},
  doi     = {10.1111/cns.14779},
  pmid    = {38828650},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1111/cns.14779}
}

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

Study details

How this study scored 72/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 11 of 12; Strength of evidence 1 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 4 of 5; Sample size 1 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomised / blinded 1 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 2 of 2. 42 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 72 of 100. Total 72 of 100.42 of the 58 points we could judge = 72 of 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 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 42 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 72 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (CNS neuroscience & therapeutics)
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 4 / 5 2024 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 1 / 4 30 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 — / 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 38828650)
Free to read 2 / 2 Free to read
Points 42 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 42 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 72 out of 100.
Total 72 / 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 Cognitive tests and assessment

Also tagged “cognitive-training”

8 studies in the library carry the topic tag “cognitive-training”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 8 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Cognitive tests and assessment

See all studies in Cognitive tests and assessment →