Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Effects of the abacus-based mental calculation training application "SoroTouch" on cognitive functions: A randomized controlled trial
Takaoka T, Hashimoto K, Aoki S, Inoue E, Kawate N.. PloS one, 2024-03-12
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
This study investigated the effect of a home-based computerized cognitive training program that utilizes a digital application for training abacus-based mental calculations, "SoroTouch," on the cognitive functions of healthy middle-aged and older people using a randomized controlled trial. The participants were 20 adults (aged 42-79 years) who were involved in community-based activities for dementia prevention held by a certain organization. The participants were assigned randomly to the intervention (SoroTouch) group or control group. The SoroTouch group received home-based cognitive training with SoroTouch, being asked to use the software every day for 6 months, while the control group did not receive any intervention. To investigate the effect of SoroTouch, CogEvo, a cognitive functions test battery utilizing a tablet device, was administered to all participants once per month during the 6-month intervention period. In addition, before and after the intervention, all participants were asked to take the CogEvo and the Japanese version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA-J). The analyses showed that the SoroTouch group did not improve total scores of the CogEvo and MoCA-J, but large group differences were observed in the two tasks of the CogEvo as follows: 'Follow the order' (modified Trail Making Test) at 2 months after the beginning of the intervention (group differences; 39.4, 95% confidence interval; 7.6-71.2) and 'Route 99' at 6 months (group differences; 39.6, 95% confidence interval; 4.9-74.4). These results provide evidence that a home-based computerized cognitive training program SoroTouch has the potential to improve working memory, attention and planning in healthy middle-aged and older adults.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Takaoka, T., Hashimoto, K., Aoki, S., Inoue, E., & Kawate, N. (2024). Effects of the abacus-based mental calculation training application "SoroTouch" on cognitive functions: A randomized controlled trial. PloS one. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0299201
Vancouver
Takaoka T, Hashimoto K, Aoki S, Inoue E, Kawate N. Effects of the abacus-based mental calculation training application "SoroTouch" on cognitive functions: A randomized controlled trial. PloS one. 2024. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0299201. PMID: 38470885.
BibTeX
@article{takaoka2024-38470885,
author = {Takaoka, T. and Hashimoto, K. and Aoki, S. and Inoue, E. and Kawate, N.},
title = {{Effects of the abacus-based mental calculation training application "SoroTouch" on cognitive functions: A randomized controlled trial}},
journal = {PloS one},
year = {2024},
doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0299201},
pmid = {38470885},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0299201}
}
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
- The analyses showed that the SoroTouch group did not improve total scores of the CogEvo and MoCA-J, but large group differences were observed in the two tasks of the CogEvo as follows: 'Follow the order' (modified Trail Making Test) at 2 months after the beginning of the intervention (group differences; 39.4, 95% confidence interval; 7.6-71.2) and 'Route 99' at 6 months (group differences; 39.6, 95% confidence interval; 4.9-74.4).
- These results provide evidence that a home-based computerized cognitive training program SoroTouch has the potential to improve working memory, attention and planning in healthy middle-aged and older adults.
Study details
- Study designrandomized controlled trial
- Participants20
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 79/100
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 46 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 79 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (PloS one) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| 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 | 2024 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 20 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 38470885) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 46 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 46 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 79 out of 100. |
| Total | 79 / 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 “application”
4 studies in the library carry the topic tag “application”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 4 tagged studies.