Home › Research › Prevention trials
Effects of virtual reality-based cognitive training in older adults living without and with mild dementia: a pretest-posttest design pilot study
Zając-Lamparska L, Wiłkość-Dębczyńska M, Wojciechowski A, Podhorecka M, Polak-Szabela A, Warchoł Ł, Kędziora-Kornatowska K, Araszkiewicz A et al.. BMC research notes, 2019-11-27
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Objective Modern technologies are increasingly used in the development of cognitive interventions for older adults. Research into possible applications of virtual reality in such interventions has begun only recently. The aim of present study was to evaluate the effects of 8 sessions of VR-based cognitive training using the GRADYS game in healthy older adults (n = 72; aged 60-88) and older adults living with mild dementia (n = 27; aged 60-89). Results Older adults with mild dementia demonstrated worse baseline cognitive performance than participants without dementia. Both groups showed progress in training, which was greater in healthy older adults. There were also significant differences in cognitive functioning before and after the training. However, positive changes were revealed almost exclusively in the group of older adults without dementia. Based on the findings, we can recommend the GRADYS game for cognitive enhancement and as a possible counter-measure for cognitive decline experienced in normal cognitive ageing. Our results provide also support for the usefulness of VR technology in cognitive interventions in older adults. The use of the GRADYS game in persons living with dementia, however, would require several of the hardware and software modifications. Trial registration ISRCTN17613444, date of registration: 10.09.2019. Retrospectively registered.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Zając-Lamparska, L., Wiłkość-Dębczyńska, M., Wojciechowski, A., Podhorecka, M., Polak-Szabela, A., Ł, W., et al. (2019). Effects of virtual reality-based cognitive training in older adults living without and with mild dementia: a pretest-posttest design pilot study. BMC research notes. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-019-4810-2
Vancouver
Zając-Lamparska L, Wiłkość-Dębczyńska M, Wojciechowski A, Podhorecka M, Polak-Szabela A, Ł W, et al. Effects of virtual reality-based cognitive training in older adults living without and with mild dementia: a pretest-posttest design pilot study. BMC research notes. 2019. doi:10.1186/s13104-019-4810-2. PMID: 31775849.
BibTeX
@article{zajaclamparska2019-31775849,
author = {Zając-Lamparska, L. and Wiłkość-Dębczyńska, M. and Wojciechowski, A. and Podhorecka, M. and Polak-Szabela, A. and Ł, Warchoł and Kędziora-Kornatowska, K. and Araszkiewicz, A. and others},
title = {{Effects of virtual reality-based cognitive training in older adults living without and with mild dementia: a pretest-posttest design pilot study}},
journal = {BMC research notes},
year = {2019},
doi = {10.1186/s13104-019-4810-2},
pmid = {31775849},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-019-4810-2}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results Older adults with mild dementia demonstrated worse baseline cognitive performance than participants without dementia.
- There were also significant differences in cognitive functioning before and after the training.
- However, positive changes were revealed almost exclusively in the group of older adults without dementia.
- Our results provide also support for the usefulness of VR technology in cognitive interventions in older adults.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Prevention →
Study details
- Participants72
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 48/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported 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 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 (BMC research notes) |
| 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 | 2019 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 72 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 | 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 31775849) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| 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 Prevention trials
Also tagged “controlled”
1,118 studies in the library carry the topic tag “controlled”; 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.