Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Efficacy of smartphone application-based multi-domain cognitive training in older adults without dementia
Jinju Cho, Dayeong An, Eunhye Cho, Daeun Kim, Ingyu Choi, Jihyun Cha, JongKwan Choi, Duk L Na et al.. Frontiers in aging neuroscience, 2023-11-23
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
Of 101 participants, 85 older adults without dementia (84.1%) who completed the study protocol were included in the statistical analysis. There were 41 participants (80.3%) in the intervention group and 44 participants (88.0%) in the control group. A two-way repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the cognitive scores over a 16-week period between the intervention and control groups. According to the CST results, the intervention group exhibited a statistically significant increase in the language subtest scores, specifically the phonemic word fluency test, compared to those of the control group. The fNIRS results revealed greater activation in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex during the STROOP incongruent task in the intervention group than did the control group. However, the effectiveness of cognitive training was not observed across a variety of rating scales, including everyday functioning, depression, self-efficacy, attention, and subjective memory complaints. This study revealed that a smartphone-based cognitive training application led to improvements in phonemic generative naming ability and activation of the prefrontal cortex in older adults without dementia. This study is meaningful because it confirmed that cognitive training is partially effective in enhancing frontal lobe function. It also provided information on the brain mechanisms related to the effects of cognitive training using fNIRS.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Cho, J., An, D., Cho, E., Kim, D., Choi, I., Cha, J., et al. (2023). Efficacy of smartphone application-based multi-domain cognitive training in older adults without dementia. Frontiers in aging neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2023.1250420
Vancouver
Cho J, An D, Cho E, Kim D, Choi I, Cha J, et al. Efficacy of smartphone application-based multi-domain cognitive training in older adults without dementia. Frontiers in aging neuroscience. 2023. doi:10.3389/fnagi.2023.1250420. PMID: 38076544.
BibTeX
@article{cho2023-38076544,
author = {Cho, Jinju and An, Dayeong and Cho, Eunhye and Kim, Daeun and Choi, Ingyu and Cha, Jihyun and Choi, JongKwan and Na, Duk L and others},
title = {{Efficacy of smartphone application-based multi-domain cognitive training in older adults without dementia}},
journal = {Frontiers in aging neuroscience},
year = {2023},
doi = {10.3389/fnagi.2023.1250420},
pmid = {38076544},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2023.1250420}
}
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
- Of 101 participants, 85 older adults without dementia (84.1%) who completed the study protocol were included in the statistical analysis.
- There were 41 participants (80.3%) in the intervention group and 44 participants (88.0%) in the control group.
- A two-way repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the cognitive scores over a 16-week period between the intervention and control groups.
- According to the CST results, the intervention group exhibited a statistically significant increase in the language subtest scores, specifically the phonemic word fluency test, compared to those of the control group.
- The fNIRS results revealed greater activation in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex during the STROOP incongruent task in the intervention group than did the control group.
Study details
- Participants51
- Effect size84.1%; 80.3%; 88.0%
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 52/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design 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, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 29 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 52 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Frontiers in aging neuroscience) |
| 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 | 3 / 5 | 2023 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 51 participants |
| Effect reported | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| 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 38076544) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 29 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 29 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 52 out of 100. |
| Total | 52 / 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 “computerized”
238 studies in the library carry the topic tag “computerized”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 238 tagged studies.