Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
[Efficiency of computerized cognitive training for prevention of cognitive impairments and stimulation of neuroplasticity.]
I V Shirolapov, A V Zakharov, A A Shishkina, M S Sergeeva, Y S Komarova, N P Romanchuk, V M Bannov, O G Kuznetsova et al.. Advances in gerontology = Uspekhi gerontologii, 2024
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
Computerized cognitive training (CCT) is a rapidly developing area of cognitive rehabilitation at the intersection of information technology and healthcare, the constantly updated results of which can be successfully translated into practical application in clinical medicine and in particular in gerontology. The basis of CCT, as a non-invasive method of influencing the functional activity of the brain and the processes of neuroplasticity, is software for stimulating cognitive functions in order to improve their productivity. The level of scientific and practical interest in CCP technology is growing rapidly. The article reports on the current state of research on the use of CCT aimed at correcting cognitive impairment. The purpose of this work is to systematize the available scientific data in this area, as well as to promote further integration of research in the field of information technology into clinical practice, in particular, to study the potential of CCT as a promising therapeutic tool in the paradigm of successful aging and prevention of the progression of cognitive impairment. This noninvasive intervention may improve global cognitive function in patients with clinically defined impairments and during normal aging in cognitively healthy older adults. However, new studies with fully comparable protocols are needed to evaluate in more detail the duration of the effect and the effectiveness of CCT in preventing cognitive decline in the long term.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Shirolapov, I. V., Zakharov, A. V., Shishkina, A. A., Sergeeva, M. S., Komarova, Y. S., Romanchuk, N. P., et al. (2024). [Efficiency of computerized cognitive training for prevention of cognitive impairments and stimulation of neuroplasticity.]. Advances in gerontology = Uspekhi gerontologii.
Vancouver
Shirolapov IV, Zakharov AV, Shishkina AA, Sergeeva MS, Komarova YS, Romanchuk NP, et al. [Efficiency of computerized cognitive training for prevention of cognitive impairments and stimulation of neuroplasticity.]. Advances in gerontology = Uspekhi gerontologii. 2024. PMID: 39139113.
BibTeX
@article{shirolapov2024-39139113,
author = {Shirolapov, I V and Zakharov, A V and Shishkina, A A and Sergeeva, M S and Komarova, Y S and Romanchuk, N P and Bannov, V M and Kuznetsova, O G and others},
title = {{[Efficiency of computerized cognitive training for prevention of cognitive impairments and stimulation of neuroplasticity.]}},
journal = {Advances in gerontology = Uspekhi gerontologii},
year = {2024},
pmid = {39139113}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. This record has no DOI, so the citation leaves it out. 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
- Computerized cognitive training (CCT) is a rapidly developing area of cognitive rehabilitation at the intersection of information technology and healthcare, the constantly updated results of which can be successfully translated into practical application in clinical medicine and in particular in gerontology.
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 43/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people 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 24 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 43 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Advances in gerontology = Uspekhi gerontologii) |
| 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 | 4 / 5 | 2024 — within 3 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) |
| 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 39139113) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 24 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 24 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 43 out of 100. |
| Total | 43 / 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.