Home › Research › Prevention trials
Is Computerized Working Memory Training Effective in Healthy Older Adults? Evidence from a Multi-Site, Randomized Controlled Trial
Simon SS, Tusch ES, Feng NC, Håkansson K, Mohammed AH, Daffner KR.. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD, 2018-01-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Background Developing effective interventions to attenuate age-related cognitive decline and prevent or delay the onset of dementia are major public health goals. Computerized cognitive training (CCT) has been marketed increasingly to older adults, but its efficacy remains unclear. Working memory (WM), a key determinant of higher order cognitive abilities, is susceptible to age-related decline and a relevant target for CCT in elders. Objective To evaluate the efficacy of CCT focused on WM compared to an active control condition in healthy older adults. Methods Eighty-two cognitively normal adults from two sites (USA and Sweden) were randomly assigned to Cogmed Adaptive or Non-Adaptive (active control) CCT groups. Training was performed in participants' homes, five days per week over five weeks. Changes in the performance of the Cogmed trained tasks, and in five neuropsychological tests (Trail Making Test Part A and Part B, Digit Symbol, Controlled Oral Word Association Test and Semantic Fluency) were used as outcome measures. Results The groups were comparable at baseline. The Adaptive group showed robust gains in the trained tasks, and there was a time-by-group interaction for the Digit Symbol test, with significant improvement only after Adaptive training. In addition, the magnitude of the intervention effect was similar at both sites. Conclusion Home-based CCT Adaptive WM training appears more effective than Non-Adaptive training in older adults from different cultural backgrounds. We present evidence of improvement in trained tasks and on a demanding untrained task dependent upon WM and processing speed. The benefits over the active control group suggest that the Adaptive CCT gains were linked to providing a continuously challenging level of WM difficulty.
Key findings
- Objective To evaluate the efficacy of CCT focused on WM compared to an active control condition in healthy older adults.
- Results The groups were comparable at baseline.
- The Adaptive group showed robust gains in the trained tasks, and there was a time-by-group interaction for the Digit Symbol test, with significant improvement only after Adaptive training.
- The benefits over the active control group suggest that the Adaptive CCT gains were linked to providing a continuously challenging level of WM difficulty.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Prevention →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 64/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a randomised controlled trial. Scored zero for sample size and 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 and institution's track record, so those were left out: it earned 39 of the 61 points we could judge it on, which is 64 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD) |
| 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 | 2 / 5 | 2018 — within 10 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 | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (pubmed indexes it as a clinical or observational study) |
| 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 | 2 / 3 | PubMed indexes it as a multicentre study |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 30103334) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 39 / 61 | Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 39 of the 61 points we could judge it on is 64 out of 100. |
| Total | 64 / 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.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
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.
APA 7th
Simon, S. S., Tusch, E. S., Feng, N. C., Håkansson, K., Mohammed, A. H., & Daffner, K. R. (2018). Is Computerized Working Memory Training Effective in Healthy Older Adults? Evidence from a Multi-Site, Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-180455
Vancouver
Simon SS, Tusch ES, Feng NC, Håkansson K, Mohammed AH, Daffner KR. Is Computerized Working Memory Training Effective in Healthy Older Adults? Evidence from a Multi-Site, Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. 2018. doi:10.3233/jad-180455. PMID: 30103334.
BibTeX
@article{simon2018-30103334,
author = {Simon, S. S. and Tusch, E. S. and Feng, N. C. and Håkansson, K. and Mohammed, A. H. and Daffner, K. R.},
title = {{Is Computerized Working Memory Training Effective in Healthy Older Adults? Evidence from a Multi-Site, Randomized Controlled Trial}},
journal = {Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD},
year = {2018},
doi = {10.3233/jad-180455},
pmid = {30103334},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-180455}
}