Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
The application of technology to improve cognition in older adults: A review and suggestions for future directions
Leung C, Wong KC, So WWY, Tse ZCK, Li D, Cao Y, Shum DHK.. PsyCh journal, 2022-06-08
Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology
The rapidly increasing worldwide population of older adults, along with the increasing prevalence of cognitive impairment and dementia in this population, is a growing health-care problem. As such, advances in technology-based cognitive interventions and games are playing an increasingly key role in preserving and improving older adults' cognitive function, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic when opportunities for face-to-face activities or training are few. In this paper, we summarize from previous studies systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the various types of technology used in cognitive interventions (namely, computerized cognitive training, virtual-reality interventions and robot-assisted interventions) and the empirical evidence on the effects of these technologies on global and specific cognitive functions in healthy and clinical populations of older adults (e.g., older adults with mild cognitive impairment or dementia). We also describe older adults' perceptions, experiences and acceptance of these technologies. Finally, we discuss the limitations, challenges and future avenues of research in this field.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Leung, C., Wong, K. C., So, W. W. Y., Tse, Z. C. K., Li, D., Cao, Y., et al. (2022). The application of technology to improve cognition in older adults: A review and suggestions for future directions. PsyCh journal. https://doi.org/10.1002/pchj.565
Vancouver
Leung C, Wong KC, So WWY, Tse ZCK, Li D, Cao Y, et al. The application of technology to improve cognition in older adults: A review and suggestions for future directions. PsyCh journal. 2022. doi:10.1002/pchj.565. PMID: 35675967.
BibTeX
@article{leung2022-35675967,
author = {Leung, C. and Wong, K. C. and So, W. W. Y. and Tse, Z. C. K. and Li, D. and Cao, Y. and Shum, D. H. K.},
title = {{The application of technology to improve cognition in older adults: A review and suggestions for future directions}},
journal = {PsyCh journal},
year = {2022},
doi = {10.1002/pchj.565},
pmid = {35675967},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1002/pchj.565}
}
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 names 7 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- The rapidly increasing worldwide population of older adults, along with the increasing prevalence of cognitive impairment and dementia in this population, is a growing health-care problem.
- As such, advances in technology-based cognitive interventions and games are playing an increasingly key role in preserving and improving older adults' cognitive function, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic when opportunities for face-to-face activities or training are few.
- In this paper, we summarize from previous studies systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the various types of technology used in cognitive interventions (namely, computerized cognitive training, virtual-reality interventions and robot-assisted interventions) and the empirical evidence on the effects of these technologies on global and specific cognitive functions in healthy and clinical populations of older adults (e.g., older adults with mild cognitive impairment or dementia).
- We also describe older adults' perceptions, experiences and acceptance of these technologies.
- Finally, we discuss the limitations, challenges and future avenues of research in this field.
Study details
- Study designmeta-analysis
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 71/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a meta-analysis pooling many studies. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported and studied in people 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 multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 41 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 71 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (PsyCh journal) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 12 / 12 | A meta-analysis pooling many studies |
| 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 | 3 / 5 | 2022 — within 6 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) |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | A review of other studies — randomization is not credited here |
| 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 |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 35675967) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 41 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 41 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 71 out of 100. |
| Total | 71 / 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 the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
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.