Home › Research › Prevention trials
The Effect of Baseline Performance and Age on Cognitive Training Improvements in Older Adults: A Qualitative Review
Shaw JS, Hosseini SMH.. The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease, 2021-01-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Findings that the brain is capable of plasticity up until old age have led to interest in the use of cognitive training as a potential intervention to delay the onset of dementia. However, individuals participating in training regimens differ greatly with respect to their outcomes, demonstrating the importance of considering individual differences, in particular age and baseline performance in a cognitive domain, when evaluating the effectiveness of cognitive training. In this review, we summarize existing literature on cognitive training in adults across the domains of episodic memory, working memory and the task-switching component of executive functioning to clarify the picture on the impact of age and baseline performance on cognitive training-related improvements. Studies targeting episodic memory induced greater improvements in younger adults with more intact cognitive abilities, explained in part by factors specific to episodic memory training. By contrast, older, lower baseline performance adults improved most in several studies targeting working memory in older individuals as well as in the majority of studies targeting executive functioning, suggesting the preservation of neural plasticity in these domains until very old age. Our findings can have important implications for informing the design of future interventions for enhancing cognitive functions in individuals at the prodromal stage of Alzheimer's Disease and potentially delaying the clinical onset of Alzheimer's Disease. Future research should more clearly stratify individuals according to their baseline cognitive abilities and assign specialized, skill-specific cognitive training regimens in order to directly answer the question of how individual differences impact training effectiveness.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Shaw, J. S., & Hosseini, S. M. H. (2021). The Effect of Baseline Performance and Age on Cognitive Training Improvements in Older Adults: A Qualitative Review. The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease. https://doi.org/10.14283/jpad.2020.55
Vancouver
Shaw JS, Hosseini SMH. The Effect of Baseline Performance and Age on Cognitive Training Improvements in Older Adults: A Qualitative Review. The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease. 2021. doi:10.14283/jpad.2020.55. PMID: 33336231.
BibTeX
@article{shaw2021-33336231,
author = {Shaw, J. S. and Hosseini, S. M. H.},
title = {{The Effect of Baseline Performance and Age on Cognitive Training Improvements in Older Adults: A Qualitative Review}},
journal = {The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease},
year = {2021},
doi = {10.14283/jpad.2020.55},
pmid = {33336231},
url = {https://doi.org/10.14283/jpad.2020.55}
}
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.
Key findings
- Our findings can have important implications for informing the design of future interventions for enhancing cognitive functions in individuals at the prodromal stage of Alzheimer's Disease and potentially delaying the clinical onset of Alzheimer's Disease.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Prevention →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 40/100
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 and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 23 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 40 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease) |
| 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 | 2021 — 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) |
| 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 33336231) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 23 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 23 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 40 out of 100. |
| Total | 40 / 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.