Home › Research › Biomarkers
The effect of cognitive-motor dual-task training on cognitive function and plasma amyloid β peptide 42/40 ratio in healthy elderly persons: a randomized controlled trial
Yokoyama H, Okazaki K, Imai D, Yamashina Y, Takeda R, Naghavi N, Ota A, Hirasawa Y et al.. BMC geriatrics, 2015-05-28
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
Background Physical activity reduces the incidence and progression of cognitive impairment. Cognitive-motor dual-task training, which requires dividing attention between cognitive tasks and exercise, may improve various cognitive domains; therefore, we examined the effect of dual-task training on the executive functions and on plasma amyloid β peptide (Aβ) 42/40 ratio, a potent biomarker of Alzheimer's disease, in healthy elderly people. Methods Twenty-seven sedentary elderly people participated in a 12-week randomized, controlled trial. The subjects assigned to the dual-task training (DT) group underwent a specific cognitive-motor dual-task training, and then the clinical outcomes, including cognitive functions by the Modified Mini-Mental State (3MS) examination and the Trail-Making Test (TMT), and the plasma Aβ 42/40 ratio following the intervention were compared with those of the control single-task training (ST) group by unpaired t-test. Results Among 27 participants, 25 completed the study. The total scores in the 3MS examination as well as the muscular strength of quadriceps were equally improved in both groups after the training. The specific cognitive domains, "registration & recall", "attention", "verbal fluency & understanding", and "visuospatial skills" were significantly improved only in the DT group. Higher scores in "attention", "verbal fluency & understanding", and "similarities" were found in the DT group than in the ST group at post-intervention. The absolute changes in the total (8.5 ± 1.6 vs 2.4 ± 0.9, p = 0.004, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.75-3.39) and in the scores of "attention" (1.9 ± 0.5 vs -0.2 ± 0.4, p = 0.004, 95 % CI 2.25-9.98) were greater in the DT group than in the ST group. We found no changes in the TMT results in either group. Plasma Aβ 42/40 ratio decreased in both groups following the training (ST group: 0.63 ± 0.13 to 0.16 ± 0.03, p = 0.001; DT group: 0.60 ± 0.12 to 0.25 ± 0.06, p = 0.044), although the pre- and post-intervention values were not different between the groups for either measure. Conclusions Cognitive-motor dual-task training was more beneficial than single-task training alone in improving broader domains of cognitive functions of elderly persons, and the improvement was not directly due to modulating Aβ metabolism.
Key findings
- The subjects assigned to the dual-task training (DT) group underwent a specific cognitive-motor dual-task training, and then the clinical outcomes, including cognitive functions by the Modified Mini-Mental State (3MS) examination and the Trail-Making Test (TMT), and the plasma Aβ 42/40 ratio following the intervention were compared with those of the control single-task training (ST) group by unpaired t-test.
- Results Among 27 participants, 25 completed the study.
- The specific cognitive domains, "registration & recall", "attention", "verbal fluency & understanding", and "visuospatial skills" were significantly improved only in the DT group.
- We found no changes in the TMT results in either group.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Participants27
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 74/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a randomised controlled trial. Scored zero for 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, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 43 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 74 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (BMC geriatrics) |
| 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 | 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 | 1 / 5 | 2015 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 27 participants |
| 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 (participant count stated) |
| 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 | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 26018225) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 43 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 43 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 74 out of 100. |
| Total | 74 / 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. 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.
APA 7th
Yokoyama, H., Okazaki, K., Imai, D., Yamashina, Y., Takeda, R., Naghavi, N., et al. (2015). The effect of cognitive-motor dual-task training on cognitive function and plasma amyloid β peptide 42/40 ratio in healthy elderly persons: a randomized controlled trial. BMC geriatrics. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-015-0058-4
Vancouver
Yokoyama H, Okazaki K, Imai D, Yamashina Y, Takeda R, Naghavi N, et al. The effect of cognitive-motor dual-task training on cognitive function and plasma amyloid β peptide 42/40 ratio in healthy elderly persons: a randomized controlled trial. BMC geriatrics. 2015. doi:10.1186/s12877-015-0058-4. PMID: 26018225.
BibTeX
@article{yokoyama2015-26018225,
author = {Yokoyama, H. and Okazaki, K. and Imai, D. and Yamashina, Y. and Takeda, R. and Naghavi, N. and Ota, A. and Hirasawa, Y. and others},
title = {{The effect of cognitive-motor dual-task training on cognitive function and plasma amyloid β peptide 42/40 ratio in healthy elderly persons: a randomized controlled trial}},
journal = {BMC geriatrics},
year = {2015},
doi = {10.1186/s12877-015-0058-4},
pmid = {26018225},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-015-0058-4}
}
Related studies in Biomarkers
Also tagged “exercise-training”
125 studies in the library carry the topic tag “exercise-training”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 125 tagged studies.