Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
The effect of tablet-based multimodal training on cognitive functioning in Alzheimer's disease: A randomized controlled trial
Julia Zuschnegg, Stefan Ropele, Peter Opriessnig, Reinhold Schmidt, Silvia Russegger, Maria Fellner, Manuel Leitner, Stephan Spat et al.. PloS one, 2025-08-13
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
Over six months, the intervention group showed a stable global cognitive function score (Mini Mental Status Examination), whereas the control group showed a cognitive decline (ANCOVA-interaction: F1, 14 = 5.083, p = .041; controlled for disease duration and education). No other selective cognitive domain showed a significant time-by-group difference. No difference in cerebral volumes were detected. The tablet-based multimodal training with cognitive and physical activation has positive effects on global cognitive functions of people with mild to moderate AD over a six-month training period, but lacks measurable transferability to other cognitive domains such as memory, attention or executive functions or brain structure. Further research on such interventions using high-quality longitudinal designs is recommended. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04628702).
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Zuschnegg, J., Ropele, S., Opriessnig, P., Schmidt, R., Russegger, S., Fellner, M., et al. (2025). The effect of tablet-based multimodal training on cognitive functioning in Alzheimer's disease: A randomized controlled trial. PloS one. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0329931
Vancouver
Zuschnegg J, Ropele S, Opriessnig P, Schmidt R, Russegger S, Fellner M, et al. The effect of tablet-based multimodal training on cognitive functioning in Alzheimer's disease: A randomized controlled trial. PloS one. 2025. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0329931. PMID: 40802794.
BibTeX
@article{zuschnegg2025-40802794,
author = {Zuschnegg, Julia and Ropele, Stefan and Opriessnig, Peter and Schmidt, Reinhold and Russegger, Silvia and Fellner, Maria and Leitner, Manuel and Spat, Stephan and others},
title = {{The effect of tablet-based multimodal training on cognitive functioning in Alzheimer's disease: A randomized controlled trial}},
journal = {PloS one},
year = {2025},
doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0329931},
pmid = {40802794},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0329931}
}
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.
Key findings
- Over six months, the intervention group showed a stable global cognitive function score (Mini Mental Status Examination), whereas the control group showed a cognitive decline (ANCOVA-interaction: F1, 14 = 5.083, p = .041; controlled for disease duration and education).
- No other selective cognitive domain showed a significant time-by-group difference.
- No difference in cerebral volumes were detected.
- The tablet-based multimodal training with cognitive and physical activation has positive effects on global cognitive functions of people with mild to moderate AD over a six-month training period, but lacks measurable transferability to other cognitive domains such as memory, attention or executive functions or brain structure.
- Further research on such interventions using high-quality longitudinal designs is recommended.
Study details
- Study designrandomized controlled trial
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 77/100
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, institution's track record, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 43 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 77 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (PloS one) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 11 / 12 | A randomised 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 | 4 / 5 | 2025 — 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 | 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 | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 40802794) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 43 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 43 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 77 out of 100. |
| Total | 77 / 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.