Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 78 out of 100. Prevention trials

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Background Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is a stage preceding dementia, and early intervention is critical. This study investigated whether multi-domain cognitive training programs, especially robot-assisted training, conducted 12 times, twice a week for 6 weeks can improve cognitive function and depression decline in community-dwelling older adults with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Methods A randomized controlled trial was conducted with 135 volunteers without cognitive impairment aged 60 years old or older. Participants were first randomized into two groups. One group consisted of 90 participants who would receive cognitive training and 45 who would not receive any training (NI). The cognitive training group was randomly divided into two groups, 45 who received traditional cognitive training (TCT) and 45 who received robot-assisted cognitive training (RACT). The training for both groups consisted of a daily 60 min session, twice a week for six weeks. Results RACT participants had significantly greater post-intervention improvement in cognitive function ( t = 4.707, p < 0.001), memory ( t = -2.282, p = 0.007), executive function (t = 4.610, p < 0.001), and depression ( t = -3.307, p = 0.004). TCT participants had greater post-intervention improvement in memory ( t = -6.671, p < 0.001) and executive function ( t = 5.393, p < 0.001). Conclusions A 6-week robot-assisted, multi-domain cognitive training program can improve the efficiency of global cognitive function and depression during cognitive tasks in older adults with MCI, which is associated with improvements in memory and executive function.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 78/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 11 of 12; Strength of evidence 5 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 3 of 5; Sample size 1 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomised / blinded 1 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 2 of 2. 45 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 78 of 100. Total 78 of 100.45 of the 58 points we could judge = 78 of 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 45 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 78 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (International journal of environmental research and public health)
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 3 / 5 2021 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 1 / 4 90 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 34360490)
Free to read 2 / 2 Free to read
Points 45 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 45 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 78 out of 100.
Total 78 / 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

Park, E. A., Jung, A. R., & Lee, K. A. (2021). The Humanoid Robot Sil-Bot in a Cognitive Training Program for Community-Dwelling Elderly People with Mild Cognitive Impairment during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Randomized Controlled Trial. International journal of environmental research and public health. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18158198

Vancouver

Park EA, Jung AR, Lee KA. The Humanoid Robot Sil-Bot in a Cognitive Training Program for Community-Dwelling Elderly People with Mild Cognitive Impairment during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Randomized Controlled Trial. International journal of environmental research and public health. 2021. doi:10.3390/ijerph18158198. PMID: 34360490.

BibTeX

@article{park2021-34360490,
  author  = {Park, E. A. and Jung, A. R. and Lee, K. A.},
  title   = {{The Humanoid Robot Sil-Bot in a Cognitive Training Program for Community-Dwelling Elderly People with Mild Cognitive Impairment during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Randomized Controlled Trial}},
  journal = {International journal of environmental research and public health},
  year    = {2021},
  doi     = {10.3390/ijerph18158198},
  pmid    = {34360490},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18158198}
}

Related studies in Prevention trials

Also tagged “cognitive-function”

1,118 studies in the library carry the topic tag “cognitive-function”; 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.

Similar studies

More on Prevention trials

See all studies in Prevention trials →