Home › Research › Prevention trials
The Timecourse of Global Cognitive Gains from Supervised Computer-Assisted Cognitive Training: A Randomised, Active-Controlled Trial in Elderly with Multiple Dementia Risk Factors
Lampit A, Hallock H, Moss R, Kwok S, Rosser M, Lukjanenko M, Kohn A, Naismith S et al.. The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease, 2014-01-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Background Home-based computerised cognitive training (CCT) is ineffective at enhancing global cognition, a key marker of cognitive ageing. Objectives To test the effectiveness of supervised, group-based, multidomain CCT on global cognition in older adults and to characterise the dose-response relationship during and after training. Design A randomised, double-blind, longitudinal, active-controlled trial. Setting Community-based training centre in Sydney, Australia Participants: Eighty nondemented community-dwelling older adults (mean age = 72.1, 68.8% females) with multiple dementia risk factors but no major neuropsychiatric or sensory disorder. Of the 80 participants admitted to the study, 65 completed post-training assessment and 55 were followed up one year after training cessation. Interventions Thirty-six group-based sessions over three months of either CCT targeting memory, speed, attention, language and reasoning tasks, or active control training comprising audiovisual educational exercises. Measurements Primary outcome was change from baseline in global cognition as defined by a composite score of memory, speed and executive function. Secondary outcome was 15-month change in Bayer Activities of Daily Living from baseline to one year post-training. Results Intention-to-treat analyses revealed significant effects on global cognition in the cognitive training group compared to active control after three weeks of training (ES = 0.33, P=.039) that increased after 3 months of training (ES = 0.49, P=.003) and persisted three months after training cessation (ES = 0.30, P=0.023). Significant and durable improvements were also noted in memory and processing speed. Dose-response characteristics differed among cognitive domains. Training effects waned gradually but residual gains were noted twelve months post-training. No significant effects on activities of daily living were noted and there were no adverse effects. Conclusions In older adults with multiple dementia risk factors, group-based CCT is a safe and effective intervention for enhancing overall cognition, memory and processing speed. Dose-response relationships vary for each cognitive domain, vital information for clinical and community implementation and further trial design.
Key findings
- Results Intention-to-treat analyses revealed significant effects on global cognition in the cognitive training group compared to active control after three weeks of training (ES = 0.33, P=.039) that increased after 3 months of training (ES = 0.49, P=.003) and persisted three months after training cessation (ES = 0.30, P=0.023).
- Significant and durable improvements were also noted in memory and processing speed.
- No significant effects on activities of daily living were noted and there were no adverse effects.
- Conclusions In older adults with multiple dementia risk factors, group-based CCT is a safe and effective intervention for enhancing overall cognition, memory and processing speed.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Prevention →
Study details
- Study designlongitudinal study
- Participants80
- Effect size68.8%
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 67/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a longitudinal study following the same people over time. 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 39 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 67 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 | 7 / 12 | A longitudinal study following the same people over time |
| 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 | 2014 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 80 participants |
| Effect reported | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| 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 29261218) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 39 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 39 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 67 out of 100. |
| Total | 67 / 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
Lampit, A., Hallock, H., Moss, R., Kwok, S., Rosser, M., Lukjanenko, M., et al. (2014). The Timecourse of Global Cognitive Gains from Supervised Computer-Assisted Cognitive Training: A Randomised, Active-Controlled Trial in Elderly with Multiple Dementia Risk Factors. The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease. https://doi.org/10.14283/jpad.2014.18
Vancouver
Lampit A, Hallock H, Moss R, Kwok S, Rosser M, Lukjanenko M, et al. The Timecourse of Global Cognitive Gains from Supervised Computer-Assisted Cognitive Training: A Randomised, Active-Controlled Trial in Elderly with Multiple Dementia Risk Factors. The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease. 2014. doi:10.14283/jpad.2014.18. PMID: 29261218.
BibTeX
@article{lampit2014-29261218,
author = {Lampit, A. and Hallock, H. and Moss, R. and Kwok, S. and Rosser, M. and Lukjanenko, M. and Kohn, A. and Naismith, S. and others},
title = {{The Timecourse of Global Cognitive Gains from Supervised Computer-Assisted Cognitive Training: A Randomised, Active-Controlled Trial in Elderly with Multiple Dementia Risk Factors}},
journal = {The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease},
year = {2014},
doi = {10.14283/jpad.2014.18},
pmid = {29261218},
url = {https://doi.org/10.14283/jpad.2014.18}
}