Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33231556›Full record

ArticleJMIR research protocols2020

Assessing the Effect of Training on the Cognition and Brain of Older Adults: Protocol for a Three-Arm Randomized Double-Blind Controlled Trial (ACTOP).

Arnaud Boujut, Samira Mellah, Maxime Lussier, Samantha Maltezos, Lynn Valeyry Verty, Louis Bherer, Sylvie Belleville

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR research protocols, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03532113 (Memory and Cognitive Control for Optimal Aging), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT03532113 nacompletednot on this map

Memory and Cognitive Control for Optimal Aging: Study on the Effect of Cognitive Interventions, Cerebral Mechanisms Involved and Processes Promoting Transfer

TypeinterventionalSponsorCentre de Recherche de l'Institut Universitaire de Geriatrie de MontrealRan2017 to 2019Enrolled90ConditionsInhibition (Psychology), Updating, General Knowledge, No TrainingArmsUpdating, Inhibition, General knowledge
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Arnaud BoujutResearch Center, Institut universitaire de Gériatrie de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1815-0782
Samira MellahResearch Center, Institut universitaire de Gériatrie de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5933-6567
Maxime LussierResearch Center, Institut universitaire de Gériatrie de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2753-1189
Samantha MaltezosResearch Center, Institut universitaire de Gériatrie de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6542-3018
Lynn Valeyry VertyResearch Center, Institut universitaire de Gériatrie de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9199-8088
Louis BhererResearch Center, Institut universitaire de Gériatrie de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2258-8194
Sylvie BellevilleResearch Center, Institut universitaire de Gériatrie de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1046-1818

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo prevent age-related cognitive impairment, many intervention programs offer exercises targeting different central cognitive processes. However, the effects of different process-based training programs are rarely compared within equivalent experimental designs.

objectiveUsing a randomized double-blind controlled trial, this project aims to examine and compare the impact of 2 process-based interventions, inhibition and updating, on the cognition and brain of older adults.

methodsA total of 90 healthy older adults were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 training conditions: (1) inhibition (Stroop-like exercises), (2) updating (N-back-type exercises), and (3) control active (quiz game exercise). Training was provided in 12 half-hour sessions over 4 weeks. First, the performance gain observed will be measured on the trained tasks. We will then determine the extent of transfer of gain on (1) untrained tasks that rely on the same cognitive process, (2) complex working memory (WM) measurements hypothesized to involve 1 of the 2 trained processes, and (3) virtual reality tasks that were designed to mimic real-life situations that require WM. We will assess whether training increases cortical volume given that the volume of the cortex is determined by cortical area and thickness in regions known to be involved in WM or changes task-related brain activation patterns measured with functional magnetic resonance imaging. Dose effects will be examined by measuring outcomes at different time points during training. We will also determine whether individual characteristics moderate the effect of training on cognitive and cerebral outcomes. Finally, we will evaluate whether training reduces the age-related deficit on transfer and brain outcomes, by comparing study participants to a group of 30 younger adults.

resultsThe project was funded in January 2017; enrollment began in October 2017 and data collection was completed in April 2019. Data analysis has begun in June 2020 and the first results should be published by the end of 2020 or early 2021.

conclusionsThe results of this study will help understand the relative efficacy of 2 attentional control interventions on the cognition and the brain of older adults, as well as the moderating role of individual characteristics on training efficiency and transfer.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03532113; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03532113. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/20430.

Indexed as

agingbrain plasticitycognitive reservecognitive trainingworking memory

Identifiers

PMID33231556
PMCPMC7723746

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.