Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33505344›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neurology2020

Computerized Cognitive Training by Healthy Older and Younger Adults: Age Comparisons of Overall Efficacy and Selective Effects on Cognition.

Nicole F Ng, Allen M Osman, Kelsey R Kerlan, P Murali Doraiswamy, Robert J Schafer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Short-Term Exposure to Wildfire Smoke andEnvironmental health perspectives · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Feasibility of a Home-Based Task-Switching Training in Middle-Aged Caregivers.Journal of cognitive enhancement : towards the integration of theory and practice · 2022
    Article
  12. 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

5 authors.

Nicole F NgDepartment of Research and Development, Lumos Labs, San Francisco, CA, United States.
Allen M OsmanDepartment of Research and Development, Lumos Labs, San Francisco, CA, United States.
Kelsey R KerlanDepartment of Research and Development, Lumos Labs, San Francisco, CA, United States.
P Murali DoraiswamyDuke University School of Medicine, Neurocognitive Disorders Program, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke Institute for Brain Sciences, Durham, NC, United States.
Robert J SchaferDepartment of Research and Development, Lumos Labs, San Francisco, CA, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Among the non-pharmacological methods under development for maintaining cognitive function across the lifespan is computerized cognitive training (CCT). There has been considerable interest in using CCT to slow or remediate age-related cognitive decline, both normal and pathological. Toward these ends, it would be useful to know how the effects of CCT on cognitive function vary over the course of normal cognitive aging. Are there changes in either 1) the overall efficacy of CCT or 2) which cognitive faculties are affected? To address these two questions, we reanalyzed results from a large online study by Hardy et al. (1) of 4,715 adults between 18 and 80 that examined effects of CCT on both a neuropsychological test battery and self-reported ratings of cognition and affect in daily living. Combined across all participants, Hardy et al. found greater improvement on both types of assessment following 10 weeks of CCT with the commercial program Lumosity, as compared to practice with a control activity involving computerized crossword puzzles. The present study compared the size of these effects on the older (50-80) and younger (18-49) participants. To address the question of overall efficacy, we examined CCT effects (treatment minus control) on overall performance of the test battery and mean rating. No significant difference on either measure was found between the two age cohorts. To address the question of whether the same magnitude of overall effects on both age cohorts was due to equivalent effects on the same set of underlying cognitive functions, we examined the patterns of CCT effects across individual subtests and rated items. These patterns did not differ significantly between the two age cohorts. Our findings suggest that benefits from CCT can occur to a similar degree and in a similar way across an extended part of the adult lifespan. Moreover, the overall effects of CCT delivered over the internet were of the same small to medium size as those typically found in the lab or clinic. Besides improving access and reducing the cost of CCT for older adults, delivery over the internet makes long-term training more practicable, which could potentially yield larger benefits.

Indexed as

age-related cognitive declineAlzheimer's diseasecognitive agingcomputerized cognitive trainingdigital healthmild cognitive impairmenttelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID33505344
PMCPMC7832391

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.