Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40229575›Full record

SynthesisNature human behaviour2025

A meta-analysis of technology use and cognitive aging.

Jared F Benge, Michael K Scullin

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Nature human behaviour, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Social connection and cognitive health: A review of concepts, measures, and research priorities.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2026
    Review
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Get the unbalance right: asymmetric transfer effects in cognitive offloading.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2026
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

2 authors.

Jared F BengeDepartment of Neurology, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA. jared.benge@utexas.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6201-3278
Michael K ScullinDepartment of Psychology and Neuroscience, Baylor University, Waco, TX, USA. michael_scullin@baylor.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7578-7587

Funding

Smartphone-Based Solutions for Prospective Memory in Mild Cognitive Impairment and DementiaR01AG082783 · NIA · BAYLOR UNIVERSITY · PI BENGE, JARED F, SCULLIN, MICHAEL K · 2023 to 2025
$2.2M
Alzheimer's Association AARG-22-924771NIA NIH HHS R01 AG082783U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | National Institutes of Health (NIH) R01AG082783
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The first generation who engaged with digital technologies has reached the age where risks of dementia emerge. Has technological exposure helped or harmed cognition in digital pioneers? The digital dementia hypothesis predicts that a lifetime of technology exposure worsens cognitive abilities. An alternative hypothesis is that such exposures lead to technological reserve, wherein digital technologies promote behaviours that preserve cognition. We tested these hypotheses in a meta-analysis and systematic review of studies published in Medline, PsycInfo, CINAHL, Science Direct, Scopus, Cochrane Library, ProQuest and Web of Science. Studies were included if they were observational or cohort studies focused on general digital technology use in older adults (over age 50) and included either a cognitive or dementia diagnosis outcome. We identified 136 papers that met inclusion criteria, of which 57 were compatible with odds ratio or hazard ratio meta-analysis. These studies included 411,430 adults (baseline age M = 68.7 years; 53.5% female) from cross-sectional and longitudinal observational studies (range: 1-18 years, M = 6.2 years). Use of digital technologies was associated with reduced risk of cognitive impairment (OR = 0.42, 95% CI 0.35-0.52) and reduced time-dependent rates of cognitive decline (HR = 0.74, 95% CI 0.66-0.84). Effects remained significant when accounting for demographic, socioeconomic, health and cognitive reserve proxies. All studies were evaluated for quality on the basis of a standardized checklist; the primary outcomes replicated when limiting analyses to the highest-quality studies. Additional work is needed to test bidirectional causal interpretations, understand mechanisms that underpin technological reserve, and identify how types and timings of technology exposures influence cognitive health.

Indexed as

Cognitive AgingCognitive DysfunctionDigital TechnologyAgedCognitionDementiaFemaleHumansMale

Identifiers

PMID40229575
PMCPMC12333551

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.