Journal Mobile Options
Table of Contents
Vol. 36, No. 2, 2011
Issue release date: April 2011
Neuroepidemiology 2011;36:91–99
(DOI:10.1159/000323950)

Computer-Based, Personalized Cognitive Training versus Classical Computer Games: A Randomized Double-Blind Prospective Trial of Cognitive Stimulation

Peretz C. · Korczyn A.D. · Shatil E. · Aharonson V. · Birnboim S. · Giladi N.
aDepartment of Epidemiology, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, and bSieratzki Chair of Neurology and cDepartment of Neurology, Tel-Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, and dNexSig Ltd., and Afeka, Tel-Aviv Academic College of Engineering, Tel-Aviv, eDepartment of Psychology and Center for Psychobiological Research, Max Stern Academic College, Emek Yezreel, fCogniFit Ltd., Yoqneam, and gOno Academic College, Kiryat Ono, Israel

Individual Users: Register with Karger Login Information

Please create your User ID & Password





Contact Information











I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.

To view the fulltext, please log in

To view the pdf, please log in

Abstract

Background: Many studies have suggested that cognitive training can result in cognitive gains in healthy older adults. We investigated whether personalized computerized cognitive training provides greater benefits than those obtained by playing conventional computer games. Methods: This was a randomized double-blind interventional study. Self-referred healthy older adults (n = 155, 68 ± 7 years old) were assigned to either a personalized, computerized cognitive training or to a computer games group. Cognitive performance was assessed at baseline and after 3 months by a neuropsychological assessment battery. Differences in cognitive performance scores between and within groups were evaluated using mixed effects models in 2 approaches: adherence only (AO; n = 121) and intention to treat (ITT; n = 155). Results: Both groups improved in cognitive performance. The improvement in the personalized cognitive training group was significant (p < 0.03, AO and ITT approaches) in all 8 cognitive domains. However, in the computer games group it was significant (p < 0.05) in only 4 (AO) or 6 domains (ITT). In the AO analysis, personalized cognitive training was significantly more effective than playing games in improving visuospatial working memory (p = 0.0001), visuospatial learning (p = 0.0012) and focused attention (p = 0.0019). Conclusions: Personalized, computerized cognitive training appears to be more effective than computer games in improving cognitive performance in healthy older adults. Further studies are needed to evaluate the ecological validity of these findings.



Copyright / Drug Dosage

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher or, in the case of photocopying, direct payment of a specified fee to the Copyright Clearance Center.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in goverment regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

References

  1. Park DC: The basic mechanisms accounting for age-related decline in cognitive function; in Park D, Schwarz N (eds): Cognitive Aging: A Primer. Philadelphia, Psychology Press, 2000, pp 3–21.
  2. Owsley C, Ball K, McGwin G Jr, Sloane ME, Roenker DL, White MF, et al: Visual processing impairment and risk of motor vehicle crash among older adults. JAMA 1998;279:1083–1088.
  3. Wadley VG, Okonkwo O, Crowe M, Ross-Meadows LA: Mild cognitive impairment and everyday function: evidence of reduced speed in performing instrumental activities of daily living. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 2008;16:416–424.
  4. Ball K, Berch DB, Helmers KF, Jobe JB, Leveck MD, Marsiske M, et al: Effects of cognitive training interventions with older adults: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2002;288:2271–2281.
  5. Willis SL, Tennstedt SL, Marsiske M, Ball K, Elias J, Koepke KM, et al: Long-term effects of cognitive training on everyday functional outcomes in older adults. JAMA 2006;296:2805–2814.
  6. Li SC, Schmiedek F, Huxhold O, Rocke C, Smith J, Lindenberger U: Working memory plasticity in old age: practice gain, transfer, and maintenance. Psychol Aging 2008;23:731–742.
  7. Mahncke HW, Connor BB, Appelman J, Ahsanuddin ON, Hardy JL, Wood RA, et al: Memory enhancement in healthy older adults using a brain plasticity-based training program: a randomized, controlled study. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2006;103:12523–12528.
  8. Bherer L, Kramer AF, Peterson MS, Colcombe S, Erickson K, Becic E: Transfer effects in task-set cost and dual-task cost after dual-task training in older and younger adults: further evidence for cognitive plasticity in attentional control in late adulthood. Exp Aging Res 2008;34:188–219.
  9. Smith GE, Housen P, Yaffe K, Ruff R, Kennison RF, Mahncke HW, et al: A cognitive training program based on principles of brain plasticity: results from the Improvement in Memory with Plasticity-Based Adaptive Cognitive Training (IMPACT) study. J Am Geriatr Soc 2009;57:594–603.
  10. Basak C, Boot WR, Voss MW, Kramer AF: Can training in a real-time strategy video game attenuate cognitive decline in older adults? Psychol Aging 2008;23:765–777.
  11. Papp KV, Walsh SJ, Snyder PJ: Immediate and delayed effects of cognitive interventions in healthy elderly: a review of current literature and future directions. Alzheimers Dement 2009;5:50–60.
  12. Verghese J, Mahoney J, Ambrose AF, Wang C, Holtzer R: Effect of cognitive remediation on gait in sedentary seniors. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2010;65:1338–1343.
  13. Shatil E, Metzer A, Horvitz O, Miller A: Home-based personalized cognitive training in MS patients: a study of adherence and cognitive performance. Neurorehabilitation 2010;26:143–153.
  14. Horowitz-Kraus T, Breznitz Z: Can the error detection mechanism benefit from training the working memory? A comparison between dyslexics and controls – an ERP study. PLoS One 2009;4:e7141.
  15. Thompson G, Foth D: Cognitive training programs for older adults: what are they and can they enhance mental fitness? Educ Gerontol 2005;31:603–626.

    External Resources

  16. Kramer AF, Morrow D: Cognitive training and expertise; in Park D, Schwarz N (eds): Cognitive Aging: A Primer, ed 2. Philadelphia, Psychology Press, in press.
  17. Faucounau V, Wu YH, Boulay M, De Rotrou J, Rigaud AS: Cognitive intervention programmes on patients affected by mild cognitive impairment: a promising intervention tool for MCI? J Nutr Health Aging 2010;14:31–35.
  18. Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR: Mini-mental state: a practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 1975;12:189–198.
  19. American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, ed 4 (DSM-IV). Washington, American Psychiatric Association, 2000.
  20. Haimov I, Hanuka E, Horowitz Y: Chronic insomnia and cognitive functioning among older adults. Behav Sleep Med 2008;6:32–54.

    External Resources

  21. Korczyn AD, Aharonson V: Computerized methods in the assessment and prediction of dementia. Curr Alzheimer Res 2007;4:364–369.
  22. Aharonson V, Halperin I, Korczyn AD: Computerized diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment. Alzheimers Dement 2007;3:23–27.
  23. Korczyn AD, Aharonson V: Computerized methods in the assessment and prediction of dementia. Curr Alzheimer Res 2007;4:364–369.
  24. Sheikh JI, Yesavage JA: Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS): recent evidence and development of a shorter version; in Brink TL (ed): Clinical Gerontology: A Guide to Assessment and Intervention. New York, Haworth Press, 1986, pp 165–173.
  25. Riley KP, Snowdon DA, Desrosiers MF, Markesbery WR: Early life linguistic ability, late life cognitive function, and neuropathology: findings from the Nun Study. Neurobiol Aging 2005;26:341–347.
  26. Aharonson V, Korczyn AD: Computerized methods for cognitive assessment of the elderly: options and limitations. Minerva Psichiatr 2010;51:45–52.
  27. Korczyn AD, Aharonson V: Computerized methods in the assessment and prediction of dementia. Curr Alzheimer Res 2007;4:364–369.
  28. Maeshima S, Itakura T, Nakagawa M, Nakai K, Komai N: Visuospatial impairment and activities of daily living in patients with Parkinson’s disease: a quantitative assessment of the cube-copying task. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 1997;76:383–388.
  29. Kemps E, Newson R: Comparison of adult age differences in verbal and visuo-spatial memory: the importance of ‘pure’, parallel and validated measures. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 2006;28:341–356.
  30. Wadley VG, Benz RL, Ball KK, Roenker DL, Edwards JD, Vance DE: Development and evaluation of home-based speed-of-processing training for older adults. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2006;87:757–763.
  31. Wolinsky FD, Unverzagt FW, Smith DM, Jones R, Stoddard A, Tennstedt SL: The ACTIVE cognitive training trial and health-related quality of life: protection that lasts for 5 years. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2006;61:1324–1329.


Pay-per-View Options
Direct payment This item at the regular price: USD 38.00
Payment from account With a Karger Pay-per-View account (down payment USD 150) you profit from a special rate for this and other single items.
This item at the discounted price: USD 26.50