Lower cognitive baseline scores predict cognitive training success after 6 months in healthy older adults: Results of an online RCT
Open accessAbstract
Background: Identifying predictors for general cognitive training (GCT) success in healthy older adults has many potential uses, including aiding intervention and improving individual dementia risk prediction, which are of high importance in health care. However, the factors that predict training improvements and the temporal course of predictors (eg, do the same prognostic factors predict training success after a short training period, such as 6 weeks, as well as after a longer training period, such as 6 months?) are largely unknown. Methods: Data (N = 4,184 healthy older individuals) from two arms (GCT vs. control) of a three‐arm randomized controlled trial were reanalyzed to investigate predictors of GCT success in five cognitive tasks (grammatical reasoning, spatial working memory, digit vigilance, paired association learning, and verbal learning) at three time points (after 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months of training). Possible investigated predictors were sociodemographic variables, depressive symptoms, number of training sessions, cognitive baseline values, and all interaction terms (group*predictor). Results: Being female was predictive for improvement in grammatical reasoning at 6 weeks in the GCT group, and lower cognitive baseline scores were predictive for improvement in spatial working memory and verbal learning at 6 months. Conclusion: Our data indicate that predictors seem to change over time; remarkably, lower baseline performance at study entry is only a significant predictor at 6 months training. Possible reasons for these results are discussed in relation to the compensation hypothesis. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:‐, 2020.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Individuals with lower baseline cognitive ability demonstrate greater performance gains following cognitive training compared to those with higher baseline cognitive ability.
“For instance, individuals with lower baseline cognitive ability demonstrate greater performance gains following cognitive training compared to those with higher baseline cognitive ability, potentially due to a sufficient “mismatch” between the task demand and functional supply of the brain [68–72].”
From Primary outcome from the augmenting cognitive training in older adults study (ACT): A tDCS and cognitive training randomized clinical trial (2023) · cites this paper as [71]
The Discussion reports that lower baseline cognitive performance predicted greater gains in spatial working memory and verbal learning among healthy older adults receiving general cognitive training. It specifies that this relationship was significant only after six months, not earlier. The claim omits those limits and presents the finding as applying to cognitive training generally. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 29 · Cited by 13
Research works printed but not linked: 27
- Hill RD, Sheikh JI, Yesavage JA. Pretraining enhances mnemonic train- ing in elderly adults. Exp Aging Res. 1988;14(4):207-211. https://doi. org/10.1080/03610738808259749. · DOI
- Chiu H-L, Chu H, Tsai J-C, et al. The effect of cognitive-based training for the healthy older people: a meta-analysis of randomized con- trolled trials. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(5):e0176742. https://doi.org/10. 1371/journal.pone.0176742. · DOI
- Joubert C, Chainay H. Aging brain: the effect of combined cognitive and physical training on cognition as compared to cognitive and phys- ical training alone -a systematic review. Clin Interv Aging. 2018;13: 1267-1301. https://doi.org/10.2147/CIA.S165399. · DOI
- Sandberg P, Rönnlund M, Derwinger-Hallberg A, Stigsdotter NA. Memory plasticity in older adults: cognitive predictors of training response and maintenance following learning of number-consonant mnemonic. Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2016;26(5-6):742-760. https://doi. org/10.1080/09602011.2015.1046459. · DOI
- Park S, Ryu S-H, Yoo Y, et al. Neural predictors of cognitive improve- ment by multi-strategic memory training based on metamemory in older adults with subjective memory complaints. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1): 1095. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-19390-2. · DOI
- Brooks JO, Friedman L, Pearman AM, Gray C, Yesavage JA. Mnemonic training in older adults: effects of age, length of training, and type of cognitive pretraining. Int Psychogeriatr. 1999;11(1): 75-84.
- O'Hara R, Brooks JO, Friedman L, Schröder CM, Morgan KS, Kraemer HC. Long-term effects of mnemonic training in community- dwelling older adults. J Psychiatr Res. 2007;41(7):585-590. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2006.04.010. · DOI
- Roheger M, Folkerts A-K, Krohm F, Skoetz N, Kalbe E. Prognostic fac- tors for change in memory test performance after memory training in healthy older adults: a systematic review and outline of statistical challenges. Diagnos and Prognos Res. 2020. http://doi.org/10.1186/ s41512-020-0071-8. · DOI
- Roheger M, Meyer J, Kessler J, Kalbe E. Predicting short-and long- term cognitive training success in healthy older adults: who benefits? Neuropsychol Dev Cogn B Aging Neuropsychol Cogn. 2019;1-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/13825585.2019.1617396. · DOI
- Corbett A, Owen A, Hampshire A, et al. The effect of an online cogni- tive training package in healthy older adults: an online randomized controlled trial. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2015;16(11):990-997. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2015.06.014. · DOI
- Baddeley AD. A 3 min reasoning test based on grammatical transfor- mation. Psychon Sci. 1968;10(10):341-342. https://doi.org/10.3758/ BF03331551. · DOI
- Owen AM, Downes JJ, Sahakian BJ, Polkey CE, Robbins TW. Planning and spatial working memory following frontal lobe lesions in man. Neuropsychologia. 1990;28(10):1021-1034.
- Owen AM, Beksinska M, James M, et al. Visuospatial memory deficits at different stages of Parkinson's disease. Neuropsychologia. 1993;31 (7):627-644. https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(93)90135-M. · DOI
- Benedict RHB, Schretlen D, Groninger L, Brandt J. Hopkins verbal learning test -revised: normative data and analysis of inter-form and test-retest reliability. Clin Neuropsychol. 1998;12(1):43-55. https:// doi.org/10.1076/clin.12.1.43.1726. · DOI · Paper page
- de Lange A-MG, Bråthen ACS, Grydeland H, et al. White matter integ- rity as a marker for cognitive plasticity in aging. Neurobiol Aging. 2016; 47:74-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2016.07.007. · DOI
- Lord FM. A paradox in the interpretation of group comparisons. Psychol Bull. 1967;68(5):304-305.
- Curran-Everett D. Explorations in statistics: the analysis of ratios and normalized data. Adv Physiol Educ. 2013;37(3):213-219. https://doi. org/10.1152/advan.00053.2013. · DOI
- Cohen J. A power primer. Psychol Bull. 1992;112(1):155-159. https:// doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.112.1.155. · DOI · Paper page
- Rahe J, Liesk J, Rosen JB, et al. Sex differences in cognitive training effects of patients with amnestic mild cognitive impairment. Neuropsychol Dev Cogn B Aging Neuropsychol Cogn. 2015;22(5):620- 638. https://doi.org/10.1080/13825585.2015.1028883. · DOI
- Munro CA, Winicki JM, Schretlen DJ, et al. Sex differences in cogni- tion in healthy elderly individuals. Neuropsychol Dev Cogn B Aging Neuropsychol Cogn. 2012;19(6):759-768. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13825585.2012.690366. · DOI
- Del Prado Martín FM. Vocabulary, grammar, sex, and aging. Cognit Sci. 2017;41(4):950-975. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12367. · DOI
- Beinhoff U, Tumani H, Brettschneider J, Bittner D, Riepe MW. Gender- specificities in Alzheimer's disease and mild cognitive impairment. J Neurol. 2008;255(1):117-122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-008-0726-9. · DOI
- Langbaum JBS, Rebok GW, Bandeen-Roche K, Carlson MC. Predicting memory training response patterns: results from ACTIVE. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2009;64(1):14-23. https://doi.org/10. 1093/geronb/gbn026. · DOI
- Lövdén M, Brehmer Y, Li S-C, Lindenberger U. Training-induced com- pensation versus magnification of individual differences in memory performance. Front Hum Neurosci. 2012;6:141. https://doi.org/10. 3389/fnhum.2012.00141. · DOI
- Andrewes DG, Kinsella G, Murphy M. Using a memory handbook to improve everyday memory in community-dwelling older adults with memory complaints. Exp Aging Res. 1996;22(3):305-322. https://doi. org/10.1080/03610739608254013. · DOI
- McDougall GJ, Becker H, Pituch K, Acee TW, Vaughan PW, Delville CL. The Senior WISE study: improving everyday memory in older adults. Arch Psychiatr Nurs. 2010;24(5):291-306. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.apnu.2009.11.001. · DOI
- Schubert T, Strobach T, Karbach J. New directions in cognitive train- ing: on methods, transfer, and application. Psychol Res. 2014;78(6): 749-755. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-014-0619-8. · DOI
- Authors
- Roheger, M., Kalbe, E., Corbett, A., Brooker, H., & Ballard, C.
- Affiliations
- University of Cologne (DE)
- University of Exeter (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Kalbe, Elke
- Venue
- International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2020-06
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1000-1008
- ISSN
- 0885-6230 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-1166
- OpenAlex
- W3021430237
- Cited by
- 13
- References
- 29
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 1.28
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Kölner Universitäts PublikationsServer (Universität zu Köln) (publishedVersion)
- Royal Devon and Exeter Research Repository (Royal Devon and Exeter) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
- Keywords
- older adults, spatial working memory, verbal learning, grammatical reasoning, sex differences, compensation hypothesis, dementia risk prediction, depressive symptoms
- MeSH terms
- Aged, Cognition, Cognition Disorders, Female, Humans, Memory, Short-Term, Verbal Learning
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
