Cited by 71Cognitive Abilities and TestingCognitive Functions and MemoryDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research

Systematic literature review and meta-analysis of commercially available computerized cognitive training among older adults

Tetlow, Amber M., Edwards, Jerri D.·2017·Journal of Cognitive Enhancement

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s41465-017-0051-2

Cites

123 of 123 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 125 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tetlow, A. M., & Edwards, J. D.
Affiliations
University of South Florida (US)
Corresponding author
Tetlow, Amber M.
Venue
Journal of Cognitive Enhancement
Published
2017-11-09
Volume
1
Issue
4
Pages
559-575
ISSN
  • 2509-3290 (ISSN-L)
  • 2509-3304
OpenAlex
W2767557098
Cited by
69
References
125
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 1
FWCI
0.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Cognitive Enhancement (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Keywords
computerized cognitive training, older adults, cognitive aging, attention, processing speed, visuospatial memory, far transfer, daily functioning, cognitive enhancement

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