CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 785Cognitive Functions and MemoryCognitive Abilities and TestingDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 53 of the 55 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A cognitive training program based on principles of brain plasticity: results from the improvement in memory with plasticity-based adaptive cognitive training (IMPACT) study

Open access
Smith, Glenn E., Housen, Patricia, Yaffe, Kristine, Ruff, Ronald, Kennison, Robert F., Mahncke, Henry W., Zelinski, Elizabeth M.·2009·Journal of the American Geriatrics Society
DOI 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2008.02167.xPMC PMC4169294
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the efficacy of a novel brain plasticity–based computerized cognitive training program in older adults and to evaluate the effect on untrained measures of memory and attention and participant‐reported outcomes. DESIGN: Multisite randomized controlled double‐blind trial with two treatment groups. SETTING: Communities in northern and southern California and Minnesota. PARTICIPANTS: Community‐dwelling adults aged 65 and older (N=487) without a diagnosis of clinically significant cognitive impairment. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomized to receive a broadly‐available brain plasticity–based computerized cognitive training program (intervention) or a novelty‐ and intensity‐matched general cognitive stimulation program modeling treatment as usual (active control). Duration of training was 1 hour per day, 5 days per week, for 8 weeks, for a total of 40 hours. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was a composite score calculated from six subtests of the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status that use the auditory modality (RBANS Auditory Memory/Attention). Secondary measures were derived from performance on the experimental program, standardized neuropsychological assessments of memory and attention, and participant‐reported outcomes. RESULTS: RBANS Auditory Memory/Attention improvement was significantly greater ( P =.02) in the experimental group (3.9 points, 95% confidence interval (CI)=2.7–5.1) than in the control group (1.8 points, 95% CI=0.6–3.0). Multiple secondary measures of memory and attention showed significantly greater improvements in the experimental group (word list total score, word list delayed recall, digits backwards, letter–number sequencing; P <.05), as did the participant‐reported outcome measure ( P =.001). No advantage for the experimental group was seen in narrative memory. CONCLUSION: The experimental program improved generalized measures of memory and attention more than an active control program.

Overview

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2008.02167.x

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 55 references

2 of the 55 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Wingfield A, 2000, Handbook of Aging and Cogntion, 359
  2. Wechsler D., 2001, Wechsler Test of Adult Reading Manual
  3. Schmidt M., 1996, Rey Auditory and Verbal Learning Test: A Handbook
  4. Wilson B, 2003, The Rivermead Behavioral Memory Test—II Supplement Two
  5. Spina LMR, 2006, Cognitive Self‐Report Questionnaire (CSRQ) Manual
  6. Salamon MJ., 2003, Manual for the Life Satisfaction Scale (LSS): Formerly the Life Satisfaction in the Elderly Scale (LSES)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 781

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Smith, G. E., Housen, P., Yaffe, K., Ruff, R., Kennison, R. F., Mahncke, H. W., & Zelinski, E. M.
Affiliations
University of Southern California (US)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of the American Geriatrics Society
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-04
Volume
57
Issue
4
Pages
594-603
ISSN
  • 0002-8614 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-5415
DOI
10.1111/j.1532-5415.2008.02167.x
PMC
PMC4169294
OpenAlex
W1944313983
Cited by
785
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 38 · 2021: 43 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 89 · 2018: 48 · 2017: 57 · 2016: 51 · 2015: 73 · 2014: 58 · 2013: 69 · 2012: 49
FWCI
56.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Journal of the American Geriatrics Society (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Aging (R01AG010569)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Keywords
cognitive training, neuroplasticity, older adults, memory, attention, impact studies, narrative memory, cognitive stimulation
MeSH terms
Aged, California, Cognition, Cognition Disorders, Double-Blind Method, Female, Humans, Male, Memory, Minnesota, Neuronal Plasticity, Neuropsychological Tests, Treatment Outcome

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