Improvement in memory with plasticity-based adaptive cognitive training: results of the 3-month follow-up
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate maintenance of training effects of a novel brain plasticity–based computerized cognitive training program in older adults after a 3‐month no‐contact period. DESIGN: Multisite, randomized, controlled, double‐blind trial with two treatment groups. SETTING: Communities in northern and southern California and Minnesota. PARTICIPANTS: Four hundred eighty‐seven community‐dwelling adults aged 65 and older without diagnosis of clinically significant cognitive impairment. INTERVENTION: Random assignment into a broadly available brain plasticity–based computerized cognitive training program experimental group or a novelty‐ and intensity‐matched cognitive stimulation active control. Assessments at baseline, after training, and at 3 months. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was a composite of auditory subtests of the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status. Secondary measures included trained task performance, standardized neuropsychological assessments of overall memory and attention, and participant‐reported outcomes (PROs). RESULTS: A significant difference in improvement from baseline to 3‐month follow‐up was seen between the experimental training and control groups on the secondary composite of overall memory and attention, ( P =.01, d =0.25), the trained processing‐speed measure ( P <.001, d =0.80), word list total recall ( P =.004, d =0.28), letter–number sequencing ( P =.003, d =0.29), and the cognitive subscale of PRO ( P =.006, d =0.27). Previously significant improvements became nonsignificant at the 3‐month follow‐up for the primary outcome, two secondary measures of attention and memory, and several PROs. Narrative memory continued to show no advantage for the experimental group. Effect sizes from baseline to follow‐up were generally smaller than effect sizes from baseline to posttraining. CONCLUSION: Training effects were maintained but waned over the 3‐month no‐contact period.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The commercially-available computerized cognitive training program used in ACT has produced performance gains in older adults.
“In the ACT study, the cognitive training intervention involved completing 40 hours of computerized tasks from a commercially-available program that have produced performance gains in older adults [33,65,66].”
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 [66]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Do “brain-training” programs work?
Simons, D. J., Boot, W. R., Charness, N., Gathercole, S. E., Chabris, C. F., Hambrick, D. Z., & Stine-Morrow, E. A. L. (2016) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1177/1529100616661983 · Cited by 1,183 · see citing works
Cognitive Training for Improving Executive Function in Chemotherapy-Treated Breast Cancer Survivors
Kesler, S., Hadi Hosseini, S. M., Heckler, C., Janelsins, M., Palesh, O., Mustian, K., & Morrow, G. (2013) · Clinical Breast Cancer · doi:10.1016/j.clbc.2013.02.004 · Cited by 300 · see citing works
“Most successful studies have involved training programs that ranged from 4 to 12 weeks or more, characterized by multiple hours (10-60) of distributed training.”
BackgroundUsing virtual reality for cognitive training of the elderly
García-Betances, R. I., Jiménez-Mixco, V., Arredondo, M. T., & Cabrera-Umpiérrez, M. F. (2015) · American Journal of Alzheimer's Disease & Other Dementias® · doi:10.1177/1533317514545866 · Cited by 187 · see citing works
Non-pharmacological intervention for memory decline
Cotelli, M., Manenti, R., Zanetti, O., & Miniussi, C. (2012) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2012.00046 · Cited by 76 · see citing works
Gates, N. J., Rutjes, A. W., Di Nisio, M., Karim, S., Chong, L.-Y., March, E., Martínez, G., & Vernooij, R. W. (2019) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd012278.pub2 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
Smith, G., Chandler, M., Locke, D. E., Fields, J., Phatak, V., Crook, J., Hanna, S., Lunde, A., Morris, M., Graff-Radford, M., et al. (2017) · JMIR Research Protocols · doi:10.2196/resprot.8103 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
Self-citationHausman, H. K., Alexander, G. E., Cohen, R., Marsiske, M., DeKosky, S. T., Hishaw, G. A., O'Shea, A., Kraft, J. N., Dai, Y., Wu, S., et al. (2023) · Brain Stimulation · doi:10.1016/j.brs.2023.05.021 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Locke, D. E. C., Chandler Greenaway, M., Duncan, N., Fields, J. A., Cuc, A. V., Hoffman Snyder, C., Hanna, S., Lunde, A., & Smith, G. E. (2014) · The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer's Disease · doi:10.14283/jpad.2014.27 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Zelinski, E. M., Spina, L. M., Yaffe, K., Ruff, R., Kennison, R. F., Mahncke, H. W., & Smith, G. E.
- Affiliations
- University of Southern California (US)
- Queen's Medical Center (US)
- University of California, San Francisco (US)
- California State University Los Angeles (US)
- Posit Science (United States) (US)
- Mayo Clinic (US)
- Venue
- Journal of the American Geriatrics Society
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2011-02
- Volume
- 59
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 258-265
- ISSN
- 0002-8614 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-5415
- OpenAlex
- W1532921575
- Cited by
- 127
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 11
- FWCI
- 13.19
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of the American Geriatrics Society (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Mayo Clinic
- University of Southern California
- Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research
- 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
- computerized cognitive training, neuroplasticity, older adults, memory, attention, cognitive stimulation, processing speed, narrative memory, cognitive aging
- MeSH terms
- Aged, Attention, Cognition Disorders, Double-Blind Method, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Memory, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome, Recovery of Function
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