Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 347

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 50 of the 50 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Brain Training Game Improves Executive Functions and Processing Speed in the Elderly: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Open access
Nouchi, Rui, Taki, Yasuyuki, Takeuchi, Hikaru, Hashizume, Hiroshi, Akitsuki, Yuko, Shigemune, Yayoi, Sekiguchi, Atsushi, Kotozaki, Yuka, Tsukiura, Takashi, Yomogida, Yukihito, Kawashima, Ryuta·2012·PLoS ONE

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The beneficial effects of brain training games are expected to transfer to other cognitive functions, but these beneficial effects are poorly understood. Here we investigate the impact of the brain training game (Brain Age) on cognitive functions in the elderly. METHODS AND RESULTS: Thirty-two elderly volunteers were recruited through an advertisement in the local newspaper and randomly assigned to either of two game groups (Brain Age, Tetris). This study was completed by 14 of the 16 members in the Brain Age group and 14 of the 16 members in the Tetris group. To maximize the benefit of the interventions, all participants were non-gamers who reported playing less than one hour of video games per week over the past 2 years. Participants in both the Brain Age and the Tetris groups played their game for about 15 minutes per day, at least 5 days per week, for 4 weeks. Each group played for a total of about 20 days. Measures of the cognitive functions were conducted before and after training. Measures of the cognitive functions fell into four categories (global cognitive status, executive functions, attention, and processing speed). Results showed that the effects of the brain training game were transferred to executive functions and to processing speed. However, the brain training game showed no transfer effect on any global cognitive status nor attention. CONCLUSIONS: Our results showed that playing Brain Age for 4 weeks could lead to improve cognitive functions (executive functions and processing speed) in the elderly. This result indicated that there is a possibility which the elderly could improve executive functions and processing speed in short term training. The results need replication in large samples. Long-term effects and relevance for every-day functioning remain uncertain as yet. TRIAL REGISTRATION: UMIN Clinical Trial Registry 000002825.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0029676

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 CONSORT flowchart.
Figure 1 CONSORT flowchart.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Cognitive function scores at before and after training in both groups. The group comparison (two sample t-tests) of the pre training scores demonstrated that there were no significant differences in any measures of cognitive functions between the brain training group and the Tetris training group (p>0.10). Error bars indicate SEM across subjects in each subject group. (A) The Executive functions were measured by frontal assessment battery at bedside (FAB) and trail making test type B (TMT-B). (B) The processing speeds were measured by symbol search (SS) and digit symbol coding (CD). (C) (D) The general cognitive function was measured by mini-mental state examination (MMSE). The attention was measured by digit cancellation task (D-CAT), digit span forward (DS-F) and digit span backward (DS-B).
Figure 2 Cognitive function scores at before and after training in both groups. The group comparison (two sample t-tests) of the pre training scores demonstrated that there were no significant differences in any measures of cognitive functions between the brain training group and the Tetris training group (p>0.10). Error bars indicate SEM across subjects in each subject group. (A) The Executive functions were measured by frontal assessment battery at bedside (FAB) and trail making test type B (TMT-B). (B) The processing speeds were measured by symbol search (SS) and digit symbol coding (CD). (C) (D) The general cognitive function was measured by mini-mental state examination (MMSE). The attention was measured by digit cancellation task (D-CAT), digit span forward (DS-F) and digit span backward (DS-B).CC BY · PubMed Central

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

1 retracted

Show all 50 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. RH Logie, 2010, Brain training in schools, where is the evidence?, British Journal of Educational Technology, 41, E127, 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01101.x · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01101.x
  2. N Maki, 2000, The validity of the MMSE and SMQ as screening tests for dementia in the elderly general population– a study of one rural community in Japan., Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord, 11, 193, 10.1159/000017236 · doi:10.1159/000017236

Cited by

See all 347

Metadata

Authors
Nouchi, R., Taki, Y., Takeuchi, H., Hashizume, H., Akitsuki, Y., Shigemune, Y., Sekiguchi, A., Kotozaki, Y., Tsukiura, T., Yomogida, Y., & Kawashima, R.
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2012-01-11
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
e29676
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1973344691
Cited by
347
References
50
FWCI
36.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Brain Training Game Improves Executive Functions and Processing Speed in the Elderly: A Randomized Controlled Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pone.0029676
The paper
Nouchi, R., Taki, Y., Takeuchi, H., Hashizume, H., Akitsuki, Y., Shigemune, Y., Sekiguchi, A., Kotozaki, Y., Tsukiura, T., Yomogida, Y., & Kawashima, R. (2012). Brain Training Game Improves Executive Functions and Processing Speed in the Elderly: A Randomized Controlled Trial. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0029676

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.