Cited by 41Cognitive Abilities and TestingDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchCognitive Functions and Memory

The effect of baseline performance and age on cognitive training improvements in older adults: a qualitative review

Open access
Shaw, J.S., Hosseini, S.M. Hadi·2021·The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer's Disease

Abstract

Findings that the brain is capable of plasticity up until old age have led to interest in the use of cognitive training as a potential intervention to delay the onset of dementia. However, individuals participating in training regimens differ greatly with respect to their outcomes, demonstrating the importance of considering individual differences, in particular age and baseline performance in a cognitive domain, when evaluating the effectiveness of cognitive training. In this review, we summarize existing literature on cognitive training in adults across the domains of episodic memory, working memory and the task-switching component of executive functioning to clarify the picture on the impact of age and baseline performance on cognitive training-related improvements. Studies targeting episodic memory induced greater improvements in younger adults with more intact cognitive abilities, explained in part by factors specific to episodic memory training. By contrast, older, lower baseline performance adults improved most in several studies targeting working memory in older individuals as well as in the majority of studies targeting executive functioning, suggesting the preservation of neural plasticity in these domains until very old age. Our findings can have important implications for informing the design of future interventions for enhancing cognitive functions in individuals at the prodromal stage of Alzheimer's Disease and potentially delaying the clinical onset of Alzheimer's Disease. Future research should more clearly stratify individuals according to their baseline cognitive abilities and assign specialized, skill-specific cognitive training regimens in order to directly answer the question of how individual differences impact training effectiveness.

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 · 10.14283/jpad.2020.55

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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?

  • 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 [70]

    The Discussion (Task Difficulty Helps Explain Differential Training Gains; page unavailable) reports that lower-baseline participants may gain more from working-memory training when task demands provide an appropriate mismatch. But the Abstract and Discussion also report the opposite pattern for some episodic-memory training, so the source does not support the claim as a general rule across cognitive training. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shaw, J. S., & Hosseini, S. M. H.
Affiliations
Stanford Medicine (US)
Corresponding author
Hosseini, S.M. Hadi
Venue
The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer's Disease
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-01
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
100-109
ISSN
2274-5807 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3093964299
Cited by
41
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 6
FWCI
0.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer s Disease (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute on Aging (K25AG050759, R21AG064263)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R61MH119289, R21MH123873)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
Keywords
cognitive training, older adults, baseline cognitive performance, age effects, neuroplasticity, episodic memory, working memory, executive function, task switching, dementia prevention, Alzheimer's disease, individual differences, training effectiveness
MeSH terms
Age Factors, Aged, Aging, Humans, Memory, Short-Term, Qualitative Research, Executive Function, Memory, Episodic

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