| Title |
The effects of multi-domain versus single-domain cognitive training in non-demented older people: a randomized controlled trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medicine, March 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1741-7015-10-30 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yan Cheng, Wenyuan Wu, Wei Feng, Jiaqi Wang, You Chen, Yuan Shen, Qingwei Li, Xu Zhang, Chunbo Li |
| Abstract |
Whether healthy older people can benefit from cognitive training (CogTr) remains controversial. This study explored the benefits of CogTr in community dwelling, healthy, older adults and compared the effects of single-domain with multi-domain CogTr interventions. A randomized, controlled, 3-month trial of CogTr with double-blind assessments at baseline and immediate, 6-month and 12-month follow-up after training completion was conducted. A total of 270 healthy Chinese older people, 65 to 75 years old, were recruited from the Ganquan-area community in Shanghai. Participants were randomly assigned to three groups: multi-domain CogTr, single-domain CogTr, and a wait-list control group. Twenty-four sessions of CogTr were administrated to the intervention groups over a three-month period. Six months later, three booster training sessions were offered to 60% of the initial training participants. The Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS, Form A), the Color Word Stroop test (CWST), the Visual Reasoning test and the Trail Making test (TMT) were used to assess cognitive function. Multi-domain CogTr produced statistically significant training effects on RBANS, visual reasoning, and immediate and delayed memory, while single-domain CogTr showed training effects on RBANS, visual reasoning, word interference, and visuospatial/constructional score (all P < 0.05). At the 12-month posttest, the multi-domain CogTr showed training effects on RBANS, delayed memory and visual reasoning, while single-domain CogTr only showed effects on word interference. Booster training resulted in effects on RBANS, visual reasoning, time of trail making test, and visuospatial/constructional index score. Cognitive training can improve memory, visual reasoning, visuospatial construction, attention and neuropsychological status in community-living older people and can help maintain their functioning over time. Multi-domain CogTr enhanced memory proficiency, while single-domain CogTr augmented visuospatial/constructional and attention abilities. Multi-domain CogTr had more advantages in training effect maintenance. Chinese Clinical Trial Registry. ChiCTR-TRC-09000732. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 31% |
| United Kingdom | 4 | 31% |
| France | 1 | 8% |
| Canada | 1 | 8% |
| Belgium | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 2 | 15% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 77% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 23% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 199 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Poland | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 195 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 29 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 28 | 14% |
| Researcher | 24 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 17 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 8% |
| Other | 39 | 20% |
| Unknown | 46 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 46 | 23% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 36 | 18% |
| Neuroscience | 21 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 5% |
| Other | 20 | 10% |
| Unknown | 54 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 March 2014.
All research outputs
#1,070,686
of 22,890,496 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#750
of 3,442 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,763
of 160,505 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#6
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,890,496 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,442 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 160,505 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.