| Title |
Influence of combined physical and cognitive training on cognition: a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Geriatrics, July 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12877-016-0315-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Andreas Lauenroth, Anestis E. Ioannidis, Birgit Teichmann |
| Abstract |
Numerous daily activities require simultaneous application of motor and cognitive skills (dual-tasking). The execution of such tasks is especially difficult for the elderly and for people with (neuro-) degenerative disorders. Training of physical and cognitive abilities helps prevent or slow down the age-related decline of cognition. The aim of this review is to summarise and assess the role of combined physical-and-cognitive-training characteristics in improving cognitive performance and to propose an effective training scheme within the frame of a suitable experimental design. A systematic electronic literature search was conducted in selected databases. The following criteria were compulsory for inclusion in the study: 1. A (Randomized) Controlled Trial (RCT or CT) design; 2. Implementation of combined physical and cognitive training, either simultaneously (dual task) or subsequently - at least one hour per weekly over four weeks or more; 3. Cognitive outcomes as a study's endpoint. Twenty articles met the inclusion criteria. It appears that either simultaneous or subsequently combined physical and cognitive training is more successful compared to single physical or single cognitive exercise. Training characteristics like length, frequency, duration, intensity and level of task difficulty seem to determine cognitive performance. However, the articles show that cognitive improvement seems to remain somewhat confined to trained cognitive functions rather than generalising to other cognitive or daily-living skills. Due to methodological heterogeneity among studies, results need to be treated with caution. We critically discuss the role of training characteristics and propose a potentially effective training intervention within an appropriate experimental design. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 408 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 407 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 55 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 55 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 52 | 13% |
| Researcher | 45 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 22 | 5% |
| Other | 64 | 16% |
| Unknown | 115 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 52 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 50 | 12% |
| Sports and Recreations | 48 | 12% |
| Neuroscience | 39 | 10% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 33 | 8% |
| Other | 54 | 13% |
| Unknown | 132 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 21 May 2018.
All research outputs
#15,198,936
of 23,371,053 outputs
Outputs from BMC Geriatrics
#2,325
of 3,240 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#225,851
of 365,177 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Geriatrics
#28
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,371,053 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,240 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 365,177 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.