↓ Skip to main content

Six-Year Training Improves Everyday Memory in Healthy Older People. Randomized Controlled Trial

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Six-Year Training Improves Everyday Memory in Healthy Older People. Randomized Controlled Trial
Published in
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, June 2016
DOI 10.3389/fnagi.2016.00135
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carmen Requena, Agustín Turrero, Tomás Ortiz

Abstract

Everyday memory of older persons does not improve with intensive memory training programs. This study proposes a change in these programs based on a time-extended and massive intervention format. The sample of 1007 healthy older persons (mean age 71.85; SD = 5.12) was randomized into 2 groups. The experimental group followed an extended 6 years of training (192 sessions over 192 weeks) whereas the control group received an intensive training (3 sessions per week for a total of 32 sessions in 11 weeks). The program included cognitive and emotional content whose effects were assessed with the Rivermead Behavioral Memory Test (RBMT) and with the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). Both groups were evaluated initially, after 32 sessions, and again after 6 years. The relative improvements measured with Blom's derivative showed that everyday memory and mental status of the experimental group were significantly better both in the short (Δ% 8.31 in RBMT and Δ% 1.51 in MMSE) and in the long term (Δ% 12.54 in RBMT and Δ% 2.56 in MMSE). For everyday memory and mental level, the overall gain estimate representing the mean difference in pre-post change between time-extended and intensive groups was 0.27 (95% CI: 0.13-0.40) and 0.54 (95% CI: 0.40-0.67), respectively. Time-extended programs have significantly improved everyday memory in contrast with the usual intensive programs whose effects decay with time. There are also significant increases in mental level scores while daily life functionality is preserved in all subjects who completed the training. These results suggest that it is possible to preserve everyday memory in the long term with continuous training and practice. Massive and time-extended formats may contribute in the future to a paradigm shift in memory programs for healthy older people.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 2%
Unknown 46 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 19%
Student > Master 9 19%
Researcher 6 13%
Student > Bachelor 6 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 11 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 15 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 15%
Neuroscience 5 11%
Sports and Recreations 2 4%
Engineering 2 4%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 13 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 14 June 2016.
All research outputs
#17,807,987
of 22,876,619 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#3,819
of 4,815 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#243,671
of 343,019 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#76
of 96 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,876,619 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,815 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 343,019 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 96 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.