↓ Skip to main content

Computer-Based Cognitive Training in Aging

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
54 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
131 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
Computer-Based Cognitive Training in Aging
Published in
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, December 2016
DOI 10.3389/fnagi.2016.00313
Pubmed ID
Authors

Blanka Klimova

Abstract

At present there is a rapid growth of aging population groups worldwide, which brings about serious economic and social problems. Thus, there is considerable effort to prolong the active life of these older people and keep them independent. The purpose of this mini review is to explore available clinical studies implementing computer-based cognitive training programs as intervention tools in the prevention and delay of cognitive decline in aging, with a special focus on their effectiveness. This was done by conducting a literature search in the databases Web of Science, Scopus, MEDLINE and Springer, and consequently by evaluating the findings of the relevant studies. The findings show that computerized cognitive training can lead to the improvement of cognitive functions such as working memory and reasoning skills in particular. However, this training should be performed over a longer time span since a short-term cognitive training mainly has an impact on short-term memory with temporary effects. In addition, the training must be intense to become effective. Furthermore, the results indicate that it is important to pay close attention to the methodological standards in future clinical studies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 131 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 1 <1%
Unknown 130 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 16%
Student > Bachelor 20 15%
Student > Master 14 11%
Researcher 13 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 6%
Other 21 16%
Unknown 34 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 35 27%
Neuroscience 14 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 6%
Computer Science 7 5%
Other 18 14%
Unknown 40 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 07 October 2018.
All research outputs
#2,258,716
of 22,914,829 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#695
of 4,825 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,448
of 420,738 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#23
of 93 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,914,829 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,825 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 420,738 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 93 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.