↓ Skip to main content

Limited Effects of Set Shifting Training in Healthy Older Adults

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
97 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
Limited Effects of Set Shifting Training in Healthy Older Adults
Published in
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, March 2017
DOI 10.3389/fnagi.2017.00069
Pubmed ID
Authors

Petra Grönholm-Nyman, Anna Soveri, Juha O. Rinne, Emilia Ek, Alexandra Nyholm, Anna Stigsdotter Neely, Matti Laine

Abstract

Our ability to flexibly shift between tasks or task sets declines in older age. As this decline may have adverse effects on everyday life of elderly people, it is of interest to study whether set shifting ability can be trained, and if training effects generalize to other cognitive tasks. Here, we report a randomized controlled trial where healthy older adults trained set shifting with three different set shifting tasks. The training group (n = 17) performed adaptive set shifting training for 5 weeks with three training sessions a week (45 min/session), while the active control group (n = 16) played three different computer games for the same period. Both groups underwent extensive pre- and post-testing and a 1-year follow-up. Compared to the controls, the training group showed significant improvements on the trained tasks. Evidence for near transfer in the training group was very limited, as it was seen only on overall accuracy on an untrained computerized set shifting task. No far transfer to other cognitive functions was observed. One year later, the training group was still better on the trained tasks but the single near transfer effect had vanished. The results suggest that computerized set shifting training in the elderly shows long-lasting effects on the trained tasks but very little benefit in terms of generalization.

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 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 97 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 22%
Student > Master 20 21%
Student > Bachelor 11 11%
Researcher 6 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Other 12 12%
Unknown 22 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 24 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 15%
Neuroscience 11 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 6%
Computer Science 4 4%
Other 11 11%
Unknown 26 27%
Attention Score in Context

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 11 May 2021.
All research outputs
#14,682,799
of 23,508,125 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#3,376
of 4,950 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#175,169
of 310,349 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#85
of 110 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,508,125 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,950 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.4. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 310,349 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 110 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.