↓ Skip to main content

Self-Perceived Benefits of Cognitive Training in Healthy Older Adults

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, April 2018
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 (83rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
8 X users

Readers on

mendeley
71 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
Self-Perceived Benefits of Cognitive Training in Healthy Older Adults
Published in
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, April 2018
DOI 10.3389/fnagi.2018.00112
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vina M. Goghari, Linette Lawlor-Savage

Abstract

The idea that individualized, computer-based cognitive training improves cognitive functioning in non-trained domains is highly contested. An understudied area is whether cognitive training improves one's own perception of cognitive and day-to-day functioning. Furthermore, no studies have compared working memory training to programs that train higher-level processes themselves, namely logic and planning, in improving perception of cognitive abilities. We investigated self-reported changes in: (a) cognitive errors relevant to daily life; (b) expectations regarding training; and (c) impact of training on daily life, in healthy older adults who completed working memory training or logic and planning training. Ninety-seven healthy older adults completed 8-weeks of computerized cognitive training that targeted either working memory or logic and planning. Findings were compared to a no-training control group. Participants reported fewer cognitive failures relevant to daily life after training compared to the no-training control group, with a greater reduction in errors reported by the logic and planning training group compared to the working memory training group. Trainees' perception of training efficacy decreased over time. Nonetheless, approximately half of the participants in both training groups endorsed "some improvement" or more in self-perceived day-to-day functioning at post-testing. These results support the conclusion that individualized computerized cognitive training may enhance subjective perceptions of change and that higher level cognitive training may confer additional benefits. Findings suggest that cognitive training can enhance cognitive self-efficacy in healthy seniors.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 71 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 18%
Student > Master 10 14%
Student > Bachelor 8 11%
Researcher 4 6%
Unspecified 3 4%
Other 10 14%
Unknown 23 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 24 34%
Neuroscience 7 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 7%
Unspecified 3 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 3%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 25 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 May 2022.
All research outputs
#2,379,485
of 23,045,021 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#772
of 4,855 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,401
of 326,539 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#28
of 113 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,045,021 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,855 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 326,539 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 113 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.