4.6 Article

Structural Brain Changes after Traditional and Robot-Assisted Multi-Domain Cognitive Training in Community-Dwelling Healthy Elderly

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 10, Issue 4, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0123251

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Gaha Corporation
  2. Korea Healthcare Technology R&D Project, Ministry for Health, Welfare & Family Affairs, Republic of Korea [A102065]
  3. Samsung Medical Center Clinical Research Development Program [CRL-108011, CRS 110-14-1]
  4. Korea Science and Engineering Foundation (KOSEF) NLRL program - Korean Government (MEST) [2011-0028333]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The purpose of this study was to investigate if multi-domain cognitive training, especially robot-assisted training, alters cortical thickness in the brains of elderly participants. A controlled trial was conducted with 85 volunteers without cognitive impairment who were 60 years old or older. Participants were first randomized into two groups. One group consisted of 48 participants who would receive cognitive training and 37 who would not receive training. The cognitive training group was randomly divided into two groups, 24 who received traditional cognitive training and 24 who received robot-assisted cognitive training. The training for both groups consisted of daily 90-min-session, five days a week for a total of 12 weeks. The primary outcome was the changes in cortical thickness. When compared to the control group, both groups who underwent cognitive training demonstrated attenuation of age related cortical thinning in the frontotemporal association cortices. When the robot and the traditional interventions were directly compared, the robot group showed less cortical thinning in the anterior cingulate cortices. Our results suggest that cognitive training can mitigate age-associated structural brain changes in the elderly.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available