4.4 Review

How Can We Not 'Lose It' if We Still Don't Understand How to 'Use It'? Unanswered Questions about the Influence of Activity Participation on Cognitive Performance in Older Age - A Mini-Review

Journal

GERONTOLOGY
Volume 56, Issue 5, Pages 507-519

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000264918

Keywords

Lifestyle engagement; Activity participation; Cognition; 'Use it or lose it' hypothesis

Funding

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The 'use it or lose it' hypothesis of cognitive aging predicts that engagement in intellectual, social, and physical activities offers protective benefits from age-related cognitive decline and lowers dementia risk. Although this hypothesis has not yet been supported conclusively, there is some empirical evidence in favor of the proposal. However, a number of questions surrounding the relationship between activity participation and cognitive ability in older adulthood are not yet well answered. This mini-review identifies seven key methodological and theoretical issues that are critical to our understanding and eventual possible promotion of activity participation as a way to maintain cognitive well-being. These include the mechanisms involved, the optimal ways of assessing activity engagement, which cognitive domains receive the most benefit from activity engagement, the temporal nature and the directionality of the relationship, the influence of demographic variables such as age, gender, or education, and whether one activity domain offers the most benefit to cognition. The current knowledge on each of these issues is critically evaluated, including describing what we already know about the issue, and identifying potential difficulties and opportunities that may exist in finding an answer. More studies need to take on the challenge of specifically targeting these issues, as each is essential to moving the field forward. Copyright (C) 2009 S. Karger AG, Basel

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available