4.1 Article Proceedings Paper

Computer-based Cognitive Training for Mild Cognitive Impairment Results from a Pilot Randomized, Controlled Trial

期刊

ALZHEIMER DISEASE & ASSOCIATED DISORDERS
卷 23, 期 3, 页码 205-210

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/WAD.0b013e31819c6137

关键词

human; aged; cognition; cognitive rehabilitation; memory; neuropsychologic tests; randomized controlled trial; mild cognitive impairment

资金

  1. NIA NIH HHS [P30 AG010129-18, K01 AG024069-04, P30 AG010129, P30 AG010129-17, K01 AG 024069, K01 AG024069] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We performed a pilot randomized, controlled trial of intensive, computer-based cognitive training in 47 subjects with mild cognitive impairment. The intervention group performed exercises specifically designed to improve auditory processing speed and accuracy for 100 min/d, 5 d/wk for 6 weeks; the control group performed more passive computer activities (reading, listening, visuospatial game) for similar amounts of time. Subjects had a mean age of 74 years and 60% were men; 77% successfully completed training. On our primary outcome, Repeatable Battery for Assessment of Neuropsychological Status total scores improved 0.36 standard deviations (SD) in the intervention group (P = 0.097) compared with 0.03 SD in the control group (P = 0.88) for a nonsignificant difference between the groups of 0.33 SD (P = 0.26). On 12 secondary outcome measures, most differences between the groups were not statistically significant. However, we observed a pattern in which effect sizes for verbal learning and memory measures tended to favor the intervention group whereas effect sizes for language and visuospatial function measures tended to favor the control group, which raises the possibility that these training programs may have domain-specific effects. We conclude that intensive, computer-based mental activity is feasible in subjects with mild cognitive impairment and that larger trials are warranted.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据