Mobile device proficiency is increasingly required to participate in society. Unfortunately, there still exists a digital divide between younger and older adults, especially with respect to mobile devices (i.e., tablet computers and smartphones). Training is an important goal to ensure that older adults can reap the benefits of these devices. However, efficient/effective training depends on the ability to gauge current proficiency levels. We developed a new scale to accurately assess the mobile device proficiency of older adults: the Mobile Device Proficiency Questionnaire (MDPQ). We present and validate the MDPQ and a short 16-question version of the MDPQ (MDPQ-16). The MDPQ, its subscales, and the MDPQ-16 were found to be highly reliable and valid measures of mobile device proficiency in a large sample. We conclude that the MDPQ and MDPQ-16 may serve as useful tools for facilitating mobile device training of older adults and measuring mobile device proficiency for research purposes.
The degree to which “brain training” can improve general cognition, resulting in improved performance on tasks dissimilar from the trained tasks (transfer of training), is a controversial topic. Here, we tested the degree to which cognitive training, in the form of gamified training activities that have demonstrated some degree of success in the past, might result in broad transfer. Sixty older adults were randomly assigned to a gamified cognitive training intervention or to an active control condition that involved playing word and number puzzle games. Participants were provided with tablet computers and asked to engage in their assigned training for 30 45-min training sessions over the course of 1 month. Although intervention adherence was acceptable, little evidence for transfer was observed except for the performance of one task that most resembled the gamified cognitive training: There was a trend for greater improvement on a version of the corsi block tapping task for the cognitive training group relative to the control group. This task was very similar to one of the training games. Results suggest that participants were learning specific skills and strategies from game training that influenced their performance on a similar task. However, even this near-transfer effect was weak. Although the results were not positive with respect to broad transfer of training, longer duration studies with larger samples and the addition of a retention period are necessary before the benefit of this specific intervention can be ruled out.
When something captures our attention, why does it do so? This topic has been hotly debated, with some arguing that attention is captured only by salient stimuli (bottom-up view) and others arguing capture is always due to a match between a stimulus and our goals (top-down view). Many different paradigms have provided evidence for 1 view or the other. If either of these strong views are correct, then capture represents a unitary phenomenon, and there should be a high correlation between capture in these paradigms. But if there are different types of capture (top-down, bottom-up), then some attention capture effects should be correlated and some should not. In 2 studies, we collected data from several paradigms used in support of claims of top-down and bottomup capture in relatively large samples of participants. Contrary to either prediction, measures of capture were not strongly correlated. Results suggest that capture may in fact be strongly determined by idiosyncratic task demands and strategies. Relevant to this lack of relations among tasks, we observed that classic measures of attention capture demonstrated low reliability, especially among measures used to support bottomup capture. Implications for the low reliability of capture measures are discussed. We also observed that the proportion of participants demonstrating a pattern of responses consistent with capture varied widely among classic measures of capture. Overall, results demonstrate that, even for relatively simple laboratory measures of attention, there are still important gaps in knowledge regarding what these paradigms measure and how they are related.
Age-related perceptual and cognitive declines are associated with difficulties performing everyday tasks required to remain independent. Encouraging improvements in cognitive abilities have been shown for various short-term interventions but there is little evidence for direct impact on independence. This project compares the effect of broad and directed (narrow) technology-based training on basic perceptual and cognitive abilities in older adults and on the performance of simulated tasks of daily living including driving and fraud avoidance. Participants (N = 230, Mean age = 72) were randomly assigned to one of four training conditions: broad training using either (1) a web-based brain game suite, Brain HQ, or (2) a strategy video game, Rise of Nations, or to directed training for (3) Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) training using web-based programs for both driving and fraud avoidance training, or (4) to an active control condition of puzzle solving. Training took approximately 15-20 hours for each intervention condition across four weeks. Before training began, participants received baseline ability tests of perception, attention, memory, cognition, and IADL, including a driving simulator test for hazard perception, and a financial fraud recognition test. They were tested again on these measures following training completion (post-test). A one-year follow-up from training completion is also scheduled. The baseline results support that randomization was successful across the intervention conditions. We discuss challenges and potential solutions for using technology-based interventions with older adults. We also discuss how the current trial addressed methodological limitations of previous intervention studies.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.