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.

No abstract

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.

No abstract

In the present study, we examined three experimental cognitive interventions, two targeted at training general cognitive abilities and one targeted at training specific instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) abilities, along with one active control group to compare benefits of these interventions beyond expectation effects, in a group of older adults (N = 230). Those engaged in general training did so with either the web-based brain game suite BrainHQ or the strategy video game Rise of Nations, while those trained on IADL skills completed instructional programs on driving and fraud awareness. Active control participants completed sets of puzzles. Comparing baseline and postintervention data across conditions, none of the preregistered primary outcome measures demonstrated a significant interaction between session and intervention condition, indicating no differential benefits. Analysis of expectation effects showed differences between intervention groups consistent with the type of training. Those in the IADL training condition did demonstrate superior knowledge for specific trained information (driving and finances). Twelve months after training, significant interactions between session and intervention were present in the primary measure of fraud detection, as well as the secondary measures of the letter sets task and Rey’s Auditory Verbal Learning Test. However, the specific source of these interactions was difficult to discern. At 1-year follow-up those in the IADL condition did not maintain superior knowledge of driving and finances gained through training, as was present immediately postintervention. Hence, the interventions, when compared to an active control condition, failed to show general or specific transfer in a meaningful or consistent way.