Effects of Cognitive Versus Mind-Motor Training on Cognition and Functional Skills in the Community-Dwelling Older Adults

Abstract

Background: There is a decline in cognitive and functional skills in older adults. The objective of this study was to compare the effects of cognitive and mind-motor training (MMT) on cognition and functional skills in a community-dwelling sample of older adults. Methods: In this observer-blinded randomized clinical trial, 40 older adults with medical stability, ability to comprehend and respond to simple verbal instructions, no diagnosed psychological disorders, absence of severe visual and hearing problems, the capacity to walk independently, and a score of more than 46 in Berg Balance Scale were included. They were randomly allocated into cognitive or MMT groups. Cognitive training (CT) was practiced with activities for memory and attention, using paper–pencil tasks. MMT was practiced using a simple, indoor based square-stepping exercise. They practiced one-hour of training per day, three days a week, for eight weeks. Results: General linear model analysis showed that the time by groups was not statistically significant. The mean (standard deviation) scores in General Practitioner Assessment of Cognition Scale and Hindi Mental State Examination improved significantly (P < 0.001) following MMT [1.75 (1.29); 2.4 (1.34)] and CT [1.5 (1.36); 2.7 (0.99)]. The functional skills measured using Lawton Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Scale revealed beneficial changes for both the groups. None of the outcomes were statistically significant between the groups (P > 0.05). Conclusion: Both cognitive and MMTs showed similar practice effects on cognition and functional skills in community-dwelling older adults.

Effectiveness of Different Neurocognitive Intervention Approaches on Functionality in Healthy Older Adults: A Systematic Review

“…Timed Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (TIADL) [13,[34][35][36], The Everyday Problem Test (EPT) [13,35,37], The Activities of Daily Living Questionnaire (ADL) [31], the Chinese version of the Observed Task of Daily Living (OTDL-C) [38], and the Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SOB) [32] are all commonly used in assessing cognitive function in older adults. The IADL scale [31,[39][40][41][42][43], ECB test [26,27], Barthel Index [42], OTDL tasks [37], Chula ADL index [44], EPCCE [25], and DAFS [25] were utilized. The most employed were the IADL scale and its timed version, the TIADL.…”

“…Regarding the intervention of the experimental and control groups, there is significant variation between studies. The main cognitive interventions for the experimental group include cognitive stimulation programs [27,33,[39][40][41]44], as well as specific programs focusing on cognitive domains such as attention [32,34], memory [33,[36][37][38], and working memory [13,35], processing speed [13,34], reasoning [25,37,38], or problem-solving [39], multi-component cognitive intervention [31], and everyday cognition [26,27]. The control group had six articles with passive control, twelve with active control, and two without intervention in the control group.…”

Comments on “Effects of Cognitive Versus Mind-Motor Training on Cognition and Functional Skills in the Community-Dwelling Older Adults”

“…It is worth noting that when the detection of such a small change is set as a target, the necessary sample size is expected to be large and not n = 20 (because small samples are powered to detect large changes, and vice versa). S harma et al 1 examined the effects of cognitive versus mind-motor training on cognition and functioning in community-dwelling older adults. Their sample size estimation, as described in the article, is problematic.…”

“…Sharma et al 1 examined the effects of cognitive versus mind-motor training on cognition and functioning in community-dwelling older adults. Their sample size estimation, as described in the article, is problematic.…”

“…In two-group randomized controlled trials (RCTs), the sample size for a continuous outcome measure is estimated either by seeking to determine whether one group is superior to the other by a certain value for the mean and standard deviation (SD) or by seeking to determine whether one group is superior to the other by a certain effect size. In the context, Sharma et al 1 acknowledged that their objective was to compare outcomes between two groups and analyzed their data accordingly; however, they estimated sample size based not on their objective and plan of analysis but on the change in magnitude of the outcome variable in a single arm of the RCT. Then they doubled this value, with compensation for expected dropouts, to obtain the necessary sample size for the full RCT.…”