Factors Explaining Language Performance After Training in Elders With and Without Subjective Cognitive Decline

Abstract

The present study explores if cognitive reserve, executive functions, and working memory capacity are predictive of performance in the language domain (specifically in sentence comprehension and naming) after a cognitive training intervention. Sixty-six Spanish older adults voluntarily participated in the study, classified either as older adults with subjective cognitive decline according to Jessen et al.’s (2014) criteria (n = 35; 70.94 ± 4.16 years old) or cognitively intact (n = 31; 71.34 ± 4.96 years old). Written sentence comprehension and visual confrontation naming were assessed both immediately after recruitment (at the baseline), and then 6 months later, once each participant had completed his/her cognitive training (a well-known program in Spain, called UMAM; English translation: Madrid City Council Memory Unit Program). Cognitive reserve, executive functions (cognitive flexibility and controlled interference efficiency), and working memory capacity were measured for all participants at the baseline. Results pointed out that the subjective cognitive decline group presented greater benefits in the language domain than cognitively intact participants. We also observed that lower executive functioning and working memory capacity at the baseline predicted larger benefits in language performance after training, but only in the group of cognitively intact older adults. However, selected predictors hardly explained subjective cognitive decline participants’ results in language performance after training.

Prognostic Factors and Models for Changes in Cognitive Performance After Multi-Domain Cognitive Training in Healthy Older Adults: A Systematic Review

“…N = 15 studies used a digital CT with tasks training specific functions [prognostic factor studies: n = 9 (Oswald et al, 1996 ; Lövdén et al, 2010 ; Legault et al, 2011 ; McDougall and House, 2012 ; Anderson et al, 2014 ; Mayas et al, 2014 ; Shah et al, 2014 ; Kim et al, 2015 ; Akimoto et al, 2016 ), prognostic model studies: n = 6 (Schmiedek et al, 2010 ; Shing et al, 2012 ; Miller et al, 2013 ; Bellander et al, 2015 ; Binder et al, 2016 ; Nouchi et al, 2019 )]. A total of n = 10 studies were held in group settings [ n = 6 of them prognostic factor studies (Oswald et al, 1996 ; Legault et al, 2011 ; Fernández-Prado et al, 2012 ; Kim et al, 2015 ; Otsuka et al, 2015 ; Gallen et al, 2016 ), n = 4 prognostic model studies (Polito et al, 2015 ; López-Higes et al, 2018a , b ; Roheger et al, 2020c )].…”

“…In the prognostic model studies, all studies trained the domain executive functions. Memory was trained in n = 8 studies (Lövdén et al, 2010 ; Schmiedek et al, 2010 ; Shing et al, 2012 ; Miller et al, 2013 ; Bellander et al, 2015 ; Polito et al, 2015 ; López-Higes et al, 2018b ; Roheger et al, 2020c ), attention in n = 5 (Polito et al, 2015 ; López-Higes et al, 2018a , b ; Nouchi et al, 2019 ; Roheger et al, 2020c ), language in n = 4 (Miller et al, 2013 ; Polito et al, 2015 ; López-Higes et al, 2018a , b ), global cognition in n = 3 (Polito et al, 2015 ; López-Higes et al, 2018a , b ), and visuo-spatial abilities in n = 3 (Miller et al, 2013 ; Polito et al, 2015 ; Binder et al, 2016 ). Only one prognostic model study included a CT targeting all cognitive domains (Polito et al, 2015 ).…”

“…In the prognostic model studies, n = 5 assessed baseline performance of the investigated outcome as a predictor (Binder et al, 2016 ; López-Higes et al, 2018a , b ; Nouchi et al, 2019 ; Roheger et al, 2020c ). N = 4 studies investigated age (Schmiedek et al, 2010 ; Shing et al, 2012 ; Nouchi et al, 2019 ; Roheger et al, 2020c ), n = 3 studies investigated sex as possible predictor in the model (Polito et al, 2015 ; Nouchi et al, 2019 ; Roheger et al, 2020c ).…”

“…N = 4 studies investigated age (Schmiedek et al, 2010 ; Shing et al, 2012 ; Nouchi et al, 2019 ; Roheger et al, 2020c ), n = 3 studies investigated sex as possible predictor in the model (Polito et al, 2015 ; Nouchi et al, 2019 ; Roheger et al, 2020c ). Only one study assessed education (Roheger et al, 2020c ), whereas two studies assessed psychological variables (López-Higes et al, 2018a , b ), namely cognitive reserve, and two studies integrated training variables (attendance to training, training dose) in their model (Shing et al, 2012 ; Miller et al, 2013 ). Apolipoprotein E4, a protein involved in the metabolism of fats in the body and a risk factor for developing Alzheimer's disease, was integrated as prognostic factor in the model in n = 3 studies (Bellander et al, 2015 ; Polito et al, 2015 ; Roheger et al, 2020c ).…”

“…Notably, only two studies investigated exact the same model, including baseline performance and cognitive reserve as predictors. Yet, both were conducted by the same research group (López-Higes et al, 2018a , b ).…”