Working memory training and poetry-based stimulation programs: Are there differences in cognitive outcome in healthy older adults?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Neuropsychological interventions have been mainly applied with clinical populations, in spite of the need of preventing negative changes across life span. Among the few studies of cognitive stimulation in elderly, surprisingly there is no enough research comparing direct and indirect active stimulation programs. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to verify wheter there are differences between two cognitive interventions approaches in older adults: a structured Working Memory (WM) Training Program versus a Poetry-based Stimulation Program. METHODS: Fourteen older adults were randomly assigned to participate into one of the two intervention groups. The assessed neurocognitive components were attention, episodic and working memory, communicative and executive functions. WM Training activities were based on Baddeley's model; Poetry-based Stimulation Program was composed by general language activities. Data were analyzed with one-way ANCOVA with Delta scores and pre and post-training tests raw scores. RESULTS: WM group improved performance on WM, inhibition, and cognitive flexibility measures, while Poetry group improved on verbal fluency and narrative discourse tasks. DISCUSSION: Both approaches presented benefits; however WM Training improved its target function with transfer effects to executive functions, being useful for future studies with a variety of dementias. Poetry-based Stimulation also improved complex linguistic abilities. Both approaches may be helpful as strategies to prevent dysfunctional aging changes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".