MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3108772952 · doi:10.3389/fneur.2020.606873

Effects of Computerized Updating and Inhibition Training in Older Adults: The ACTOP Three-Arm Randomized Double-Blind Controlled Trial

2020· article· en· W3108772952 on OpenAlexafffund
Arnaud Boujut, Lynn Valeyry Verty, Samantha Maltezos, Maxime Lussier, Samira Mellah, Louis Bherer, Sylvie Belleville

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Neurology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCognitive Abilities and Testing
Canadian institutionsMontreal Heart InstituteUniversité de MontréalInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de Montréal
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialCognitive trainingStroop effectWorking memoryPsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapyCognitionMedicineAudiologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Working memory (WM) capacity declines with advancing age, which impacts the ability to carry out complex cognitive activities in everyday life. Updating and inhibition processes have been identified as some of the most critical attentional control processes of WM and are linked to age-related WM decline. The general aim of the Attentional Control Training in Older People (ACTOP) study was to perform a side-by-side comparison of updating and inhibition training to examine their respective efficacy and transfer in cognitively healthy older adults. Method: The study was a three-arm, double-blind, randomized controlled trial registered with the US National Institutes of Health clinical trials registry. Ninety older adults were randomly assigned to 12 half-hour sessions of updating (N-back type exercises), inhibition (Stroop-like exercises) computerized training or active control (general knowledge quiz game). A group of thirty younger adults completed all proximal and WM transfer tasks without training to assess age-related deficits prior to training and whether training reduces these deficits. Results: Piecewise mixed models show quick improvement of performance during training for both updating and inhibition training. During updating training, the progression was more pronounced for the most difficult (3-back) than for the least (1-back) difficult level until the ninth session. Updating and inhibition training groups improved performance on all proximal and WM transfer measures but these improvements did not differ from the active control group. Younger adults outperformed older ones on all transfer tasks prior to training. However, this was no longer the case following training for two transfer tasks regardless of the training group. Conclusion: The overall results from this study suggest that attentional control training is effective in improving updating and inhibition performance on training tasks. The optimal dose to achieve efficacy is ~9 half-hour sessions and the dose effect was related to difficulty level for updating training. Despite an overall improvement of older adults on all transfer tasks, neither updating nor inhibition training provided additional improvements in comparison with the active control condition. This suggests that the efficacy of process-based training does not directly affect transfer tasks. Clinical Trial Registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov , identifier: NCT03532113

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.592

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in NeurologySame topicCognitive Abilities and TestingFrench-language works237,207