Cognitive and Exercise Training Improves Intraindividual Variability in Cognitive Performance in Older Adults: Secondary Findings of A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Increased intraindividual variability of cognitive performance is a marker of cognitive decline. Whether computerized cognitive training (CCT) and aerobic exercise counteracts cognitive decline by reducing intraindividual variability is unknown. We investigated the effects of CCT with or without aerobic exercise on reaction time intraindividual variability in older adults. Method This was a secondary analysis of an 8‐week randomized controlled trial. Older adults (aged 65‐85 years) were randomized to CCT alone (n = 41), CCT with aerobic exercise (n = 41), or an active control group (n = 42). The CCT group trained using the Fit Brains® platform 3×/week for 1 hour (plus 3×/week of home‐based training). The CCT with aerobic exercise group received 15 min of walking plus 45 min of Fit Brains® 3×/week (plus 3×/week of home‐based training). The control group received sham exercise and cognitive training (3×/week for 1 hour). We extracted reaction times from the Dimensional Change Card Sort Test, Flanker Inhibitory Control and Attention Test (Flanker), and Pattern Comparison Processing Speed Test (PACPS). Intraindividual variability was measured as residual intraindividual standard deviation (residual ISD) of raw reaction time latencies. Residual ISD is an unbiased measure of variability that accounts for within and between participant source of variation that could influence reaction time latencies. We also calculated reaction time intraindividual SD (raw‐score ISD) and intraindividual coefficient of variation (ICV). Result Compared with the control group, residual ISD improved in a processing speed task (PACPS) following CCT alone (mean difference [95% confidence interval]: ‐0.147 [‐0.230 to ‐0.065], p<0.001) and CCT with aerobic exercise (‐0.111 [‐0.195 to ‐0.027], p<0.01). Also, for processing speed, both CCT (‐0.173 [‐0.261 to ‐0.084], p<0.001) and CCT with aerobic exercise (‐0.122 [‐0.213 to ‐0.032], p<0.01) showed greater reduction in raw‐score ISD compared with controls, while only CCT reduced ICV for this task (‐0.108 [‐0.176 to ‐0.040], p<0.001). Inhibitory attention (Flanker) improved only after CCT with aerobic exercise (congruent = ‐0.128 [‐0.250 to ‐0.006], incongruent = ‐0.121 [‐0.237 to ‐0.005], both p<0.05). Conclusion A CCT program promoted cognitive health via reductions in intraindividual variability of cognitive performance and combining it with aerobic exercise resulted in broader benefits.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".