MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7116898467 · doi:10.1002/alz70860_100616

Training Multitasking Abilities in Cognitively Healthy Older Adults: Training Gains and Transfer Effects of a Digital Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

2025· article· en· W7116898467 on OpenAlexaff
Kayri K. Bertolotta, Michelle Hernandez, Maya Gal, Daniel Ben‐Eliezer, Andrei Teodorescu, Michal S Beeri, Seonjoo Lee, Sabrina Simoes, Sylvie Belleville, Benjamin M. Hampstead, Daniel Gopher, Yaakov E. Stern, Sharon Sanz Simon

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTechnology Use by Older Adults
Canadian institutionsInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman multitaskingRandomized controlled trialTraining (meteorology)Cognitive trainingControl (management)Transfer of training

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Developing efficient cognitive training programs for the older population is a major public health goal due to its potential benefits on cognition and quality of life. A promising training approach is emphasis change, which can benefit executive/attention control and multitasking abilities. The aim of this digital pilot randomized controlled trial was to assess the effects of the emphasis change using a new web-based platform that simulates real-life multitasking demands, the Breakfast Game. METHOD: A community-based sample of 38 cognitively healthy participants (M = 65.8, SD = 3.6), highly educated (M = 16.4, SD = 2.0) were randomized between two conditions: 1) Emphasis Change (EC): participants were instructed to place particular emphasis on specific aspects of the game; and 2) Active Control (AC) - gameplay with standard instructions. Participants underwent 13 online sessions using the Breakfast Game. Each session lasted one hour and occurred 3 times a week at participants' homes. Five out of the 13 sessions were supervised via videoconference. Participants completed a neuropsychological assessment via videoconference at baseline and after the intervention (clinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT05506852). RESULT: At baseline, participants from both conditions showed similar levels of cognitive performance and computer literacy (p > .05). The trial presented high adherence (94.5%) and retention rates (89%), with a loss of 2 participants per group. Both groups show a learning curve, with time effects in the game outcomes (p < .05). A time-by-group interaction (p = .04) was observed for one game accuracy measure (e.g., range of stop times), indicating greater training gain in the EC group. Regarding the transfer effects, there were time-by-group interactions (p = .02; p = .03) in the primary outcome (Alphanumeric Task), showing greater improvement in the EC in modulating their attention allocation. There was a modest effect in the secondary transfer outcome, the executive functions composite score (p = .03), mainly driven by working memory and divided attention tasks. There were no changes in the self-efficacy and mood measures. CONCLUSION: Online emphasis change training using the Breakfast Game is feasible with modest effects and promising benefits on divided attention/executive control in older adults. Further research should improve the features of the Breakfast Game and clarify the dose-response relationship.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & DementiaSame topicTechnology Use by Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207