Cognitive Training and Social Interaction Effects on Cognitive Performance of Older Adults

August 21, 2021 updated by: Michal Lavidor, Bar-Ilan University, Israel

Strategy Based Cognitive Training Effects on Cognitive Performance of Older Adults in a Socially Interactive Learning Group

Aging is associated with a decline in almost all aspects of cognitive functions, particularly memory. Recent research suggests that combining cognitive training with ongoing social interaction may aid in improving cognitive functioning for older adults. Furthermore, accumulative evidence suggests that strategy-based cognitive training may also improve the trainee's memory. In this study, the investigators examined the effects of a combined strategy-based cognitive training and a socially interactive learning method on cognitive performance and transfer effects in older adults.

Study Overview

Status

Completed

Conditions

Intervention / Treatment

Detailed Description

A major concern with the aging of the world's population is a higher prevalence of age-related impairment of cognitive functions. This concern highlights the need to identify quick and effective interventions that can preserve cognitive functions.

A growing body of literature supports the notion that cognitive training may assist in promoting healthy brain aging and improve a wide range of cognitive abilities.

Cognitive training refers to a protocol consisting of a set of exercises designed to improve performance in one or several cognitive abilities. One approach to cognitive training mentioned in the literature is strategy training. Strategy training usually focuses on teaching specific strategies designed to help encode or retrieve information and involves techniques such as rehearsal, chunking, mental imagery, and story-formation.

A possible means for improving cognitive training outcomes is employing a socially interactive group-based cognitive training program versus an individual one. An abundance of studies has shown that social interaction may contribute to the slowing down of cognitive decline in old age.

Recent studies suggest that social interaction alone may not be beneficial for enhancing cognitive abilities, but when combined with a mental stimulus that requires cognitive effort, such improvement might be achieved.

Only a few studies to date have investigated the advantage of strategy training performed in-group vs individually and even fewer studies focused specifically on socially interactive learning methods. A recent pilot study combined cognitive training with social interaction for people with mild to moderate dementia and reported a significant cognitive improvement in favor of the social interaction group compared to the control group who was engaged in cognitive training only.

Social cognition is supported by an extensive system of limbic, cortical and subcortical brain regions. Many of these regions are also involved in episodic memory, semantic memory and other cognitive functions. Thus, it is possible that aspects of cognitive processing, which are activated through social interaction will also strengthen these cognitive abilities.

Engaging in social interaction usually consists of complex cognitive and memory challenges, which in turn may aid in enhancing cognitive abilities and cognitive reserve Training in a group setting can provide participants with an opportunity to problem-solve with a relevant peer group and allow individuals to gain comfort from sharing their concerns about memory.

The purpose of the current study was therefore to determine the effectiveness of a strategy-based cognitive training approach combined with a socially interactive learning method on cognitive performance and transferability of training gains for older adults.

Procedure:

Meetings of both groups were held in public community centers. A pre-session meeting was devoted to explaining the research objectives and signing consent forms. Prior to the first training meeting and after the program ended, cognitive evaluation measurements were taken individually from each subject. Before the final cognitive evaluation, participants were reminded to use the learned strategies.

Sample size assessment:

A priori power analysis using pilot data and the SimR package in R (version 1.0.5) suggested that 30 participants would provide sufficient power (power > 80%) to detect the critical strategy training plus social interaction effect on cognitive performance.

Statistical analysis plan:

Data will be analyzed with IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 23 (IBM Corp., Armonk, N.Y., USA). The main analysis 'שד a mixed-design analysis that compares the experimental conditions (between-subject factors) regarding their effect on cognitive performance in 4 cognitive tests and 2-time points (within-subjects variables).

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

32

Phase

  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

  • Israel
      • Ramat Gan, Israel, 5290002
        • Bar Ilan University

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

64 years and older (ADULT, OLDER_ADULT)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Yes

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

• Healthy participants who are active in a designated group in the community.

Exclusion Criteria:

• Any diagnosis of cognitive decline.

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: OTHER
  • Allocation: NON_RANDOMIZED
  • Interventional Model: PARALLEL
  • Masking: DOUBLE

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
EXPERIMENTAL: strategy-based cognitive training + social interaction
The experimental group received twelve 60 minutes sessions of strategy-based cognitive training. (i.e., training in mnemonic memory strategies). We chose to train multiple strategies instead of a single one in effort to reach larger training gains. each session began with engaging conversations between the researcher and participants. After each practice trial, participants were encouraged to share their ideas/stories/associations or visual images (mnemonic uses) in turn. All other participants were allowed to give feedback relating to what can be learned from each mnemonic use or give their own ideas on how they think it can be improved.
Other: Social interaction combined with cognitive training based on mnemonic strategies.
In the first six sessions, participants in the experimental group learned and practiced six different mnemonic strategies: Story-Formation strategy, Face-Name strategy, Peg-Word strategy, Chunking strategy, Key-Word strategy and the Method of Loci. In the following six sessions, in order to assimilate the strategies they learned, participants practiced the same tasks.
ACTIVE_COMPARATOR: social interaction
The social interaction control group received the same number of group meetings but without the strategy training. Meetings content consisted of providing tools for making social connections, providing tools for interpersonal communication and raising the participant's sense of personal well-being through group contact.
Other: Social interaction group
In the control group, each session also began with a conversation between the participants. The sessions then dealt with the content of interpersonal communication and the acquisition of tools for creating interpersonal relationships. Participants were asked to share the way they used the tools they acquired between sessions and received feedback from the other participants

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Verbal Fluency Test (Chiu et al., 1997)
Time Frame: Change from baseline (before treatment) to immediately after treatment (12 weeks)
Participants were asked to say aloud as many words as possible belonging to a given category (animal's category and fruit and vegetables category) within a period of sixty seconds.
Change from baseline (before treatment) to immediately after treatment (12 weeks)

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Wechsler Digit Span Test (Wechsler 2008)
Time Frame: Change from baseline (before treatment) to immediately after treatment (12 weeks)
Series of digits were presented verbally at a rate of one digit per second. Subjects were required to repeat the digits verbally in the order presented.
Change from baseline (before treatment) to immediately after treatment (12 weeks)
Words Recall Test (Fairchild et al., 2013)
Time Frame: Change from baseline (before treatment) to immediately after treatment (12 weeks)
Subjects were asked to remember a list of 16 words and to recall the list after a 5-min delay.
Change from baseline (before treatment) to immediately after treatment (12 weeks)
Corsi Block-Tapping Test (Corsi 1972)
Time Frame: Change from baseline (before treatment) to immediately after treatment (12 weeks)
The task involves mimicking the researcher as he taps a sequence of up to nine identical spatially separated blocks.
Change from baseline (before treatment) to immediately after treatment (12 weeks)

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Bar-Ilan University, Israel

Investigators

  • Principal Investigator: Michal Lavidor, Prof., Department of Psychology, and the Gonda Brain Research center, Bar Ilan University

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

General Publications

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (ACTUAL)

November 18, 2018

Primary Completion (ACTUAL)

February 3, 2019

Study Completion (ACTUAL)

February 24, 2019

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

August 17, 2021

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

August 17, 2021

First Posted (ACTUAL)

August 23, 2021

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (ACTUAL)

August 26, 2021

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

August 21, 2021

Last Verified

August 1, 2021

More Information

Terms related to this study

Keywords

Additional Relevant MeSH Terms

Other Study ID Numbers

  • 08082021ML

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

NO

IPD Plan Description

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the main author.

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Cognitive Decline

Clinical Trials on Social interaction combined with cognitive training based on mnemonic strategies.

Search Similar Trials

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

CROs by country

CROs in United Arab Emirates

Conditions

Rare Diseases

Drug Interventions

Dietary Supplements

Sponsor/Collaborators

Locations

Subscribe