Virtual reality video game improves high-fidelity memory in older adults

Peter E Wais, Melissa Arioli, Roger Anguera-Singla, Adam Gazzaley, Peter E Wais, Melissa Arioli, Roger Anguera-Singla, Adam Gazzaley

Abstract

Therapeutic interventions have not yet been shown to demonstrate restorative effects for declining long-term memory (LTM) that affects many healthy older adults. We developed a virtual reality (VR) spatial wayfinding game (Labyrinth-VR) as a cognitive intervention with the hypothesis that it could improve detailed, high-fidelity LTM capability. Spatial navigation tasks have been used as a means to achieve environmental enrichment via exposure to and learning about novel and complex information. Engagement has been shown to enhance learning and has been linked to the vitality of the LTM system in the brain. In the current study, 48 older adults (mean age 68.7 ± 6.4 years) with average cognitive abilities for their age were randomly assigned to 12 h of computer game play over four weeks in either the Labyrinth-VR or placebo control game arms. Promptly before and after each participant's treatment regimen, high-fidelity LTM outcome measures were tested to assess mnemonic discrimination and other memory measures. The results showed a post-treatment gain in high-fidelity LTM capability for the Labyrinth-VR arm, relative to placebo, which reached the levels attained by younger adults in another experiment. This novel finding demonstrates generalization of benefits from the VR wayfinding game to important, and untrained, LTM capabilities. These cognitive results are discussed in the light of relevant research for hippocampal-dependent memory functions.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Illustrations of the virtual reality game in Experiment 2 (A) Via a head-mounted virtual reality display, participants had a first-person view of wayfinding trials. The game goal was to learn and efficiently complete errands, as illustrated here with the overhead perspective of the feedback screen from a Village neighborhood. (B) Game movement was effected by a participant’s ambulation, which was co-registered into the game map from ankle-mounted tracking sensors.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Overview of Procedures in Experiment 2. Participants were randomized to training regimens that included 12 h on task playing either the Labyrinth-VR or the Placebo Control games over 30 days. Baseline and post-training performance on high-fidelity LTM outcomes were assessed promptly before and after each participant’s training regimen.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Results for LTM Outcome Measures. (A) The distributions of participants’ individual change scores (i.e., T2-T1) are presented for the Labyrinth-VR and Control arms from the results for Lure Discrimination Index (LDI) and WALK. Mean performance in each column is shown by a horizontal bar. (B) Comparisons of treatment-induced changes between arms showed a robust gain in LDI for Labyrinth-VR (Lab), relative to Control (Con), and a smaller numerical gain in WALK for Lab, relative to Con. * indicates a difference between arms, p 

Figure 4

Individual Differences. Relative to their…

Figure 4

Individual Differences. Relative to their game achievement level, individual change scores in LDI…

Figure 4
Individual Differences. Relative to their game achievement level, individual change scores in LDI (i.e., T2-T1) are presented for participants in the Labyrinth-VR treatment arm. A trend was evident between higher Labyrinth achievement and treatment-induced gain in LDI (p = 0.10).

Figure 5

Comparisons of LDI for Younger,…

Figure 5

Comparisons of LDI for Younger, Older and Labyrinth-VR Participants. (A) Mean LDI scores…

Figure 5
Comparisons of LDI for Younger, Older and Labyrinth-VR Participants. (A) Mean LDI scores for participants in the Labyrinth-VR arm in Experiment 2 (i.e., at baseline, T1, and post-training assessments, T2) are compared to the mean LDI scores for groups of younger and older adults that completed the same Mnemonic Discrimination Task in Experiment 1. Labyrinth-VR participants at T1 showed a diminished level of LDI typical of older adults (OA), and then they improved this important high-fidelity LTM capability at T2 up to a level typical for younger adults (YA). (B) Mean LDI scores for participants in the Control arm in Experiment 2, at both T1 and T2, were below the mean level of YA in Experiment 1. ** indicates a difference between means, p 
Similar articles
Cited by
References
    1. Stark, S., Yassa, M., Lacy, J & Stark, C.E.L. A task to assess behavioral pattern separation (BPS) in humans: Data from healthy aging and mild cognitive impairment. Neuropsychologia51, 2442–2449 (2013). - PMC - PubMed
    1. Naveh-Benjamin M, Hussain Z, Guez J, Bar-On M. Adult age differences in episodic memory: Further support for an associative-deficit hypothesis. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 2003;29:826–837. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.29.5.826. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Chalfonte B, Johnson M. Feature memory and binding in young and older adults. Mem. Cognit. 1996;24:403–416. doi: 10.3758/BF03200930. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Petersen RC. Mild Cognitive Impairment: Aging to Alzheimer’s Disease. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2003.
    1. Ferguson S, Hashtroudi S, Johnson M. Age differences in using source-relevant cues. Psychol. Aging. 1992;7:443–455. doi: 10.1037/0882-7974.7.3.443. - DOI - PubMed
Show all 73 references
Publication types
MeSH terms
[x]
Cite
Copy Download .nbib
Format: AMA APA MLA NLM
Figure 4
Figure 4
Individual Differences. Relative to their game achievement level, individual change scores in LDI (i.e., T2-T1) are presented for participants in the Labyrinth-VR treatment arm. A trend was evident between higher Labyrinth achievement and treatment-induced gain in LDI (p = 0.10).
Figure 5
Figure 5
Comparisons of LDI for Younger, Older and Labyrinth-VR Participants. (A) Mean LDI scores for participants in the Labyrinth-VR arm in Experiment 2 (i.e., at baseline, T1, and post-training assessments, T2) are compared to the mean LDI scores for groups of younger and older adults that completed the same Mnemonic Discrimination Task in Experiment 1. Labyrinth-VR participants at T1 showed a diminished level of LDI typical of older adults (OA), and then they improved this important high-fidelity LTM capability at T2 up to a level typical for younger adults (YA). (B) Mean LDI scores for participants in the Control arm in Experiment 2, at both T1 and T2, were below the mean level of YA in Experiment 1. ** indicates a difference between means, p 

References

    1. Stark, S., Yassa, M., Lacy, J & Stark, C.E.L. A task to assess behavioral pattern separation (BPS) in humans: Data from healthy aging and mild cognitive impairment. Neuropsychologia51, 2442–2449 (2013).
    1. Naveh-Benjamin M, Hussain Z, Guez J, Bar-On M. Adult age differences in episodic memory: Further support for an associative-deficit hypothesis. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 2003;29:826–837. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.29.5.826.
    1. Chalfonte B, Johnson M. Feature memory and binding in young and older adults. Mem. Cognit. 1996;24:403–416. doi: 10.3758/BF03200930.
    1. Petersen RC. Mild Cognitive Impairment: Aging to Alzheimer’s Disease. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2003.
    1. Ferguson S, Hashtroudi S, Johnson M. Age differences in using source-relevant cues. Psychol. Aging. 1992;7:443–455. doi: 10.1037/0882-7974.7.3.443.
    1. Wais PE, Jahanikia S, Steiner D, Stark C, Gazzaley A. Retrieval of high-fidelity memory arises from distributed cortical networks. NeuroImage. 2017;149:178–189. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.01.062.
    1. Slotnick S, Dodson C. Support for a continuous (single-process) model of recognition memory and source memory. Mem. Cognit. 2005;33:151–170. doi: 10.3758/BF03195305.
    1. Reinitz M, Lammers W, Cochran B. Memory-conjunction errors: Miscombination of stored stimulus features can produce illusions of memory. Mem. Cogn. 1992;20:1–11. doi: 10.3758/BF03208247.
    1. Kroll N, Knight R, Metcalfe J, Wolf E, Tulving E. Cohesion failure as a source of memory illusions. J. Mem. Lang. 1996;35:176–196. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1996.0010.
    1. Moscovitch, M., Nade, l.L., Winocur, G., Gilboa, A. & Rosenbaum, R.S. The cognitive neuroscience of remote episodic, semantic and spatial memory. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 16(2), 179–190 (2006).
    1. Dede A, Frascino J, Wixted JT, Squire L. Learning and remembering real-world events after medial temporal lobe damage. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2016;113:13480–13485. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1617025113.
    1. McClelland J, McNaughton B, O’Reilly R. Why there are complementary learning systems in the hippocampus and neocortex: Insights from the successes and failures of connectionist models of learning and memory. Psychol. Rev. 1995;102:419–457. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.102.3.419.
    1. Norman K, O’Reilly R. Modeling hippocampal and neocortical contributions to recognition memory: A complementary-learning-systems approach. Psychol. Rev. 2003;110:611–646. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.110.4.611.
    1. Bakker A, Kirwan CB, Miller M, Stark CEL. Pattern separation in the human hippocampal CA3 and dentate gyrus. Science. 2008;319:1640–1642. doi: 10.1126/science.1152882.
    1. Yassa M, Mattfield A, Stark S, Stark CEL. Age-related memory deficits linked to circuit-specific disruptions in the hippocampus. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2011;108:8873–8878. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1101567108.
    1. Toner C, Pirogovsky E, Kirwan C, Gilbert PE. Visual object pattern separation deficits in nondemented older adults. Learn. Mem. 2009;16(5):338–342. doi: 10.1101/lm.1315109.
    1. Stark S, Stevenson R, Wu C, Rutledge S, Stark CEL. Stability of age-related deficits in the mnemonic similarity task across task variations. Behav. Neurosci. 2015;129:257–268. doi: 10.1037/bne0000055.
    1. Hassevoort K, Khan N, Hillman C, Cohen N. Differential development of relational memory and pattern separation. Hippocampus. 2020;30:210–219. doi: 10.1002/hipo.23146.
    1. Yassa M, et al. Pattern separation deficits associated with increased hippocampal CA3 and dentate gyrus activity in nondemented older adults. Hippocampus. 2011;9:968–979.
    1. Negron-Oyarzo I, et al. Coordinated prefrontal–hippocampal activity and navigation strategy-related prefrontal firing during spatial memory formation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2018;115:7123–7128. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1720117115.
    1. McAvoy KM, et al. Modulating neuronal competition dynamics in the dentate gyrus to rejuvenate aging memory circuits. Neuron. 2016;91:1356–1373. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2016.08.009.
    1. Harvey C, Collman F, Domback D, Tank D. Intracellular dynamics of hippocampal place cells during virtual navigation. Nature. 2009;461:941–946. doi: 10.1038/nature08499.
    1. van Praag H, Kempermann G, Gage FH. Neural consequences of environmental enrichment. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2000;1:191–198. doi: 10.1038/35044558.
    1. Bilkey D, et al. Exposure to complex environments results in more sparse representations of space in the hippocampus. Hippocampus. 2017;27:1178–1191. doi: 10.1002/hipo.22762.
    1. Kempermann G, Kuhn HG, Gage FH. More hippocampal neurons in adult mice living in an enriched environment. Nature. 1997;386:493–495. doi: 10.1038/386493a0.
    1. Rosenzweig MR, Bennett E, Hebert M, Morimoto H. Social grouping cannot account for cerebral effects of enriched environments. Brain Res. 1978;153:563–576. doi: 10.1016/0006-8993(78)90340-2.
    1. Rolls, E.T. Spatial coordinate transforms linking the allocentric hippocampal and egocentric parietal primate brain systems for memory, action in space, and navigation. Hippocampus 1–22 (2019).
    1. Clemenson G, Stark CEL. Virtual environmental enrichment through video games improves hippocampal-associated memory. J. Neurosci. 2015;35:16116–16125. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2580-15.2015.
    1. Mishra J, et al. Video games for neuro-cognitive optimization. Neuron. 2016;90:214–218. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2016.04.010.
    1. Bavelier D, Green CS. Enhancing attentional control: lessons from action video games. Neuron. 2019;104:147–163. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2019.09.031.
    1. Bowman ND. Editorial: Video games as demanding technologies. Media Commun. 2019;7:144–148. doi: 10.17645/mac.v7i4.2684.
    1. Elor A, Teodorescu M, Kurniawan S. Project star catcher: A novel immersive virtual reality experience for upper limb rehabilitation. ACM Trans. Access Comput. 2018;11:4. doi: 10.1145/3265755.
    1. Elor A, et al. On shooting stars: Comparing CAVE and HMD immersive virtual reality exergaming for adults with mixed ability. ACM Trans. Access Comput. 2018;1:1. doi: 10.1145/3265755.
    1. Li G, et al. Enhanced attention using head-mounted virtual reality. J Cognit. Neurosci. 2020;27:1–18.
    1. Vikbladh OM. Hippocampal contributions to model-based planning and spatial memory. Neuron. 2019;102:683–693. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2019.02.014.
    1. Suwabe K, et al. Rapid stimulation of human dentate gyrus function with acute mild exercise. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2018;115:10487–10492. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1805668115.
    1. Wang C, et al. Non-pharmacological interventions for patients with mild cognitive impairment: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of cognition-based and exercise interventions. J. Alzheimers Dis. 2014;42:663–678. doi: 10.3233/JAD-140660.
    1. Erickson K, et al. Exercise training increases size of hippocampus and improves memory. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2011;108:3017–3022. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1015950108.
    1. Maffei L, et al. Randomized trial on the effects of a combined physical/cognitive training in aged MCI subjects: The Train the Brain study. Sci. Rep. 2017;7:39471. doi: 10.1038/srep39471.
    1. Pentikäinen H, et al. Cardiorespiratory fitness and cognition: Longitudinal associations in the FINGER study. J. Alzheimers Dis. 2019;68:961–968. doi: 10.3233/JAD-180897.
    1. Hayes, S.M., Forman, D.E. & Verfaellie, M. Cardiorespiratory fitness is associated with cognitive performance in older but not younger adults. J. Gerontol. Ser. B Psychol. Sci. Soc. Sci. 71, 474–482 (2016).
    1. Stevenson R, Reagh Z, Chun A, Murray E, Yassa M. Pattern separation and source memory engage distinct hippocampal and neocortical regions during retrieval. J. Neurosci. 2020;40:843–851. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0564-19.2019.
    1. Dimsdale-Zucker H, Ritchey M, Ekstrom A, Yonelinas Y, Ranganath C. CA1 and CA3 differentially support spontaneous retrieval of episodic contexts within human hippocampal subfields. Nat. Commun. 2018;9:294. doi: 10.1038/s41467-017-02752-1.
    1. Wais PE, Montgomery O, Stark C, Gazzaley A. Evidence of a causal role for mid-ventrolateral prefrontal cortex based functional networks in retrieving high-fidelity memory. Sci. Rep. 2018;8:14877. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-33164-w.
    1. Barredo J, Oeztekin I, Badre D. Ventral fronto-temporal pathway supporting cognitive control of episodic memory retrieval. Cereb. Cortex. 2015;25:1004–1019. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bht291.
    1. Stokes J, Kyle C, Ekstrom A. Complementary roles of human hippocampal subfields in differentiation and integration of spatial context. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 2015;27:546–559. doi: 10.1162/jocn_a_00736.
    1. Folstein, M.F., Folstein, S.E. & McHugh, P.R. “Mini-mental state.” A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J. Psychiatr. Res.12, 189–198 (1975).
    1. Yesavage JA, et al. Development and validation of a geriatric depression screening scale: A preliminary report. J. Psychiatr. Res. 1982;17:37–49. doi: 10.1016/0022-3956(82)90033-4.
    1. Delis DC, Kramer JH, Kaplan E, Ober BA. The California Verbal Learning Test-Research. New York: Psychological Corporation; 1987.
    1. Wechsler D. Manual for the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-III. San Antonio: The Psychological Corporation; 1997.
    1. Delis DC, Kaplan E, Kramer JH. Delis Kaplan executive function system (D-KEFS) Appl. Neuropsychol. 2001;13:275–279.
    1. Macmillan. N. & Creelman, C. Detection Theory: A User’s Guide. Chap. 2, 2nd edn. (Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, 2005).
    1. Chan D, et al. The 4 mountains test: A short test of spatial memory with high sensitivity for the diagnosis of pre-dementia Alzheimer's disease. JOVE. 2016;116(e54454):1–11.
    1. Munion A, Stefanucci J, Rovira E, Squire P, Hendricks M. Gender differences in spatial navigation: Characterizing wayfinding behaviors. Psych. Bull. Rev. 2019;26:1933–1940. doi: 10.3758/s13423-019-01659-w.
    1. Boone AP, Gong X, Hegarty M. Sex differences in navigation strategy and efficiency. Mem. Cognit. 2018;46:909–922. doi: 10.3758/s13421-018-0811-y.
    1. Coluccia E, Louse G. Gender differences in spatial orientation: A review. J. Environ. Psychol. 2004;24(3):329–340. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.08.006.
    1. Jagust W. Vulnerable neural systems and the borderland of brain aging and neurodegeneration. Neuron. 2013;77:219–234. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2013.01.002.
    1. Leek M. Adaptive procedures in psychophysical research. Percept. Psychophys. 2001;63:1279–1292. doi: 10.3758/BF03194543.
    1. Bowman, N. D., Wasserman, J., & Newman, J. E. Development of the video game demand scale. in (N. D. Bowman ed.) Video Games: A Medium that Demands Our Attention 1st edn. 208–233. (Routledge, New York, 2018).
    1. Boldrini M, et al. Human hippocampal neurogenesis persists throughout aging. Cell Stem Cell. 2018;22:589–599. doi: 10.1016/j.stem.2018.03.015.
    1. Stark S, Yassa M, Lacy J, Stark CEL. A task to assess behavioral pattern separation (BPS) in humans: Data from healthy aging and mild cognitive impairment. Neuropsychologia. 2012;51:2442–2449. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2012.12.014.
    1. Miller S, Sahay A. Functions of adult-born neurons in hippocampal memory interference and indexing. Nat. Neurosci. 2019;22:1565–1575. doi: 10.1038/s41593-019-0484-2.
    1. Symons C, Johnson B. The self-reference effect in memory: A meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 1997;121:371–394. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.121.3.371.
    1. Peters S, Fan C, Sheldon S. Episodic memory contributions to autobiographical memory and open-ended problem-solving specificity in younger and older adults. Mem. Cognit. 2019;47:1592–1605. doi: 10.3758/s13421-019-00953-1.
    1. Kalenzaga S, et al. Episodic memory and self-reference via semantic autobiographical memory: Insights from an fMRI study in younger and older adults. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 2015;8:449. doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2014.00449.
    1. Martinelli P, Anssens A, Sperduti M, Piolino P. The influence of normal aging and Alzheimer’s disease in episodic autobiographical memory highly related to the self. Neuropsychology. 2013;27:69–78. doi: 10.1037/a0030453.
    1. Daley R, et al. Neural mechanisms supporting emotional and self-referential information processing and encoding in older and younger adults. Soc. Cogn. Affect Neuro. 2020;15:405–421. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsaa052.
    1. Gutchess A, Kensinger EA. Shared mechanisms may support mnemonic benefits from self-referencing and emotion. Trends Cognit. Sci. 2018;22(8):712–724. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2018.05.001.
    1. Carson N, Rosenbaum RS, Moscovitch M, Murphy K. Self-referential processing improves memory for narrative information in healthy aging and amnestic mild cognitive impairment. Neuropsychologia. 2019;134:107179. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2019.107179.
    1. Hartley T, et al. The hippocampus is required for short-term topographical memory in humans. Hippocampus. 2007;17:38–48. doi: 10.1002/hipo.20240.
    1. Au J, Gibson B, Bunarjo K, Buschkuehl M, Jaeggi S. Quantifying the difference between active and passive control groups in cognitive interventions using two meta-analytical approaches. J. Cognit. Enhanc. 2020 doi: 10.1007/s41465-020-00164-6.
    1. Simons DJ, et al. Do “brain-training” programs work? Psych. Sci. 2016;17:103–186.
    1. Anguera JA, et al. Video game training enhances cognitive control in older adults. Nature. 2013;501:97–101. doi: 10.1038/nature12486.

Source: PubMed

3
Předplatit