↓ Skip to main content

PLOS

Computerized Cognitive Training with Older Adults: A Systematic Review

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, July 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
22 X users
patent
2 patents
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
490 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
891 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
Title
Computerized Cognitive Training with Older Adults: A Systematic Review
Published in
PLOS ONE, July 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0040588
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alexandra M. Kueider, Jeanine M. Parisi, Alden L. Gross, George W. Rebok

Abstract

A systematic review to examine the efficacy of computer-based cognitive interventions for cognitively healthy older adults was conducted. Studies were included if they met the following criteria: average sample age of at least 55 years at time of training; participants did not have Alzheimer's disease or mild cognitive impairment; and the study measured cognitive outcomes as a result of training. Theoretical articles, review articles, and book chapters that did not include original data were excluded. We identified 151 studies published between 1984 and 2011, of which 38 met inclusion criteria and were further classified into three groups by the type of computerized program used: classic cognitive training tasks, neuropsychological software, and video games. Reported pre-post training effect sizes for intervention groups ranged from 0.06 to 6.32 for classic cognitive training interventions, 0.19 to 7.14 for neuropsychological software interventions, and 0.09 to 1.70 for video game interventions. Most studies reported older adults did not need to be technologically savvy in order to successfully complete or benefit from training. Overall, findings are comparable or better than those from reviews of more traditional, paper-and-pencil cognitive training approaches suggesting that computerized training is an effective, less labor intensive alternative.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 891 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 8 <1%
United States 7 <1%
United Kingdom 7 <1%
Poland 5 <1%
Canada 4 <1%
Brazil 3 <1%
Italy 2 <1%
Portugal 2 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Other 9 1%
Unknown 843 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 166 19%
Student > Master 147 16%
Researcher 114 13%
Student > Bachelor 98 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 61 7%
Other 175 20%
Unknown 130 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 291 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 98 11%
Neuroscience 64 7%
Computer Science 48 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 46 5%
Other 171 19%
Unknown 173 19%