Working Memory Training for Cognitive Impairment in Older Adults

Recruiting at 1 trial location

Overseen By Aaron R Seitz, PhD

Age: 18+

Sex: Any

Trial Phase: Academic

Sponsor: Northeastern University

Disqualifiers: Dementia, Neurological disease, Severe anxiety, others

No Placebo Group All trial participants will receive the active study treatment (no placebo)

Compensation: Varies

Number of Visits: Unknown

313 Participants Needed

Trial Summary

What is the purpose of this trial?

The present study investigates how individual differences in cognitive processing contribute to the efficacy of working memory training programs in an older adult population. In a randomized crossover design, different types of working memory training interventions will be evaluated within the same participants. Adding game-like elements to working memory training programs can increase motivation and engagement, which can increase learning. However this process, termed gamification, adds sensory complexity that can lead to increased mental load and/or distraction in older adults. Investigators hypothesize that gamification of training tasks will be beneficial to some and counterproductive to other participants. The investigators will test two models; the first assumes that participants with difficulty inhibiting distracting information will show better learning and transfer when assigned to non-gamified training, whereas those with more distractor tolerance will show better learning and transfer when assigned to gamified training. The second model states that the outcomes of the intervention will be better predicted by performance on measures of general cognitive ability. In a separate study, the investigators will compare working memory training that contains rich, multisensory information with a training program that contains only visual information. Here they will also test two models; the first assumes that participants with difficulty binding two stimulus streams will show better learning and transfer when assigned to visual-only working memory training, whereas participants who do not have this difficulty will show better learning and transfer when assigned to multisensory working memory training. The second model states that the outcomes of the intervention will be better predicted by performance on measures of general cognitive ability.

Research Team

Aaron R Seitz, Phd

Principal Investigator

University of California, Riverside

Susanne M Jaeggi, Phd

Principal Investigator

University of California, Irvine

Eligibility Criteria

This trial is for older adults aged 50-85 who speak English and can follow the study's procedures. They must not have psychological or neurological conditions that affect consent, be involved in other memory studies, or have certain cognitive impairments as measured by specific tests.

Inclusion Criteria

50-85 years of age

Able to understand and speak English and follow study procedures

Does not have a psychological or neurological condition that would prevent being able to give consent to participate

Exclusion Criteria

A final total score below 17 on Montreal Cognitive Assessment - Blind (telephone) version

Medical illness requiring treatment and/or significant absences during the study timeline

Score of 10 or more on the Generalized Anxiety Questionnaire (GAD7; Spitzer et al., 2006, Archives of Internal Medicine), indicating presence of moderate or severe anxiety

Treatment Details

Interventions

• Multisensory
• N-back
• Span

Trial Overview The study examines how different working memory training methods affect older adults. It uses a randomized crossover design to test gamified vs non-gamified tasks and multisensory vs visual-only information to see which improves learning based on individual cognitive abilities.

Participant Groups

Group I: Condition 1 Active Control 3 Interventions

Training type 1 will be administered in the first part of the crossover trial and Training type 2 will be administered in the second part of the trial. Each training part consists of 20 twenty-minute long sessions with the recommended frequency of 2 sessions per work day. Thus each training part can be completed in 10 work days (2 weeks).

Group II: Condition 2 Active Control 3 Interventions

Training type 2 will be administered in the first part of the crossover trial and Training type 1 will be administered in the second part of the trial. Each training part consists of 20 twenty-minute long sessions with the recommended frequency of 2 sessions per work day. Thus each training part can be completed in 10 work days (2 weeks).

Who Is Running the Clinical Trial?

Northeastern University

Lead Sponsor

Trials

103

Recruited

72,600+

University of California, Irvine

Lead Sponsor

Trials

580

Recruited

4,943,000+

University of California, Riverside

Collaborator

Trials

33

Recruited

14,400+

National Institute on Aging (NIA)

Collaborator

Trials

1,841

Recruited

28,150,000+