Daniel O Clark1,2,3, Huiping Xu4, Frederick W Unverzagt1,5, Hugh Hendrie2. 1. Indiana University Center for Aging Research, Indianapolis, IN, USA. 2. Regenstrief Institute, Inc., Indianapolis, IN, USA. 3. Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA. 4. Department of Biostatistics, Richard M. Fairbanks School of Public Health and School of Medicine, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, USA. 5. Department of Psychiatry, Division of General Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate educational differences in treatment responses to memory, reasoning, and speed of processing cognitive training relative to no-contact control. METHODS: Secondary analyses of the Advanced Cognitive Training for Independent and Vital Elderly trial were conducted. Two thousand eight hundred older adults were randomized to memory, reasoning, or speed of processing training or no-contact control. A repeated-measures mixed-effects model was used to investigate immediate post-training and 1-year outcomes with sensitivity analyses out to 10 years. Outcomes were as follows: (1) memory composite of Hopkins Verbal Learning Test, Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test, and Rivermead Behavioral Memory Test; (2) reasoning composite of letter series, letter sets, and word series; and (3) speed of processing measured using three trials of useful field of view and the digit symbol substitution test. RESULTS: The effects of reasoning and memory training did not differ by educational attainment. The effect of speed of processing training did. Those with fewer than 12 years of education experienced a 50% greater effect on the useful field of view test compared with those with 16 or more years of education. The training advantage for those with fewer than 12 years of education was maintained to 3 years post-training. CONCLUSION:Older adults with less than a secondary education are at elevated risk of dementia, including Alzheimer's disease. The analyses here indicate that speed of processing training is effective in older adults with low educational attainment.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate educational differences in treatment responses to memory, reasoning, and speed of processing cognitive training relative to no-contact control. METHODS: Secondary analyses of the Advanced Cognitive Training for Independent and Vital Elderly trial were conducted. Two thousand eight hundred older adults were randomized to memory, reasoning, or speed of processing training or no-contact control. A repeated-measures mixed-effects model was used to investigate immediate post-training and 1-year outcomes with sensitivity analyses out to 10 years. Outcomes were as follows: (1) memory composite of Hopkins Verbal Learning Test, Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test, and Rivermead Behavioral Memory Test; (2) reasoning composite of letter series, letter sets, and word series; and (3) speed of processing measured using three trials of useful field of view and the digit symbol substitution test. RESULTS: The effects of reasoning and memory training did not differ by educational attainment. The effect of speed of processing training did. Those with fewer than 12 years of education experienced a 50% greater effect on the useful field of view test compared with those with 16 or more years of education. The training advantage for those with fewer than 12 years of education was maintained to 3 years post-training. CONCLUSION: Older adults with less than a secondary education are at elevated risk of dementia, including Alzheimer's disease. The analyses here indicate that speed of processing training is effective in older adults with low educational attainment.
Authors: J B Jobe; D M Smith; K Ball; S L Tennstedt; M Marsiske; S L Willis; G W Rebok; J N Morris; K F Helmers; M D Leveck; K Kleinman Journal: Control Clin Trials Date: 2001-08
Authors: Fredric D Wolinsky; Frederick W Unverzagt; David M Smith; Richard Jones; Elizabeth Wright; Sharon L Tennstedt Journal: J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 4.077
Authors: Karlene Ball; Daniel B Berch; Karin F Helmers; Jared B Jobe; Mary D Leveck; Michael Marsiske; John N Morris; George W Rebok; David M Smith; Sharon L Tennstedt; Frederick W Unverzagt; Sherry L Willis Journal: JAMA Date: 2002-11-13 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Hsu-Ko Kuo; Richard N Jones; William P Milberg; Sharon Tennstedt; Laura Talbot; John N Morris; Lewis A Lipsitz Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Prashanthi Vemuri; Timothy G Lesnick; Scott A Przybelski; David S Knopman; Greg M Preboske; Kejal Kantarci; Mekala R Raman; Mary M Machulda; Michelle M Mielke; Val J Lowe; Matthew L Senjem; Jeffrey L Gunter; Walter A Rocca; Rosebud O Roberts; Ronald C Petersen; Clifford R Jack Journal: Brain Date: 2015-01-15 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Daniel O Clark; Huiping Xu; Lyndsi Moser; Philip Adeoye; Annie W Lin; Christy C Tangney; Shannon L Risacher; Andrew J Saykin; Robert V Considine; Frederick W Unverzagt Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2019-07-18 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Ramón López-Higes; Jose M Prados; Susana Rubio-Valdehita; Inmaculada Rodríguez-Rojo; Jaisalmer de Frutos-Lucas; Mercedes Montenegro; Pedro Montejo; David Prada; María L D Losada Journal: Front Aging Neurosci Date: 2018-09-03 Impact factor: 5.750
Authors: Jerri D Edwards; Huiping Xu; Daniel O Clark; Lin T Guey; Lesley A Ross; Frederick W Unverzagt Journal: Alzheimers Dement (N Y) Date: 2017-11-07
Authors: Ramón López-Higes; María T Martín-Aragoneses; Susana Rubio-Valdehita; María L Delgado-Losada; Pedro Montejo; Mercedes Montenegro; José M Prados; Jaisalmer de Frutos-Lucas; David López-Sanz Journal: Front Aging Neurosci Date: 2018-02-02 Impact factor: 5.750