Feng Lin1,2, Kathi L Heffner2, Ping Ren1, Madalina E Tivarus3, Judith Brasch1, Ding-Geng Chen1,4, Mark Mapstone5, Anton P Porsteinsson2, Duje Tadin6,7,8. 1. School of Nursing, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York. 2. Department of Psychiatry, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York. 3. Department of Imaging Sciences, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York. 4. Department of Biostatics and Computational Biology, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York. 5. Department of Neurology, School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York. 6. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York. 7. Center for Visual Science, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York. 8. Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To examine the cognitive and neural effects of vision-based speed-of-processing (VSOP) training in older adults with amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI) and contrast those effects with an active control (mental leisure activities (MLA)). DESIGN: Randomized single-blind controlled pilot trial. SETTING: Academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals with aMCI (N = 21). INTERVENTION: Six-week computerized VSOP training. MEASUREMENTS: Multiple cognitive processing measures, instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs), and two resting state neural networks regulating cognitive processing: central executive network (CEN) and default mode network (DMN). RESULTS:VSOP training led to significantly greater improvements in trained (processing speed and attention: F1,19 = 6.61, partial η(2) = 0.26, P = .02) and untrained (working memory: F1,19 = 7.33, partial η(2) = 0.28, P = .01; IADLs: F1,19 = 5.16, partial η(2) = 0.21, P = .03) cognitive domains than MLA and protective maintenance in DMN (F1, 9 = 14.63, partial η(2) = 0.62, P = .004). VSOP training, but not MLA, resulted in a significant improvement in CEN connectivity (Z = -2.37, P = .02). CONCLUSION: Target and transfer effects of VSOP training were identified, and links between VSOP training and two neural networks associated with aMCI were found. These findings highlight the potential of VSOP training to slow cognitive decline in individuals with aMCI. Further delineation of mechanisms underlying VSOP-induced plasticity is necessary to understand in which populations and under what conditions such training may be most effective.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To examine the cognitive and neural effects of vision-based speed-of-processing (VSOP) training in older adults with amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI) and contrast those effects with an active control (mental leisure activities (MLA)). DESIGN: Randomized single-blind controlled pilot trial. SETTING: Academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals with aMCI (N = 21). INTERVENTION: Six-week computerized VSOP training. MEASUREMENTS: Multiple cognitive processing measures, instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs), and two resting state neural networks regulating cognitive processing: central executive network (CEN) and default mode network (DMN). RESULTS: VSOP training led to significantly greater improvements in trained (processing speed and attention: F1,19 = 6.61, partial η(2) = 0.26, P = .02) and untrained (working memory: F1,19 = 7.33, partial η(2) = 0.28, P = .01; IADLs: F1,19 = 5.16, partial η(2) = 0.21, P = .03) cognitive domains than MLA and protective maintenance in DMN (F1, 9 = 14.63, partial η(2) = 0.62, P = .004). VSOP training, but not MLA, resulted in a significant improvement in CEN connectivity (Z = -2.37, P = .02). CONCLUSION: Target and transfer effects of VSOP training were identified, and links between VSOP training and two neural networks associated with aMCI were found. These findings highlight the potential of VSOP training to slow cognitive decline in individuals with aMCI. Further delineation of mechanisms underlying VSOP-induced plasticity is necessary to understand in which populations and under what conditions such training may be most effective.
Authors: Katherine L Possin; Dana Feigenbaum; Katherine P Rankin; Glenn E Smith; Adam L Boxer; Kristie Wood; Sherrie M Hanna; Bruce L Miller; Joel H Kramer Journal: Neurology Date: 2013-05-08 Impact factor: 9.910
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: Elizabeth C Mormino; Andre Smiljic; Amynta O Hayenga; Susan H Onami; Michael D Greicius; Gil D Rabinovici; Mustafa Janabi; Suzanne L Baker; Irene V Yen; Cindee M Madison; Bruce L Miller; William J Jagust Journal: Cereb Cortex Date: 2011-03-07 Impact factor: 5.357
Authors: David E Vance; Pariya L Fazeli; Lesley A Ross; Virginia G Wadley; Karlene K Ball Journal: J Assoc Nurses AIDS Care Date: 2012-05-11 Impact factor: 1.354
Authors: Feng Lin; Ping Ren; Kelly Cotton; Anton Porsteinsson; Mark Mapstone; Kathi L Heffner Journal: Am J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2016-01-12 Impact factor: 4.105
Authors: Feng V Lin; Ye Tao; Quanjing Chen; Mia Anthony; Zhengwu Zhang; Duje Tadin; Kathi L Heffner Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2020-03-09 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Lesley A Ross; Christina E Webb; Christine Whitaker; Jarrod M Hicks; Erica L Schmidt; Shaadee Samimy; Nancy A Dennis; Kristina M Visscher Journal: J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci Date: 2019-09-15 Impact factor: 4.077
Authors: Jerri D Edwards; Christine B Philllips; Melissa L O'Connor; Jennifer L O'Brien; Elizabeth M Hudak; Jody S Nicholson Journal: J Cogn Enhanc Date: 2020-08-01
Authors: Sandra L Kletzel; Pallavi Sood; Ahmed Negm; Patricia C Heyn; Shilpa Krishnan; Joseph Machtinger; Xiaolei Hu; Hannes Devos Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2021-06-16 Impact factor: 4.669