| Literature DB >> 30042673 |
Jasmine Tan1, F H Maurine Tsakok2, Elisabeth K Ow3, Bernard Lanskey4, Kian Siong Darius Lim5, Lee Gan Goh6, Chay-Hoon Tan7, Irwin Kee-Mun Cheah8, Anis Larbi9, Roger Foo10, Marie Loh11, Caroline Kai Yun Wong12, John Suckling13, Jialiang Li14, Rathi Mahendran3, Ee-Heok Kua3, Lei Feng3.
Abstract
Introduction: This study is a parallel-arm randomized controlled trial evaluating choral singing's efficacy and underlying mechanisms in preventing cognitive decline in at-risk older participants.Entities:
Keywords: RCT; cognitive decline; dementia prevention; neuroplasticity; singing
Year: 2018 PMID: 30042673 PMCID: PMC6048740 DOI: 10.3389/fnagi.2018.00195
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Aging Neurosci ISSN: 1663-4365 Impact factor: 5.750
Figure 1Theoretical model of choral singing’s efficacy in slowing cognitive decline and preventing dementia. Choral singing is hypothesized to delay cognitive decline and prevent dementia by increasing protection of the brain and reducing the risk burdens of dementia. As a complex activity, its effects can be attributed to the cognitive, social, emotional and physical aspects of choral singing. The biological mechanisms behind its effects may be observed from changes in brain structure and function and markers of biological aging.
Measurements and visit schedules.
| Measurement | Baseline | 6 months | 1 year | 2 year | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Social, demographic and lifestyle data | √ | |||
| 2 | Medical conditions and medications | √ | |||
| 3 | Mini mental state examination (MMSE) | √ | √ | √ | √ |
| 4 | Subjective memory and cognitive complaint | √ | √ | √ | |
| 5 | Neuropsychological testing/assessment | √ | √ | √ | |
| 6 | Clinical dementia rating (CDR) | √ | √ | √ | |
| 7 | Neuropsychiatric inventory (NPI) | √ | √ | √ | |
| 8 | Activities of daily living (ADL) | √ | √ | √ | |
| 9 | Instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) | √ | √ | √ | |
| 10 | Pittsburgh sleep quality index (PSQI) | √ | √ | √ | √ |
| 11 | Geriatric depression scale (GDS-15) | √ | √ | √ | √ |
| 12 | Geriatric anxiety inventory (GAI) | √ | √ | √ | √ |
| 13 | Perceived stress scale (PSS) | √ | √ | √ | √ |
| 14 | Rhythm experiment | √ | √ | √ | |
| 15 | The social cognition and behavior assessment | √ | √ | √ | |
| 16 | Gold-MSI | √ | √ | ||
| 17 | Venous blood sample collection | √ | √ | √ | |
| 18 | Urine sample collection | √ | √ | √ | √ |
| 19 | Brain MRI, blood pressures, pulse rates | √ | √ | √ |
MRI scan timeline (sequences, durations, purposes).
| Sequence | Purpose | Time (min) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Localizer | For field-of-view positioning | 0:14 |
| 2 | 3D MPRAGE | High-resolution anatomical scan | 5:01 |
| 3 | BOLD_Resting | Resting state functional connectivity | 9:01 |
| 4 | BOLD_FNPA | Brain activations under FNPA task | 7:36 |
| 5 | BOLD_SIN | Brain activations under singing task | 2:36 |
| 6 | BOLD_auditory localizer | Localization of auditory cortex | 3:06 |
| 7 | Gre field map | For distortion correction | 1:07 |
| 8 | Ep2d_diff (DTI) | White matter integrity | 9:06 |
| 9 | T2_SWI | For detection of micro-bleeds | 4:54 |
| 10 | T2_TSE_ FLAIR | To detect and characterize structural lesions | 4:28 |
| 11 | BOLD_TUNE | Brain activations under musical memory task | 3:06 |
| TOTAL | 50:15 |
Figure 2Flow diagram of participants’ progression through phases of RCT as of May 2017. Adapted from Schulz et al. (2010). *Other reasons: four with hearing impairment, one with visual impairment, one with advanced cancer, two participating in other studies, two received recent neuropsychological assessment, one relocated outside the defined recruitment area.
Baseline characteristics of the first 93 randomized trial participants.
| Variable | Choral singing ( | Controls ( | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (year), mean (SD) | 70.98 (0.835) | 69.39 (0.779) | 0.168 |
| Women, n (%) | 76.6 | 80.4 | 0.652 |
| Education, n (%) | 0.235 | ||
| No formal schooling | 21.3 | 8.7 | |
| Primary and below | 53.2 | 63.1 | |
| Secondary and above | 25.5 | 28.2 | |
| Marital status | 0.925 | ||
| Married | 55.3 | 54.3 | |
| Divorced/Widowed/Single | 44.7 | 45.7 | |
| Living alone, n (%) | 14.9 | 15.2 | 0.965 |
| SMCC total score, mean (SD) | 39.32 (0.964) | 38.41 (0.642) | 0.438 |
| MMSE total score, median (IQR) | 29 (27–30) | 29 (27–30) | 0.720 |
| MoCA total score, median (IQR) | 26 (24–28) | 26 (25–29) | 0.766 |
| GDS total score, median (IQR) | 2 (0–3) | 1 (0–2.25) | 0.246 |
| GAI total score, median (IQR) | 0 (0–4) | 0 (0–1) | 0.122 |
| PSS total score, mean (SD) | 15.53 (0.633) | 14.91 (0.493) | 0.444 |
| GoldMSI score, mean (SD) | 58.94 (1.71) | 55.93 (1.79) | 0.229 |
Baseline comparability of the randomized groups was assessed using independent samples Student’s t-tests for continuous variables meeting the assumption of normality and Mann-Whitney tests for variables violating the normal distribution assumption. Chi-square tests and Fisher’s exact test were run for dichotomous variables. No significant differences between randomized groups were found.