Development of a Model-based Working Memory Training and Investigation of Its Comparative Efficacy

NCT04042779 | Completed

• 1 other identifier: 2018-01226; me19Magon
• Study Type: interventional
• Target: 131
• Locations: 1 country
• Sites: 1

Brief Summary

This study is to investigate the efficacy of model-based Working Memory (WM) training using an appropriate control condition. The interventions are a model-based, a single-task and a multiple-task training on WM in order to compare the efficacies of these different training approaches for WM. A sham intervention acts as active control group. Each intervention will be presented on a tablet device.

Conditions

Working Memory

Keywords

Multiple task training; Single task training; Model-based working memory training; Cognitive training; Long-term WM capacity; near transfer effects of the training; far transfer effects of the training

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (3)

• Change in Rotation Span Task Score

  First, the distractor task is judging whether a rotated letter is presented correctly, or is a mirrored image of the letter. Second, the to-be-remembered items are arrows of either short or long length and pointing in one of eight different directions. Finally, the rotation-arrow sequence is repeated from two to five times per trial. Scores are calculated by summing the number of arrows correctly recalled in the correct order.

  assessment at baseline (=T2) and 3 weeks after baseline (=T3)

• Change in Symmetry Span Task Score

  First, the distractor task is judging whether a displayed shape is symmetrical along its vertical axis. Second, the to-be-remembered items are locations of red squares in a 4×4 grid of potential locations. Finally, the number of symmetry-location pairs varied from two to five times per trial. Scores are calculated by summing the number of red square locations correctly recalled in the correct order.

  assessment at baseline (=T2) and 3 weeks after baseline (=T3)

• Change in Operation Span Task Score

  Subjects first solve a math problem, and then see a letter, and then solve another math problem, and see another letter. This math-letter sequence is repeated from three to seven times for each trial with an unpredictable length each time. After each math-letter sequence, subjects are asked to recall, in order, the preceding letters. Scores are calculated by summing the number of letters correctly recalled in the correct order.

  assessment at baseline (=T2) and 3 weeks after baseline (=T3)

Secondary Outcomes (8)

• Change in Rotation Span Task Score

  assessment at baseline (=T2) and 12 weeks after baseline (=T4)

• Change in Symmetry Span Task Score

  assessment at baseline (=T2) and 12 weeks after baseline (=T4)

• Change in Operation Span Task Score

  assessment at baseline (=T2) and 12 weeks after baseline (=T4)

• Change in Trail making Test A/B

  assessment at baseline (=T2) and 3 weeks after baseline (=T3) and 12 weeks after baseline (=T4)

• Change in Rey Auditory Verbal Learning test

  assessment at baseline (=T2) and 3 weeks after baseline (=T3) and 12 weeks after baseline (=T4)

Study Arms (4)

model-based WM training

ACTIVE COMPARATOR

In order to build the model-based WM training, existing tasks used to assess the different component of the Baddeley's model will be reviewed on their findings according to test-retest reliability and construct validity. For each component - phonological loop, visuospatial sketchpad, episodic buffer and central executive - the task with the highest reliability and validity will be chosen and then build the basis for the computerized training program. This procedure results in a model-based, adaptive, computerized training program for WM.

Other: model-based WM training

single-task WM training

ACTIVE COMPARATOR

The basis for the single-task training administered to the second group will be the widely used "dual-n-back training paradigm" suggested by Jaeggi et al. (2008). A complex dual n-back task including a visual and an auditory WM task will be implemented for tablet devices.

Other: single-task WM training

multiple-task WM training

ACTIVE COMPARATOR

Verbal WM tasks - particularly letter span and digit span tasks - and a visuospatial WM task are most commonly used (e.g. Dahlin et al., 2008; Klingberg et al., 2005; Westerberg et al., 2007). Therefore, a multiple-task training including these tasks will be administered to the third group.

Other: multiple-task WM training

sham intervention

SHAM COMPARATOR

Active control group that as well performs a training, however not based on WM. To exclude the involvement of WM, a motor training will be administered to the control group.

Other: sham intervention

Interventions

model-based WM training OTHER

model-based WM training program: four sessions a week, 45 minutes each; lasting for three weeks

model-based WM training

single-task WM training OTHER

single-task WM training program: four sessions a week, 45 minutes each; lasting for three weeks

single-task WM training

multiple-task WM training OTHER

multiple-task WM training program: four sessions a week, 45 minutes each; lasting for three weeks

multiple-task WM training

sham intervention OTHER

motor training program: four sessions a week, 45 minutes each; lasting for three weeks

sham intervention

Eligibility Criteria

• Age: 50 Years+
• Sex: all
• Healthy Volunteers: Yes
• Age Groups: Adult (18-64), Older Adult (65+)

You may qualify if:

• Informed consent as documented by signature

You may not qualify if:

• Medical history of neurological or psychiatric disorders
• Any history of substance abuse
• Color vision deficiency
• Inability to used table devices
• Montreal Cognitive Assessment \< 26

Sponsors & Collaborators

• University Hospital, Basel, Switzerland: lead

Study Sites (1)

Department of Neurology, University Hospital Basel

Basel, 4031, Switzerland

Location

Study Officials

• Stefano Magon, Dr. phil.

  Department of Neurology, University Hospital Basel

  PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

Study Design

• Study Type: interventional
• Phase: not applicable
• Allocation: RANDOMIZED
• Masking: DOUBLE
• Who Masked: PARTICIPANT, INVESTIGATOR
• Purpose: OTHER
• Intervention Model: PARALLEL
• Sponsor Type: OTHER
• Responsible Party: SPONSOR

Study Record Dates

• First Submitted: July 31, 2019
• First Posted: August 2, 2019
• Study Start: July 2, 2019
• Primary Completion: March 13, 2020
• Study Completion: March 13, 2020
• Last Updated: July 1, 2020

Record last verified: 2020-06

Locations

CH (1)