Understanding Individual Differences in Working Memory Training and Transfer in Older Adults

NCT05396586 | Completed

• 3 other identifiers: 201415471R21AG069428-01A15R21AG069428-02
• Study Type: interventional
• Target: 313
• Locations: 1 country
• Sites: 2

Brief Summary

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.

Conditions

Cognitive Change

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (4)

• Change in N-level

  N-back is a tablet-based updating working memory task. Participants see a consecutive stream of pictures and are asked to tap the pictures that match those presented N items earlier. All participants will complete 1-back and 2-back, progression to 3-back and beyond is based on performance on the previous level (no more than 4 errors). The outcome measure is the change in the highest N-level reached on the task compared to baseline at Day 2.

  Day 24, Day 46, Day 78

• Change in Corsi span

  Corsi is a tabled-based measure of spatial working memory. Participants see characters emerge one at a time from twelve possible locations and are asked to repeat the sequence by tapping on the locations in the correct order. The task starts with set size two and increases in difficulty using an adaptive algorithm. Participants first play Simple Corsi (without a distractor task), followed by Complex Corsi (with a distractor task). The outcome measure is change in overall span, calculated as the sum of the two highest set sizes that can be recalled in Simple and Complex Corsi tasks, at the point of measurement compared to baseline at Day 3.

  Day 25, Day 47, Day 79

• Change in Inhibitory Control Composite Score

  The score is the mean of standardized dependent variables on tablet-based inhibitory control tasks. The outcome measure is the change in the composite score at the point of measurement compared to baseline at Day 2.

  Day 24, Day 46, Day 78

• Change in Everyday Memory Questionnaire Revised

  The Everyday Memory Questionnaire Revised (Royle \& Lincoln, 2008) consists of 13 items that describe everyday events that might involve forgetting. Participants are asked how often on average they think each one has happened to them over the past month on a 5-point scale (0-4) and the total score is calculated as the sum of all responses. The minimum total score is 0 and the maximum is 52, with higher scores indicative of greater presence of memory difficulties. The outcome measure is the change in total score at the point of measurement compared to baseline at Day 1.

  Day 24, Day 46, Day 77

Secondary Outcomes (9)

• Training Experience Enjoyment Subscale I

  Day 24

• Training Experience Enjoyment Subscale II

  Day 46

• Training Experience Difficulty Subscale I

  Day 24

• Training Experience Difficulty Subscale II

  Day 46

• Training Experience Subjective Progress Subscale I

  Day 24

Other Outcomes (1)

• Change in General Cognitive Ability Composite Score

  Day 77

Study Arms (2)

Condition 1

ACTIVE COMPARATOR

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).

Behavioral: N-back; Behavioral: Span; Behavioral: Multisensory

Condition 2

ACTIVE COMPARATOR

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).

Behavioral: N-back; Behavioral: Span; Behavioral: Multisensory

Interventions

N-back BEHAVIORAL

The training program is a personal device-based adaptive version of a visual N-back task, either devoid of game elements or embedded in a gamified platform game

Condition 1; Condition 2

Span BEHAVIORAL

The training program is a personal device-based adaptive version of a visual working memory span task, either devoid of game elements or embedded in a gamified platform game

Condition 1; Condition 2

Multisensory BEHAVIORAL

The training program is a personal device-based adaptive version of an N-back task that features visual stimuli (Unisensory) or visual stimuli paired with unique sounds (Multisensory) and is devoid of game elements

Condition 1; Condition 2

Eligibility Criteria

• Age: 50 Years - 85 Years
• Sex: all
• Healthy Volunteers: Yes
• Age Groups: Adult (18-64), Older Adult (65+)

You may qualify if:

• 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
• Not currently involved in any other cognitive or memory training studies

You may not qualify if:

• Formal diagnosis of dementia or other neurological disease, including Mild cognitive impairment.
• A final total score below 17 on Montreal Cognitive Assessment - Blind (telephone) version.
• 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
• Score of 9 or more on Geriatric depression scale (GDS15; Yesavage et al., 1982) indicating presence of moderate or severe depression
• Abnormal visual acuity prohibitive of tablet-based training.
• Physical handicap (motor or perceptual) that would impede training procedures.
• Medical illness requiring treatment and/or significant absences during the study timeline.
• Current evidence or 2-yr history of seizures, focal brain lesion, or head injury with loss of consciousness.
• Current alcohol consumption exceeds 14 drinks per week.
• Self-reported illicit drug use.

Sponsors & Collaborators

• Northeastern University: lead
• University of California, Riverside: collaborator
• National Institute on Aging (NIA): collaborator

Study Sites (2)

University of California, Irvine

Irvine, California, 92697, United States

Location

University of California, Riverside

Riverside, California, 92521, United States

Location

Related Publications (5)

• Pahor A, Mester RE, Carrillo AA, Ghil E, Reimer JF, Jaeggi SM, Seitz AR. UCancellation: A new mobile measure of selective attention and concentration. Behav Res Methods. 2022 Oct;54(5):2602-2617. doi: 10.3758/s13428-021-01765-5. Epub 2022 Feb 1.

  PMID: 35106729 BACKGROUND

• Pahor A, Stavropoulos T, Jaeggi SM, Seitz AR. Validation of a matrix reasoning task for mobile devices. Behav Res Methods. 2019 Oct;51(5):2256-2267. doi: 10.3758/s13428-018-1152-2.

  PMID: 30367386 BACKGROUND

• Royle J, Lincoln NB. The Everyday Memory Questionnaire-revised: development of a 13-item scale. Disabil Rehabil. 2008;30(2):114-21. doi: 10.1080/09638280701223876.

  PMID: 17852284 BACKGROUND

• Pahor A, Collins C, Smith RN, Moon A, Stavropoulos T, Silva I, Peng E, Jaeggi SM, Seitz AR. Multisensory Facilitation of Working Memory Training. J Cogn Enhanc. 2021 Sep;5(3):386-395. doi: 10.1007/s41465-020-00196-y. Epub 2020 Nov 27.

  PMID: 34485810 BACKGROUND

• Sandeep S, Shelton CR, Pahor A, Jaeggi SM, Seitz AR. Application of Machine Learning Models for Tracking Participant Skills in Cognitive Training. Front Psychol. 2020 Jul 22;11:1532. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01532. eCollection 2020.

  PMID: 32793032 BACKGROUND

Study Officials

• Aaron R Seitz, Phd

  University of California, Riverside

  PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

• Susanne M Jaeggi, Phd

  University of California, Irvine

  PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

Study Design

• Study Type: interventional
• Phase: not applicable
• Allocation: RANDOMIZED
• Masking: DOUBLE
• Who Masked: PARTICIPANT, OUTCOMES ASSESSOR
• Purpose: BASIC SCIENCE
• Intervention Model: CROSSOVER
• Sponsor Type: OTHER
• Responsible Party: PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
• PI Title: Assistant Project Scientist

Model Details: Three randomized crossover trials (N-back, Span and Multisensory) will be conducted and in each trial, participants will be randomly assigned to 1 of 2 conditions: Condition 1 consists of training type 1 followed by training type 2, whereas Condition 2 consists of training type 2 followed by training type 1. In the N-back trial, participants will be assigned to Non-Gamified N-back training and Gamified N-back training. In the Span trial, they will be assigned to Non-Gamified Span training and Gamified Span training and in the Multisensory trial, they will be assigned to Non-gamified Unisensory N-back training and Non-gamified Multisensory N-back training.

Study Record Dates

• First Submitted: April 21, 2022
• First Posted: May 31, 2022
• Study Start: March 17, 2022
• Primary Completion: March 5, 2025
• Study Completion: March 5, 2025
• Last Updated: March 12, 2025

Record last verified: 2025-01

Data Sharing

• IPD Sharing: Will share
• Shared Documents: STUDY PROTOCOL, ICF
• Time Frame: Data will be available persistently at the conclusion of the study.
• Access Criteria: There are no access criteria.

Locations

US (2)