The Effects of Mixed Working Memory Training on Subsequent Training Gains Among Older Adults

NCT05672771 | Completed Results

• 2 other identifiers: Mixed Working Memory TrainingR56AG058708
• Study Type: interventional
• Target: 90
• Locations: 1 country
• Sites: 1

Brief Summary

While an intellectually active and socially integrated lifestyle shows promise for promoting cognitive resilience, the mechanisms underlying any such effects are not well understood. The aim of the current project is test the implications of the "mutualism" hypothesis, which suggests that intellectual function emerges out of the reciprocal influence of growth in abilities as they are exercised in the ecology of everyday life. Such a view implies that improvement in one component will enhance the modifiability of a related component. An additional aim was to test the idea that mutualistic effects will be enhanced by more diverse training in related skills, such as interleaved training of multiple skills, relative to single-component training. A "successive-enrichment" paradigm was developed to test this with working memory (WM) as the target for training given its centrality in models of attention, intellectual function, and everyday capacities such as reasoning and language comprehension. All participants receive the same target training, but the nature of the training that precedes it is manipulated. Outcome measures include pre- to posttest gains in working memory and episodic memory, as well as the rate of gain in learning the target task. The principle of enhanced mutualism would predict that more diverse experiences related to the target skill will enhance efficiency in acquiring the target skill.

Conditions

Cognitive Aging

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (2)

• Change in Overall Working Memory

  Average change in working memory from pre- to posttest in z-score units ("standard unit change"). For each working memory measure (Reading Span, Lexical Decision Span, Category Span, Operation Span, and Count Span), the change in z-score units was calculated \[(posttest score - pretest score) / standard deviation of the scores at pretest)\]. The score reported is the mean of these 5 values. A z-score of 0 represents no change from pretest to posttest; the unit is the standard deviations of the sample at pretest (e.g., a score 0.5 would indicate a half standard deviation improvement in overall working memory). There is no agreed upon standard of clinical significance for improvement in working memory

  Change from baseline to 5-6 wks after pretest

• Change in Reading Span

  Change in Reading Span score from pre- to posttest in z-score units ("standard unit change"). The change in z-score units was calculated \[(posttest score - pretest score) / standard deviation of the scores at pretest)\]. A z-score of 0 represents no change from pretest to posttest; the unit is the standard deviations of the sample at pretest (e.g., a score 0.5 would indicate a half standard deviation improvement in overall working memory). There is no agreed upon standard of clinical significance for improvement in working memory

  Change from Baseline to 5-6 weeks after pretest

Secondary Outcomes (1)

• Training Gains on the Reading Span Task in Phase 2

  2 weeks

Study Arms (4)

Different Mixed Condition (DM)

EXPERIMENTAL

Training in both Lexical Decision Span and Category Span in Phase 1 (which are both different from the target task Reading Span in Phase 2).

Behavioral: Different Mixed Condition (DM)

Different Single Condition (DS)

EXPERIMENTAL

Training in the Lexical Decision Span in Phase 1 (which is different from the target task Reading Span in Phase 2).

Behavioral: Different Single Condition (DS)

Same Task (ST) Practice Control

ACTIVE COMPARATOR

Training in Reading Span task in Phase 1 (which is the same as target task in Phase 2).

Behavioral: Same Task (ST) Practice Control

Non-WM Placebo Control (PC)

PLACEBO COMPARATOR

Training in a speeded Lexical Decision task only (which has no memory component) in Phase 1 prior to Phase 2 training in WM.

Behavioral: Non-WM Placebo Control (PC)

Interventions

Different Mixed Condition (DM) BEHAVIORAL

Participants engage in home-based training on two working memory tasks, both different from those in the target task training. Goal is 10 days of training, with 4 8-min blocks of training each day.

Different Mixed Condition (DM)

Different Single Condition (DS) BEHAVIORAL

Participants engage in home-based training on a working memory task that is different from that in the target task training. Goal is 10 days of training, with 4 8-min blocks of training each day.

Different Single Condition (DS)

Same Task (ST) Practice Control BEHAVIORAL

Participants engage in home-based training on the exact same working memory tasks as that in the target task training. Goal is 10 days of training, with 4 8-min blocks of training each day.

Same Task (ST) Practice Control

Non-WM Placebo Control (PC) BEHAVIORAL

Participants engage in home-based training on speeded verbal decision, which unlike the target task training, has no memory component. Goal is 10 days of training, with 4 8-min blocks of training each day.

Non-WM Placebo Control (PC)

Eligibility Criteria

• Age: 60 Years - 90 Years
• Healthy Volunteers: Yes
• Age Groups: Adult (18-64), Older Adult (65+)

You may qualify if:

• Native English speakers or acquisition of English before age 6 yrs old
• Self-report of hearing ability sufficient to engage with lab personnel
• No stroke in the last 3 years
• No current cancer treatment involving radiation or chemotherapy - No self-reported learning disability
• No self-reported psychiatric disorder
• Willingness to be randomly assigned to training conditions
• No plans that would limit participation during the activity period
• No participation in a cognitive intervention program in the last year

Sponsors & Collaborators

• University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: lead
• National Institute on Aging (NIA): collaborator

Study Sites (1)

Beckman Institute

Urbana, Illinois, 61801, United States

Location

Related Publications (10)

• Stine-Morrow EAL, Payne BR, Roberts BW, Kramer AF, Morrow DG, Payne L, Hill PL, Jackson JJ, Gao X, Noh SR, Janke MC, Parisi JM. Training versus engagement as paths to cognitive enrichment with aging. Psychol Aging. 2014 Dec;29(4):891-906. doi: 10.1037/a0038244. Epub 2014 Nov 17.

  PMID: 25402337 BACKGROUND

• Payne BR, Stine-Morrow EAL. The Effects of Home-Based Cognitive Training on Verbal Working Memory and Language Comprehension in Older Adulthood. Front Aging Neurosci. 2017 Aug 8;9:256. doi: 10.3389/fnagi.2017.00256. eCollection 2017.

  PMID: 28848421 BACKGROUND

• Savi AO, Marsman M, van der Maas HLJ, Maris GKJ. The Wiring of Intelligence. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2019 Nov;14(6):1034-1061. doi: 10.1177/1745691619866447. Epub 2019 Oct 24.

  PMID: 31647746 BACKGROUND

• van der Maas HL, Dolan CV, Grasman RP, Wicherts JM, Huizenga HM, Raijmakers ME. A dynamical model of general intelligence: the positive manifold of intelligence by mutualism. Psychol Rev. 2006 Oct;113(4):842-61. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.113.4.842.

  PMID: 17014305 BACKGROUND

• Van Der Maas HLJ, Kan KJ, Marsman M, Stevenson CE. Network Models for Cognitive Development and Intelligence. J Intell. 2017 Apr 20;5(2):16. doi: 10.3390/jintelligence5020016.

  PMID: 31162407 BACKGROUND

• Daneman M, Merikle PM. Working memory and language comprehension: A meta-analysis. Psychon Bull Rev. 1996 Dec;3(4):422-33. doi: 10.3758/BF03214546.

  PMID: 24213976 BACKGROUND

• Stine-Morrow, E. A. L., & Manavbasi, I. (2022). Beyond "Use It or Lose It": The impact of engagement on cognitive aging. Annual Review of Developmental Psychology, 4, 319-352.

  BACKGROUND

• Brown, P. C., Roediger, H. L., & McDaniel, M. A. (2014). Make it stick: The science of successful learning. Harvard University Press.

  BACKGROUND

• Engle RW, Tuholski SW, Laughlin JE, Conway ARA. Working memory, short-term memory, and general fluid intelligence: a latent-variable approach. J Exp Psychol Gen. 1999 Sep;128(3):309-331. doi: 10.1037//0096-3445.128.3.309.

  PMID: 10513398 BACKGROUND

• Conway AR, Kane MJ, Bunting MF, Hambrick DZ, Wilhelm O, Engle RW. Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user's guide. Psychon Bull Rev. 2005 Oct;12(5):769-86. doi: 10.3758/bf03196772.

  PMID: 16523997 RESULT

Results Point of Contact

• Title: Dr. Elizabeth A L Stine-Morrow
• Organization: University of Illinois

eals@illinois.edu

217-244-2167

Study Officials

• Elizabeth A L Stine-Morrow, PhD

  University of Illinois at Chicago

  PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

Publication Agreements

• PI is Sponsor Employee: Yes

Study Design

• Study Type: interventional
• Phase: not applicable
• Allocation: RANDOMIZED
• Masking: SINGLE
• Who Masked: PARTICIPANT
• Purpose: BASIC SCIENCE
• Intervention Model: FACTORIAL
• Sponsor Type: OTHER
• Responsible Party: PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
• PI Title: Professor Emerita

Study Record Dates

• First Submitted: May 16, 2022
• First Posted: January 5, 2023
• Study Start: August 26, 2020
• Primary Completion: January 30, 2022
• Study Completion: January 30, 2022
• Last Updated: March 28, 2024
• Results First Posted: March 28, 2024

Record last verified: 2024-03

Data Sharing

• IPD Sharing: Will share
• Shared Documents: STUDY PROTOCOL, SAP, ICF, ANALYTIC CODE
• Time Frame: After completion and paper is published (\~2025)

Locations

US (1)