Title |
Cognitive training with and without additional physical activity in healthy older adults: cognitive effects, neurobiological mechanisms, and prediction of training success
|
---|---|
Published in |
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, October 2015
|
DOI | 10.3389/fnagi.2015.00187 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Julia Rahe, Jutta Becker, Gereon R. Fink, Josef Kessler, Juraj Kukolja, Andreas Rahn, Jan B. Rosen, Florian Szabados, Brunhilde Wirth, Elke Kalbe |
Abstract |
Data is inconsistent concerning the question whether cognitive-physical training (CPT) yields stronger cognitive gains than cognitive training (CT). Effects of additional counseling, neurobiological mechanisms, and predictors have scarcely been studied. Healthy older adults were trained with CT (n = 20), CPT (n = 25), or CPT with counseling (CPT+C; n = 23). Cognition, physical fitness, BDNF, IGF-1, and VEGF were assessed at pre- and post-test. No interaction effects were found except for one effect showing that CPT+C led to stronger gains in verbal fluency than CPT (p = 0.03). However, this superiority could not be assigned to additional physical training gains. Low baseline cognitive performance and BDNF, not carrying apoE4, gains in physical fitness and the moderation of gains in physical fitness × gains in BDNF predicted training success. Although all types of interventions seem successful to enhance cognition, our data do not support the hypotheses that CPT shows superior CT gains compared to CT or that CPT+C adds merit to CPT. However, as CPT leads to additional gains in physical fitness which in turn is known to have positive impact on cognition in the long-term, CPT seems more beneficial. Training success can partly be predicted by neuropsychological, neurobiological, and genetic parameters. Unique Identifier: WHO ICTRP (http://www.who.int/ictrp); ID: DRKS00005194. |
X Demographics
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 1 | 33% |
Australia | 1 | 33% |
Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Poland | 2 | 1% |
United States | 2 | 1% |
Canada | 1 | <1% |
Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
Spain | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 166 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 28 | 16% |
Student > Master | 21 | 12% |
Student > Bachelor | 19 | 11% |
Researcher | 17 | 10% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 14 | 8% |
Other | 27 | 16% |
Unknown | 47 | 27% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Psychology | 36 | 21% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 12% |
Neuroscience | 20 | 12% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 14 | 8% |
Sports and Recreations | 11 | 6% |
Other | 18 | 10% |
Unknown | 53 | 31% |