↓ Skip to main content

Combined Cognitive Training vs. Memory Strategy Training in Healthy Older Adults

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
100 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Combined Cognitive Training vs. Memory Strategy Training in Healthy Older Adults
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, June 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00834
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bing Li, Xinyi Zhu, Jianhua Hou, Tingji Chen, Pengyun Wang, Juan Li

Abstract

As mnemonic utilization deficit in older adults associates with age-related decline in executive function, we hypothesized that memory strategy training combined with executive function training might induce larger training effect in memory and broader training effects in non-memory outcomes than pure memory training. The present study compared the effects of combined cognitive training (executive function training plus memory strategy training) to pure memory strategy training. Forty healthy older adults were randomly assigned to a combined cognitive training group or a memory strategy training group. A control group receiving no training was also included. Combined cognitive training group received 16 sessions of training (eight sessions of executive function training followed by eight sessions of memory strategy training). Memory training group received 16 sessions of memory strategy training. The results partly supported our hypothesis in that indeed improved performance on executive function was only found in combined training group, whereas memory performance increased less in combined training compared to memory strategy group. Results suggest that combined cognitive training may be less efficient than pure memory training in memory outcomes, though the influences from insufficient training time and less closeness between trained executive function and working memory could not be excluded; however it has broader training effects in non-memory outcomes. www.chictr.org.cn, identifier ChiCTR-OON-16007793.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 100 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 15%
Student > Master 15 15%
Student > Bachelor 15 15%
Researcher 10 10%
Other 6 6%
Other 16 16%
Unknown 23 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 32 32%
Neuroscience 14 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Computer Science 2 2%
Other 10 10%
Unknown 31 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 June 2016.
All research outputs
#4,191,330
of 22,879,161 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#7,064
of 29,973 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,759
of 341,020 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#134
of 427 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,879,161 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,973 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 341,020 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 427 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.