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.
Three randomized cross-over trials will be conducted to obtain within-subject comparisons of training with enriched (game-like) versions of working memory training tasks compared to basic (non-gamified) versions of these tasks. 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. Each trial involves a total of 50 sessions per participant: the first few sessions consist of completing questionnaires and computerized cognitive assessments (pre-test). Participants then complete 20 sessions of working memory training. After a mid-test, they complete 20 sessions of a different type of working memory training. Post-test is administered upon training completion, and at least a month later, participants complete 3 follow-up sessions. The study can be administered either in person or remotely; however, the investigators anticipate that most participants will complete the study remotely.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
BASIC_SCIENCE
Masking
DOUBLE
Enrollment
313
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
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
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
University of California, Irvine
Irvine, California, United States
University of California, Riverside
Riverside, California, United States
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.
Time frame: 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.
Time frame: 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.
Time frame: 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.
Time frame: Day 24, Day 46, Day 77
Training Experience Enjoyment Subscale I
Scores range from 1 to 5, with higher scores indicative of greater enjoyment of the training task.
Time frame: Day 24
Training Experience Enjoyment Subscale II
Scores range from 1 to 5, with higher scores indicative of greater enjoyment of the training task.
Time frame: Day 46
Training Experience Difficulty Subscale I
Score range from 1 to 10, with scores 1-3 indicating that the training was too easy, scores 4-7 indicating that the training was of appropriate difficulty, and scores 8-10 indicating that it was too difficult.
Time frame: Day 24
Training Experience Difficulty Subscale II
Score range from 1 to 10, with scores 1-3 indicating that the training was too easy, scores 4-7 indicating that the training was of appropriate difficulty, and scores 8-10 indicating that it was too difficult.
Time frame: Day 46
Training Experience Subjective Progress Subscale I
Scores range from 1 to 5, with higher scores indicative of greater subjective progress on the training task.
Time frame: Day 24
Training Experience Subjective Progress Subscale II
Scores range from 1 to 5, with higher scores indicative of greater subjective progress on the training task.
Time frame: Day 46
Training Experience Interface Subscale I
Scores range from 1 to 5, with higher scores indicative of greater satisfaction with the interface (software).
Time frame: Day 24
Training Experience Interface Subscale II
Scores range from 1 to 5, with higher scores indicative of greater satisfaction with the interface (software).
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.
Time frame: Day 46
Exit Survey
Participants are asked 5 open-ended questions about their subjective experience of participating in the study.
Time frame: Day 79