volume 32 issue 2 pages 213-222

Does cognition-specific computer training have better clinical outcomes than non-specific computer training? A single-blind, randomized controlled trial

Publication typeJournal Article
Publication date2017-07-20
scimago Q1
wos Q1
SJR1.133
CiteScore6.2
Impact factor2.9
ISSN02692155, 14770873
Rehabilitation
Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation
Abstract
Objective:

The purpose of this study was to investigate differences between non-specific computer training (NCT) and cognition-specific computer training (CCT).

Design:

Randomized controlled experimental study.

Setting:

Local community welfare center.

Subjects:

A total of 78 subjects with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) were randomly assigned to the NCT ( n = 39) or CCT group ( n = 39).

Intervention:

The NCT group underwent NCT using Nintendo Wii for improving functional performance, while the CCT group underwent CCT using CoTras for improving function of the cognitive domain specifically. Subjects in both groups received 30-minute intervention three times a week for 10 weeks.

Main measures:

To identify effects on cognitive function, the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) digit span subtests, Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT), Trail Making Test–Part B (TMT-B), Rey–Osterrieth Complex Figure Test, and Modified Taylor Complex Figure (MTCF) were used. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was assessed using the Short-Form 36-item questionnaire.

Results:

After 10 weeks, the WAIS subtests (digit span forward: 0.48 ± 0.08 vs. 0.12 ± 0.04; digit span backward: 0.46 ± 0.09 vs. 0.11 ± 0.04) and HRQoL (vitality: 9.05 ± 1.17 vs. 2.69 ± 1.67; role-emotional: 8.31 ± 1.20 vs. 4.15 ± 0.71; mental health: 11.62 ± 1.63 vs. 6.95 ± 1.75; bodily pain: 4.21 ± 2.17 vs. 0.10 ± 0.38) were significantly higher in the NCT group ( P < 0.05).

Conclusion:

NCT was superior to CCT for improving cognitive function and HRQoL of elderly adults with MCI.

Found 
Found 

Top-30

Journals

1
2
3
4
Journal of Alzheimer's Disease
4 publications, 10.26%
JMIR Serious Games
3 publications, 7.69%
Healthcare
2 publications, 5.13%
Ageing Research Reviews
2 publications, 5.13%
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
2 publications, 5.13%
International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry
2 publications, 5.13%
npj Digital Medicine
2 publications, 5.13%
Rehabilitation Nursing
1 publication, 2.56%
Current Opinion in Neurology
1 publication, 2.56%
Journal of Mechanics in Medicine and Biology
1 publication, 2.56%
Journal of Clinical Medicine
1 publication, 2.56%
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
1 publication, 2.56%
Frontiers in Aging
1 publication, 2.56%
Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing
1 publication, 2.56%
Geriatric Nursing
1 publication, 2.56%
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews
1 publication, 2.56%
Journal of the American Medical Directors Association
1 publication, 2.56%
PM and R
1 publication, 2.56%
BMJ Open
1 publication, 2.56%
Frontiers in Psychiatry
1 publication, 2.56%
Clinical Rehabilitation
1 publication, 2.56%
Vision (Switzerland)
1 publication, 2.56%
Journal of the American Geriatrics Society
1 publication, 2.56%
Frontiers in Neurology
1 publication, 2.56%
International Journal of Nursing Studies
1 publication, 2.56%
JMIR Human Factors
1 publication, 2.56%
1
2
3
4

Publishers

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
JMIR Publications
7 publications, 17.95%
Elsevier
6 publications, 15.38%
Wiley
6 publications, 15.38%
MDPI
5 publications, 12.82%
SAGE
4 publications, 10.26%
Frontiers Media S.A.
3 publications, 7.69%
Springer Nature
3 publications, 7.69%
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
2 publications, 5.13%
IOS Press
1 publication, 2.56%
World Scientific
1 publication, 2.56%
BMJ
1 publication, 2.56%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
  • We do not take into account publications without a DOI.
  • Statistics recalculated weekly.

Are you a researcher?

Create a profile to get free access to personal recommendations for colleagues and new articles.
Metrics
39
Share
Cite this
GOST |
Cite this
GOST Copy
Hong I., Park J. Does cognition-specific computer training have better clinical outcomes than non-specific computer training? A single-blind, randomized controlled trial // Clinical Rehabilitation. 2017. Vol. 32. No. 2. pp. 213-222.
GOST all authors (up to 50) Copy
Hong I., Park J. Does cognition-specific computer training have better clinical outcomes than non-specific computer training? A single-blind, randomized controlled trial // Clinical Rehabilitation. 2017. Vol. 32. No. 2. pp. 213-222.
RIS |
Cite this
RIS Copy
TY - JOUR
DO - 10.1177/0269215517719951
UR - https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215517719951
TI - Does cognition-specific computer training have better clinical outcomes than non-specific computer training? A single-blind, randomized controlled trial
T2 - Clinical Rehabilitation
AU - Hong, Ickpyo
AU - Park, Jinhyuck
PY - 2017
DA - 2017/07/20
PB - SAGE
SP - 213-222
IS - 2
VL - 32
PMID - 28726492
SN - 0269-2155
SN - 1477-0873
ER -
BibTex |
Cite this
BibTex (up to 50 authors) Copy
@article{2017_Hong,
author = {Ickpyo Hong and Jinhyuck Park},
title = {Does cognition-specific computer training have better clinical outcomes than non-specific computer training? A single-blind, randomized controlled trial},
journal = {Clinical Rehabilitation},
year = {2017},
volume = {32},
publisher = {SAGE},
month = {jul},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215517719951},
number = {2},
pages = {213--222},
doi = {10.1177/0269215517719951}
}
MLA
Cite this
MLA Copy
Hong, Ickpyo, and Jinhyuck Park. “Does cognition-specific computer training have better clinical outcomes than non-specific computer training? A single-blind, randomized controlled trial.” Clinical Rehabilitation, vol. 32, no. 2, Jul. 2017, pp. 213-222. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215517719951.