CCT shows no significant effects on executive functions or attention in healthy older adults¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r3 · q4 · i0 negligible
Currency · newest study 2014 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q4 i0 Executive functions (g = 0.09, p = 0.096) and attention (g = 0.24, p = 0.06) showed non-significant effects; the authors describe the executive-function analysis (29 trials) as sufficiently powered, and make no such statement for attention (11 studies). → Lampit A 2014

Evidence¶

Lampit A 2014¶

Lampit A, Hallock H, Valenzuela M (2014) Computerized Cognitive Training in Cognitively Healthy Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Effect Modifiers. PLoS Med 11(11): e1001756. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001756

q4 · i0 · quant-synthesis · r3

Random-effects meta-analysis of 29 studies reporting executive function outcomes found a negligible, statistically non-significant effect. Attention (11 studies) was also non-significant, though its estimate was small and positive (g = 0.24, 95% CI −0.01 to 0.50, p = 0.06), so a modest benefit for attention is not ruled out. The authors call the executive-function analysis sufficiently powered.

"The combined effect size was negligible and statistically non-significant (g = 0.09, 95% CI 20.02 to 0.19, p = 0.096; Figure 8)."

Studies bearing on this claim¶

Does training the processes directly (computerised, working-memory or mindfulness training) improve executive function itself? This table gathers the studies behind this claim and the 6 narrower claims that bear on it: 5 distinct studies (3 quant-synthesis, 1 causal, 1 review), q3–q4, 3 of 5 with an effect size coded. One row per study, codes as each entry records them; no effect is averaged and no verdict is drawn. Built by scripts/synthesize_claim.py from eval/synthesis/; a row that looks wrong is fixed on the claim it comes from.

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Attention — outcome: instruction changes it
• Executive Function — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• CCT yields small significant gains in nonverbal memory, working memory, and visuospatial skills, but only weak evidence for verbal memory — related
• Training more than three sessions per week neutralizes CCT efficacy, while one or 2–3 sessions per week are effective — related
• Computerized cognitive training produces a small but statistically significant improvement in cognitive performance in healthy older adults — a broader claim this one bears on
• Group-based CCT is effective while home-based CCT is not — related
• CCT improves processing speed with a moderate effect, the largest domain effect, though with large heterogeneity — related
• Working-memory-only training shows no positive evidence of efficacy in healthy older adults — related
• The central executive coordinates WM subsystems and supports higher-level language-learning functions such as attention switching and strategy switching — related
• Processing speed showed no significant group × time interaction, with only a marginal intervention advantage at 4 weeks — related
• Training benefits did not extend to processing speed tasks, indicating specificity to cognitive control processes — related