CCT improves processing speed with a moderate effect, the largest domain effect, though with large heterogeneity¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r3 · q4 · i1 small
Currency · newest study 2014 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q4 i1 Across 33 studies, processing speed showed a moderate significant effect (g = 0.31, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.50). → 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 · i1 · quant-synthesis · r3

Domain-specific random-effects meta-analysis of 33 studies reporting processing speed outcomes. The combined effect was "moderate and statistically significant" at g = 0.31, with large heterogeneity (I2 = 84.53%).

"Thirty-three studies reported processing speed outcomes. The combined effect size was moderate and statistically significant ( g = 0.31, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.50, p = 0.002; Figure 7). Heterogeneity across studies was large ( I2 = 84.53%,"

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Processing Speed — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• CCT shows no significant effects on executive functions or attention in healthy older adults — 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
• CCT yields small significant gains in nonverbal memory, working memory, and visuospatial skills, but only weak evidence for verbal memory — related
• Group-based CCT is effective while home-based CCT is not — related
• Training more than three sessions per week neutralizes CCT efficacy, while one or 2–3 sessions per week are effective — related
• Working-memory-only training shows no positive evidence of efficacy in healthy older adults — related