Cross-sectional study finds digital competence and cognitive reserve influence cognitive performance, suggesting targeted interventions.
Purpose This study examines the role of digital competence and cognitive reserve (CR) in cognitive functioning among older adults. Specifically, it investigates how these factors influence different cognitive domains and whether their effects vary based on specific cognitive tasks. Understanding these relationships can inform targeted interventions to promote cognitive resilience in aging populations. Methods A cross‐sectional analysis was conducted using baseline data from a randomized clinical trial. The sample included 101 older adults (mean age = 71.4 years, 77% female) with normal cognition. Cognitive functioning was assessed using the MEC‐35, Stroop test, and TAVEC, while digital competence was measured with the MDPQ‐16. CR was estimated based on educational attainment, occupational complexity, and engagement in cognitively stimulating activities. Multiple linear regression analyses were performed to examine associations between digital competence, CR, and cognitive performance. Results Higher digital competence was significantly associated with better executive functioning and attention (Stroop test) but was inversely related to verbal learning capacity (TAVEC). CR was positively linked to calculation skills, but its benefits plateaued at moderate levels. These findings suggest that digital competence and CR impact cognitive domains differently, highlighting potential cognitive trade‐offs. Conclusion Digital competence may serve as a protective factor for specific cognitive functions in aging, offering a promising target for interventions aimed at enhancing cognitive resilience. Future research should explore the effectiveness of computerized cognitive training in strengthening both digital skills and CR to support cognitive health in older adults. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT06279325
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Calatayud et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: