Randomized controlled trial shows cognitive training improves memory and neurophysiological effects in older adults, indicating its potential for cognitive health.
Objective This study aimed to evaluate the neurophysiological and cognitive effects of a tablet-based cognitive training program in cognitively unimpaired (CU) older adults, in order to explore its potential as an accessible intervention for promoting cognitive health in aging populations.Methods In a single-center, rater-blind randomized controlled trial, 40 CU older adults were assigned to either a 10-week tablet-based cognitive training intervention or a passive control group. Resting-state quantitative electroencephalography was conducted to assess spectral power and functional connectivity (FC) across cortical regions. Cognitive outcomes were measured using seven tests from the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery, covering memory, attention, and executive function domains.Results Compared to the control group, participants in the intervention group showed significant increases in absolute power in beta1–3, theta, and gamma frequency bands, particularly in frontal and central regions. FC analysis revealed enhanced coherence in fronto-temporal and occipital regions following the intervention. Cognitive assessment demonstrated significant improvements in memory tasks, including delayed matching to sample, paired associates learning, and pattern recognition memory, in the intervention group. No significant changes were observed in attention or executive function domains.Conclusion Tablet-based cognitive training was associated with measurable neurophysiological changes and selective improvements in memory performance among CU older adults. These findings support the potential of digital cognitive training as a non-pharmacological intervention to promote cognitive resilience and neural efficiency in aging. Further large-scale and long-term studies are warranted to confirm the durability and underlying mechanisms of these effects.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kim et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: