[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

A double-blind randomized controlled trial of the efficacy of cognitive training delivered using two different methods in mild cognitive impairment in Parkinson’s disease: preliminary report of benefits associated with the use of a computerized tool

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Aging Clinical and Experimental Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The effectiveness of computer-based cognitive training (CCT) remains controversial, especially in older adults with neurodegenerative diseases.

Aims

To evaluate the efficacy of CCT in patients with Parkinson’s disease and mild cognitive impairment (PD-MCI).

Methods

In this randomized controlled trial, 53 patients were randomized to receive CCT delivered by means of CoRe software, traditional paper-and-pencil cognitive training (PCT), or an unstructured activity intervention (CG). In each group, the intervention lasted 3 consecutive weeks (4 individual face-to-face sessions/week). Neuropsychological assessment was administered at baseline (T0) and post-intervention (T1). Outcome measures at T0 and T1 were compared within and between groups. The Montreal Overall Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) was taken as the primary outcome measure.

Results

Unlike the PCT group and the CG, the patients receiving CCT showed significant medium/large effect size improvements in MoCA performance, global cognition, executive functions, and attention/processing speed. No baseline individual/demographic variables were associated with greater gains from the intervention, although a negative correlation with baseline MoCA performance was found.

Conclusion

CCT proved effective in PD-MCI patients when compared with traditional PCT. Further follow-up assessments are being conducted to verify the retention of the gains and the potential ability of the tool to delay conversion to PD-dementia.

Trial registration number (ClinicalTrials.gov): NCT04111640 (30th September 2019).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
£29.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (United Kingdom)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Keshavan MS, Vinogradov S, Rumsey J et al (2014) Cognitive training in mental disorders: update and future directions. Am J Psychiatry 171:510–522. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2013.13081075

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Nousia A, Martzoukou M, Tsouris Z (2020) The beneficial effects of computer-based cognitive training in parkinson’s disease: a systematic review. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 00:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acz080

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Jean L, Bergeron M-E, Thivierge S et al (2010) Cognitive intervention programs for individuals with mild cognitive impairment: systematic review of the literature. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 18:281–296. https://doi.org/10.1097/JGP.0b013e3181c37ce9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bernini S, Alloni A, Panzarasa S et al (2019) A computer-based cognitive training in Mild cognitive impairment in parkinson’s disease. NeuroRehabilitation 44:555–567. https://doi.org/10.3233/NRE-192714

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Coyle H, Traynor V, Solowij N (2015) Computerized and virtual reality cognitive training for individuals at high risk of cognitive decline: systematic review of the literature. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 23:335–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jagp.2014.04.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hill NTM, Mowszowski L, Naismith SL et al (2017) Computerized cognitive training in older adults with mild cognitive impairment or dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Psychiatry 174:329–340. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2016.16030360

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Alzahrani H, Venneri A (2018) Cognitive rehabilitation in parkinson’s disease: a systematic review. J Parkinsons Dis 8:233–245. https://doi.org/10.3233/JPD-171250

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Calleo J, Burrows C, Levin H (2012) Cognitive rehabilitation for executive dysfunction in Parkinson’s disease: application and current directions. Parkinsons Dis. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/512892

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Hindle JV, Petrelli A, Clare L et al (2013) Nonpharmacological enhancement of cognitive function in Parkinson’s disease: a systematic review. Mov Disord 28:1034–1049. https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.25377

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Leung IHK, Walton CC, Hallock H et al (2015) Cognitive training in Parkinson disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurology 85:1843–1851. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000002145

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Van de Weijer SCF, Hommel ALAJ, Bloem BR et al (2018) Promising non-pharmacological therapies in PD: targeting late stage disease and the role of computer based cognitive training. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 46(Suppl 1):S42–S46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.parkreldis.2017.09.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Walton CC, Naismith SL, Lampit A et al (2017) Cognitive training in Parkinson’s disease: a theoretical perspective. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 33(9):695–706

    Google Scholar 

  13. Biundo R, Weis L, Fiorenzato E et al (2017) Cognitive rehabilitation in parkinson’s disease: is it feasible?. Arch Clin Neuropsychol

  14. Robert PH, König A, Amieva H et al (2014) Recommendations for the use of serious games in people with Alzheimer’s disease, related disorders and frailty. Front Aging Neurosci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2014.00054

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Alloni A, Sinforiani E, Zucchella C et al (2017) Computer-based cognitive rehabilitation: the CoRe system. Disabil Rehabil. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2015.1096969

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Alloni A, Quaglini S, Panzarasa S et al (2018) Evaluation of an ontology-based system for computerized cognitive rehabilitation. Int J Med Inform. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2018.04.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Mewborn CM, Lindbergh CA, Stephen Miller L (2017) Cognitive interventions for cognitively healthy, mildly impaired, and mixed samples of older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials. Neuropsychol Rev 27(4):403–439

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Postuma RB, Berg D, Stern M et al (2015) MDS clinical diagnostic criteria for Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord 30:1591–1601. https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.26424

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hoehn MM, Yahr MD (1967) Parkinsonism: onset, progression and mortality. Neurology 17:427–442

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Litvan I, Goldman JG, Troster Schmand BA et al (2012) Diagnostic criteria for mild cognitive impairment in Parkinson’s disease: movement Disorder Society Task Force guidelines. Mov Disord 27:349–356. https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.24893

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Magni E, Binetti G, Bianchetti A et al (1996) Mini-mental state examination: a normative study in italian elderly population. Eur J Neurol 3:198–202. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-1331.1996.tb00423.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Conti S, Bonazzi S, Laiacona M et al (2015) Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA)-Italian version: regression based norms and equivalent scores. Neurol Sci 36:209–214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10072-014-1921-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Spinnler H (1987) Italian standardization and classification of Neuropsychological tests. The Italian Group on the Neuropsychological Study of Aging. Ital J Neurol Sci Suppl 8:1–120

    Google Scholar 

  24. Novelli G, Papagno C, Capitani E et al (1986) Tre test clinici di memoria verbale a lungo termine. Taratura su soggetti normali. Arch di Psicol Neurol Psychiatry 47:278–296

    Google Scholar 

  25. Carlesimo GA, Caltagirone C, Gainotti G (1996) The mental deterioration battery: normative data, diagnostic reliability and qualitative analyses of cognitive impairment. Eur Neurol 36:378–384. https://doi.org/10.1159/000117297

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Cafarra P, Vezzadini G, Dieci F et al (2002) Rey-Osterrieth complex figure: normative values in an Italian population sample. Neurol Sci 22:443–447. https://doi.org/10.1007/s100720200003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Appollonio I, Leone M, Isella V et al (2005) The frontal assessment battery (FAB): normative values in an Italian population sample. Neurol Sci 26:108–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10072-005-0443-4

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Novelli G, Papagno C, Capitani E et al (1986) Tre test clinici di ricerca e produzione lessicale. Taratura su soggetti normali. Arch di Psicol Neurol Psychiatry 47:477–506

    Google Scholar 

  29. Giovagnoli AR, Del Pesce M, Mascheroni S et al (1996) Trail making test: normative values from 287 normal adult controls. Ital J Neurol Sci 17:305–309

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Capitani E, Laiacona M (1997) Composite neuropsychological batteries and demographic correction: standardization based on equivalent scores, with a review of published data. The Italian Group for the Neuropsychological Study of Ageing. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 19:795–809. https://doi.org/10.1080/01688639708403761

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Beck AT, Steer RA, Brown G (2010) Beck Depression Inventory-IIUSA, NCS Person, Inc., 1996 (Italian translation: Ghisi, M., Flebus, G.B., Montano, A., Sanavio, E., Sica, C. Manuale. Adattamento italiano. Florence, Giunti O.S. Organizzazioni Speciali

  32. Lawton MP, Brody EM (1969) Assessment of older people: self-maintaining and instrumental activities of daily living. Gerontologist 9:179–186

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Nucci M, Mapelli D, Mondini S (2012) Cognitive Reserve Index questionnaire (CRIq): a new instrument for measuring cognitive reserve. Aging Clin Exp Res 24:218–226. https://doi.org/10.3275/7800

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Dalrymple-Alford JC, MacAskill MR, Nakas CT et al (2010) The MoCA: well-suited screen for cognitive impairment in Parkinson disease. Neurology 75:1717–1725. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181fc29c9

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Pena J, Ibarretxe-Bilbao N, Garcia-Gorostiaga I et al (2014) Improving functional disability and cognition in Parkinson disease: randomized controlled trial. Neurology 83:2167–2174. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000001043

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Cerasa A, Gioia MC, Salsone M et al (2014) Neurofunctional correlates of attention rehabilitation in Parkinson’s disease: an explorative study. Neurol Sci 35:1173–1180. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10072-014-1666-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. De Luca R, Latella D, Maggio MG et al (2019) Computer assisted cognitive rehabilitation improves visuospatial and executive functions in Parkinson’s disease: preliminary results. NeuroRehabilitation 45:285–290. https://doi.org/10.3233/NRE-192789

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. París AP, Saleta HG, de la Cruz Crespo Maraver M et al (2011) Blind randomized controlled study of the efficacy of cognitive training in Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord 26:1251–1258. https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.23688

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Lövdén M, Brehmer Y, Li S-C et al (2012) Training-induced compensation versus magnification of individual differences in memory performance. Front Hum Neurosci 6:141. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00141

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was supported by a grant from the Italian Ministry of Health (Ricerca Corrente 2017-2019).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IRCCS Mondino Foundation, Pavia, Italy

    Sara Bernini, Marica Barbieri, Elena Sinforiani, Cristina Tassorelli & Sara Bottiroli

  2. Dept. of Electrical, Computer and Biomedical Engineering, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy

    Silvia Panzarasa & Silvana Quaglini

  3. Dept. of Brain and Behavioral Sciences, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy

    Cristina Tassorelli

  4. Giustino Fortunato University, Benevento, Italy

    Sara Bottiroli

Authors
  1. Sara Bernini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Silvia Panzarasa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marica Barbieri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Elena Sinforiani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Silvana Quaglini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Cristina Tassorelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Sara Bottiroli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

SBe and SBo: Study conception and design, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, drafting of the manuscript. All authors: interpretation of data. SQ and SP: Analysis and interpretation of data. MB: acquisition of data. ES and CT: Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sara Bernini.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

 The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

The study was performed in accordance with the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki. The study was approved by local ethics committee (San Matteo Hospital, Pavia, Italy).

Informed consent

Written informed consent was collected from all of the participants.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bernini, S., Panzarasa, S., Barbieri, M. et al. A double-blind randomized controlled trial of the efficacy of cognitive training delivered using two different methods in mild cognitive impairment in Parkinson’s disease: preliminary report of benefits associated with the use of a computerized tool. Aging Clin Exp Res 33, 1567–1575 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40520-020-01665-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40520-020-01665-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation