Development of a Model-based Working Memory Training and Investigation of Its Comparative Efficacy: A Randomized, Double-blind Study on Healthy Adults
Overview
- Phase
- Not Applicable
- Intervention
- Not specified
- Conditions
- Working Memory
- Sponsor
- University Hospital, Basel, Switzerland
- Enrollment
- 131
- Locations
- 1
- Primary Endpoint
- Change in Symmetry Span Task Score
- Status
- Completed
- Last Updated
- 5 years ago
Overview
Brief Summary
This study is to investigate the efficacy of model-based Working Memory (WM) training using an appropriate control condition. The interventions are a model-based, a single-task and a multiple-task training on WM in order to compare the efficacies of these different training approaches for WM. A sham intervention acts as active control group. Each intervention will be presented on a tablet device.
Investigators
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria
- •Informed consent as documented by signature
Exclusion Criteria
- •Medical history of neurological or psychiatric disorders
- •Any history of substance abuse
- •Color vision deficiency
- •Inability to used table devices
- •Montreal Cognitive Assessment \< 26
Outcomes
Primary Outcomes
Change in Symmetry Span Task Score
Time Frame: assessment at baseline (=T2) and 3 weeks after baseline (=T3)
First, the distractor task is judging whether a displayed shape is symmetrical along its vertical axis. Second, the to-be-remembered items are locations of red squares in a 4×4 grid of potential locations. Finally, the number of symmetry-location pairs varied from two to five times per trial. Scores are calculated by summing the number of red square locations correctly recalled in the correct order.
Change in Rotation Span Task Score
Time Frame: assessment at baseline (=T2) and 3 weeks after baseline (=T3)
First, the distractor task is judging whether a rotated letter is presented correctly, or is a mirrored image of the letter. Second, the to-be-remembered items are arrows of either short or long length and pointing in one of eight different directions. Finally, the rotation-arrow sequence is repeated from two to five times per trial. Scores are calculated by summing the number of arrows correctly recalled in the correct order.
Change in Operation Span Task Score
Time Frame: assessment at baseline (=T2) and 3 weeks after baseline (=T3)
Subjects first solve a math problem, and then see a letter, and then solve another math problem, and see another letter. This math-letter sequence is repeated from three to seven times for each trial with an unpredictable length each time. After each math-letter sequence, subjects are asked to recall, in order, the preceding letters. Scores are calculated by summing the number of letters correctly recalled in the correct order.
Secondary Outcomes
- Change in Rey Auditory Verbal Learning test(assessment at baseline (=T2) and 3 weeks after baseline (=T3) and 12 weeks after baseline (=T4))
- Change in Rotation Span Task Score(assessment at baseline (=T2) and 12 weeks after baseline (=T4))
- Change in Symmetry Span Task Score(assessment at baseline (=T2) and 12 weeks after baseline (=T4))
- Change in Operation Span Task Score(assessment at baseline (=T2) and 12 weeks after baseline (=T4))
- Change in Trail making Test A/B(assessment at baseline (=T2) and 3 weeks after baseline (=T3) and 12 weeks after baseline (=T4))
- Change in Rey Osterrieth Complex Figure Test(assessment at baseline (=T2) and 3 weeks after baseline (=T3) and 12 weeks after baseline (=T)
- Change in Depression Anxiety Stress Scales(assessment at baseline (=T2) and 3 weeks after baseline (=T3) and 12 weeks after baseline (=T)
- Change in Raven's Progressive Matrices(assessment at baseline (=T2) and 3 weeks after baseline (=T3) and 12 weeks after baseline (=T)