Rehabilitation Programs of Executive Functions in Young and Middle Adulthood based on Computational Systems: a Scoping Review
Programas de rehabilitación de las funciones ejecutivas en la adultez joven y media basados en sistemas computacionales: una revisión de alcance
Carolina Robledo-Castro Piedad Rocio Lerma Castaño, Luis Gerardo Pachón Ospina
Abstract
Introduction: The use of computational systems has ventured into different healthcare areas, such as rehabilitation and stimulation of cognitive processes. To this date, it is possible to identify some reviews collecting studies on the efficacy and effects of those programs in groups such as older adults, children, and teenagers; there is a lack of academic literature giving an account of young and middle-aged adults.
Objective: To identify empirical studies that measured the feasibility and effect of computer-based stimulation and rehabilitation programs for cognitive functions in young and middle-aged adults.
Materials and methods: The PRISMA ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) extension was used as a base for a scoping review, as suggested by Cochrane Collaboration. Five databases -Science Direct, Scopus, Springer, PubMed, and Taylor & Francis- were used to trace information. The data registry and synthesis of the results was carried out independently by two reviewers.
Results: 896 registries were found between 2015 and 2022, of which 91 met the eligibility principles, which evaluated the effects of programs based on computational systems on executive functions on young and middle-aged adults.
Conclusion: Most of the interventions based on computational systems showed to be feasible and had moderate to significant effects on executive functions in young and middle-aged adults.
Keywords
Cognitive rehabilitation; executive functions; computational systems; systematic review; clinical trials; adulthood.
Resumen
Introducción: El uso de los sistemas computacionales ha incursionado de forma notable en diferentes áreas de la salud, como la rehabilitación y estimulación de los procesos cognitivos. Si bien a la fecha se pueden identificar algunas revisiones que recopilan estudios sobre la eficacia y efectos de estos programas en grupos como adultos mayores, niños y adolescentes, existe poca literatura orientada a la adultez joven y la adultez media.
Objetivo: Identificar estudios empíricos que midieron la viabilidad y el efecto de los programas de estimulación y rehabilitación de las funciones ejecutivas basados en computadora en la población adulta joven y media.
Materiales y métodos: Se realizó revisión de alcance basado en la extensión PRISMA ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extensión for Scoping Reviews) sugerido por Cochrane Collaboration. Para el rastreo de información se seleccionaron cinco bases de datos: Science Direct, Scopus, Springer, PubMed y Taylor & Francis. El proceso de registro de datos y la síntesis de los resultados fue realizada por dos revisores de forma independiente.
Resultados: Se encontraron 896 registros desde el 2015 al 2022, de los cuales 91 cumplieron los principios de elegibilidad, en los que se evaluaron los efectos de programas basados en sistemas computacionales sobre las funciones ejecutivas en adultos jóvenes y adultos medios.
Conclusión: La mayoría de las intervenciones basadas en sistemas computacionales mostraron ser viables y tener efectos favorables de moderados a significativos sobre las funciones ejecutivas de adultos jóvenes y medios.
Palabras clave
Rehabilitación cognitiva; funciones ejecutivas; sistemas computacionales; revisión sistemática; ensayos clínicos; adultez.
Introduction
Executive functions (EF) are higher-order cognitive processes associated with processing in the prefrontal areas of the brain [1] responsible for efficiently guiding goal-directed behavior. EFs allow the subject to plan, monitor, evaluate performance, adapt to new situations, and solve complex problems in which there has been no prior learning [2]. In general, EFs are cognitive processes that guide, coordinate, review, and evaluate behavior in achieving goals [3,4].
Currently, there is no consensus on the definition and classification of EF; therefore, the evaluation and training approach depends on the theoretical models that support them. One of the most recognized models has been the proposal by Miyake et al. [5], who, through a confirmatory factorial analysis, defined working memory, cognitive flexibility, and inhibitory control as central nuclei of executive functions, cognitive processes from which others of greater complexity would derive, such as reasoning, problem-solving problems, and planning. Other theoretical models include others (EF), such as verbal fluency [6], planning [7], decision-making [8], and some attentional control processes [9].
Beyond explanatory theoretical models, it is a reality that Executive Functions can present impairment in various clinical pictures, such as syndromes associated with damage to the prefrontal cortex, especially in the dorsolateral, medial, and orbitofrontal areas; the involvement of each one of these areas is expressed in clinical pictures with different alterations of executive functioning [10,11].
EF impact is a characteristic of a large number of health disorders in young and middle adults with some early-onset neurodegenerative disorders, neurodevelopmental disorders (e.g., autism, attention deficit disorder, and intellectual disability), mood disorders, psychoactive substance use disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorder, stroke, genetic disorders such as Huntington's disease and Gilles de la Tourette syndrome, as well as other diseases such as cancer and HIV [12].
Among the processes of cognitive intervention for the clinical population and the healthy population, the rehabilitation or stimulation paradigms can be recognized. The first focuses on cognitive processes affected by the disease, injury, or neurodegenerative condition. Stimulation, on the other hand, provides opportunities for developing and promoting the capacities of cognitive processes that have not yet been consolidated. In other words, while rehabilitation is based on the principles of restitution, compensation, and substitution, stimulation is based on the principles of transference and generalization [12,13].
Concerning these programs, the literature suggests that intervention schemes should be aimed at improving cognitive processes and their neurological bases under the principle of neuroplasticity, producing a reorganization in brain structure and functioning [12]. The studies also propose that the activities of said programs should aim at processes rather than task training, so that in addition to generating close transfer, associated with improvement in untrained tasks that measure the same cognitive component, they also succeed in causing a far transfer, that is, an improvement in untrained tasks that measure related cognitive components [14].
One of the alternatives for rehabilitation and cognitive stimulation has been programs based on computer systems. Studies on this type of program have shown a promising panorama in different age groups. However, some of the findings restrict their effectiveness to early ages or older adults; other studies position these technologies among the new directions of cognitive training, with effects throughout life, albeit with varying degrees of efficiency [15-18]. For this reason, research evaluating the feasibility and effects of computerized cognitive training programs remains a growing need in a way that allows exposing the feasibility of incorporating these programs into clinical practice [15,19].
Reviews that evaluate the effectiveness of computerized cognitive training programs on executive functions in different population groups have shown contradictory results, to a certain extent associated with characteristic methodologies of these studies [20]; most of these reviews have focused on the elderly [21,22] with sequelae of cerebrovascular accident [23], and adults with cognitive impairment. These studies have found improvements in general cognitive function in older adults [21]; however, the effect on executive functions has not been studied. Only one review was conducted on the average adult [24]; the authors restricted the search to interventions with more than 12 weeks and found only one article with eligibility criteria. In their work, they concluded that computerized cognitive training in midlife demonstrated lasting effects on general cognitive function with 12 weeks of training and memory after 24 weeks of training [24].
Based on this background and in the absence of reviews on the topic of interest, it is proposed to carry out a scoping review with the aim of providing a general description of the evidence collected so far on cognitive stimulation and rehabilitation programs for executive functions, based on computer systems applied in young and middle adulthood.
Methods
Protocol and registration
The selected methodology was the scoping review, since it is better suited to the proposed objective, which is to provide a general description of a particular topic to identify knowledge gaps and support new studies [25]. The scoping review is formulated as a stepwise process of five phases: 1) identify the research question; two) Identify relevant studies; 3) select studies; 4) graph the data; and 5) summarize and report the results [26]. The present study's authors formulated an a priori protocol following the PRISMA ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) extension for scoping reviews checklist [27], and it was reviewed by an external peer specialized. Said protocol is registered and available at inplasy.com with the registration number INPLASY2022100052.
Eligibility Criteria
The established inclusion criteria were research articles published between 2015 and 2022, experimental studies (controlled clinical trials, open clinical trials, and quasi-experimental studies), articles that study computerized programs for the stimulation or rehabilitation of executive functions that involved the population between 18 and 60 years of age, written in English, and that included one or two measures of executive functions. The exclusion criteria were established as follows: short articles, summaries or protocols, reviews and meta-analyses, articles that do not evaluate executive functions, interventions that are not based on the use of computer systems, and studies in populations under 18 or over 60 years of age.
Information sources
To identify potentially relevant documents, the following bibliographic databases, resource sources, and digital platforms were searched: Science Direct, Scopus, Springer Link, PubMed, and Taylor & Francis. The research team designed and tested the search strategies and reviewed them with a specialized professional. In the review protocol, the authors established the central concepts for the construction of the search chain of the studies: 1) Executive functions, 2) Rehabilitation and cognitive stimulation, 3) Computer systems, and 4) young and middle adulthood. These categories were translated into English and reviewed in the ERIC thesauri (recognized terms in education and health from the Educational Resources Information Center). Based on these central concepts identified and the review carried out in said thesauri, a search chain was built that included logical operators, which was executed in October 2022 in the databases selected for the search of the articles. The final search strategy for each database is presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Search strategy for each database or digital platform.
Database (total records) | search algorithm | automatic filters |
---|---|---|
Science direct (96) | Year:2015-2022Title, abstract, keywords: (( "Executive function" OR "executive function" OR "Executive functioning") AND ("cognitive training" OR "Cognitive Stimulation" OR rehabilitation ) AND ( computerized OR based-computer ) | -The "Years" filter was applied (2015 to 2022) |
-The "Type of article" filter was applied by selecting the option "Research articles" * | ||
Springers (243) | ("Executive function" OR "executive function" OR "Executive functioning ") AND ("cognitive training" OR "Cognitive Stimulation" OR rehabilitation) AND (computerized OR based-computer) | -The "Data published in" filter was applied (2015 and 2022) |
-The "Type of content" filter was applied, selecting the "Article" option * | ||
Pubmed (148) | (("Executive function"[Title/Abstract] OR "Executive function" [Title/Abstract] OR "Executive functioning" [Title/Abstract]) AND ("cognitive training" [Title/Abstract] OR "Cognitive Stimulation" [Title /Abstract] OR "rehabilitation" [Title/Abstract]) AND ("computerized" [Title/Abstract] OR "computer-based" [Title/Abstract])) AND (2015:2022[ pdat ]) | -The "Publication date" filter was applied to select works published between 2015 and 2022. |
-The "Type of article" filter was applied, selecting the options "Clinical trial" and "Randomized controlled trial" * | ||
Taylor & Francis (184) | [[All: "executive function"] OR [All: "executive function"] OR [All: "executive functioning"]] AND [[All: "cognitive training"] OR [All: "cognitive stimulation"] OR [All: rehabilitation]] AND [[All: computerized] OR [All: computer-based]] AND [Article Type: Article] AND [Publication Date: (01/01/2015 TO 12/31/2022)] | -The "Publication date" filter was applied to select works published between 2015 and 2022. |
-The “Source type” filter was applied, selecting the option “Scientific journals” and “Theses and doctoral dissertations” * | ||
Scopus (225) | TITLE-ABS-KEY (("Executive function" OR "executive function" OR "Executive functioning") AND ("cognitive training" OR "Cognitive Stimulation" OR rehabilitation) AND (computerized OR based-computer)) AND PUBYEAR > 2014 AND PUBYEAR < 2023 AND PUBYEAR > 2014 AND PUBYEAR <2023 AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, "ar"))) | -The "Year" filter was applied to select documents published between 2015 and 2022. |
-The "Type of document" filter was applied to select the options "Article" and "Conference article" * |
Note. Excluding from the search results the documents of review articles, meta -analyses, brief reports, editorials, publications, case reports, conference information, book reviews, encyclopedia, brief communications, protocol documents, reference work, conference article , book, encyclopedia and conference proceedings, audio and video works, newspapers, brochures and encyclopedias, reports and bibliographic reviews, case studies, reports, reviews of search results.
Selection process
The first author searched the different databases, implemented automatic filters, and eliminated duplicate articles. Next, the first and second authors screened the title and abstract of each article based on the established inclusion and exclusion criteria. The third author carried out a second review of the articles that had passed the first filters. Subsequently, the full text of each article was reviewed independently by the three authors to verify whether or not the eligibility criteria were met; the articles in doubt were reviewed collectively to reach an agreement between the authors, and, in exceptional cases, they were sent for arbitration to an external adviser.
Data extraction
Based on previous reviews, the authors adapted a documentary analysis matrix in which the data extracted from each article were recorded: identification data, place of publication, year of publication, sample size, mean age of the participants, clinical conditions of participants, methodological design, study objectives, characteristics of the training and type of activities, characteristics of the implemented computer system, executive functions studied, measurement instruments, primary results, secondary results, and conclusions.
Results
Once the search chain was executed, 896 records distributed in the different databases were identified. By applying the automatic filters of the search tool (time range, complete articles, original articles, English language, disciplinary areas of interest) and excluding duplicates, the titles and abstracts were screened to proceed to a review of the full text. After assorting these filters, the articles included for the review and analysis comprised 91 studies (see Figure 1). In Appendix A, you can consult the descriptive matrix in which the main characteristics of each study are summarized.
Figure 1. Flowchart
Note 1. * The study did not assess executive functions; ** The population was not young adults or middle adults; *** The intervention was not computerized.
Note 2: Science Direct (96), Scopus (225), Springer Link (243), PubMed (148) and Taylor & Francis (184). When reviewing the title and abstract, it was identified that the articles did not correspond to empirical studies (review articles, opinion articles, short articles, conferences, clinical protocols, posters, they do not present research results), they did not study cognitive training programs based on computer systems or did not investigate in the selected population.
Most of the studies published in the last eight years were developed in North America (34%), followed by Spain (9.1%), Germany (6.8%), the United Kingdom, and Italy (5.6%). Only one of the studies was carried out in a Latin American country (Cuba). Of the total of 88 studies, 32 were in young adults with a mean age of 22.8 years (Standard Deviation 2.4), and 55 were in middle adults with a mean age of 42.9 years (Standard Deviation 9.2).
To present the results, young adults (between 18 and 30 years) and middle-aged adults (between 31 and 60 years) were discriminated against. As seen in Table 2, most of the studies on young adults were conducted in a healthy population, with most of the participants being university students. Most of the clinical population of this population range had a diagnosis of schizophrenia or depressive disorders. The studies in average adults were mainly in the clinical population, where the most frequent pathologies were disorders associated with the schizophrenia spectrum (21.8%) and multiple sclerosis (18.2), to a lesser extent, consumption disorders of substances (10.9%) and cerebrovascular accidents.
Table 2. Clinical characteristics of the study population.
Characteristics of the study population | Total | Young adult | Middle adult |
---|---|---|---|
Frequency (%) | N = 91 | N = 30 | N = 61 |
Healthy population | 27 (29.7) | 23(76.7) | 4 (6.6) |
Multiple sclerosis | 13 (14.3) | 13(21,3) | |
Schizophrenia spectrum | 11 (12.1) | 4 (13.3) | 7 (11.5) |
Acquired brain damage | 8 (8.7) | 8 (13.1) | |
Disorders associated with substance use | 8 (8.7) | 1 (3.3) | 7 (11.5) |
Depressive disorders | 8 (8.7) | 5 (16.7) | 3 (4.9) |
Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder | 4 (4.4) | ||
Cancer survivors | 3 (3.3) | 3 (10) | 4 (6.6) |
Mild cognitive impairment | 3 (3.3) | 3 (4.9) | |
Anxiety disorders | 3 (3.3) | 3 (4.9) | |
Human immunodeficiency virus | 2 (2.2) | 2 (3.3) | |
Huntington's disease | 2 (2.2) | 2 (3.3) | |
Obsessive compulsive disorder | 1 (1,1) | 1 (1.6) | |
Chronic fatigue syndrome | 1 (1,1) | 1 (1.6) |
Note: The frequency of the studies is discriminated by young adult and middle adult population, with the respective percentage weighted by population in parentheses.
Regarding the executive functions studied, some of the studies reviewed (24.2%) were based on theoretical models that contemplate the executive function construct in a unified way, making a general reference to the ability to regulate different cognitive, behavioral, and affective functions [28]. In contrast, the rest of the studies assessed executive functions independently.
Similar to the findings of previous systematic reviews conducted in other age groups [29], the most studied executive function was working memory (62.5%), both in clinical and healthy populations. At the same time, some executive cognitive domains were more representative in specific age ranges, such as attention and processing speed, addressed in 58.2% and 38.2% of the studies in middle-aged adults, respectively, but not as a representative in young adults, where most of the studies focused on working memory (69.6%) and, to a lesser extent, attention (18.2%) and inhibitory control (15.1%). Other domains, such as planning and verbal fluency, were studied exclusively in average adults (see Table 3).
Table 3. Executive functions studied by age group.
Frequency (%) | Total | Young adult | Middle adult |
---|---|---|---|
N = 91 | N = 30 | N = 61 | |
Executive functioning | 31 (33.3) | 7 (20.6) | 24 (39.7) |
Work memory | 55 (60.4) | 20 (66.7) | 35 (57.1) |
Attention | 33 (35.4) | 6 (17.6) | 28 (44.4) |
Cognitive flexibility | 14 (14.6) | 3 (98.8) | 11 (17.5) |
Inhibitory control | 16 (16.7) | 6 (17.6) | 10 (15.9) |
Processing speed | 27 (28.1) | 4 (11.7) | 23 (36.5) |
Planification and organization | 6 (6.3) | 6 (9.5) | |
Problem resolution | 6 (6.3) | 2 (5.8) | 4 (6.3) |
Emotional regulation | 6 (6.3) | 2 (5.8) | 4 (6.3) |
Verbal fluency | 6 (6.3) | 6 (9.5) | |
Decision making | 4 (4.1) | 2 (5.8) | 2 (3.2) |
Note: The frequency of the studies is discriminated by young adult and middle adult population, with the respective percentage weighted by population in parentheses.
Among the rehabilitation or cognitive stimulation programs based on computer systems, the review allowed us to identify both commercial programs and novel programs designed by the same authors or research groups, with the former used in 60% of the investigations. 52% of the interventions implemented game-based activities, ranging from gamified versions of classic exercises to the design of serious games for specific purposes or commercial video games. 16% of the programs were based on classical tasks, and 4.5% on multimodal programs that included other types of interventions such as physical activity and meditation, in addition to computerized training. The most used device was the computer (57.9%); other devices were tablets (11.3%), smartphones (2.2%), and video game consoles (2.2%), although 26% of the studies did not specify the type of device used.
Most research on young adults was done on healthy people, while most of the research on mid-adults was done on people with clinical conditions. The most representative findings by population group are described below.
Schizophrenia
The most frequent computerized cognitive training program in the studies of the population with the schizophrenia spectrum was the commercial platform Brain HQ, which was included in 7 of the investigations. Studies showed mixed results, some reporting significant effects of training on working memory [30-32], processing speed [30,32-35], attention [32,30], and problem-solving [31], also proving to be a good complement to pharmacological treatment [34]. However, some studies did not find cognitive benefits of the Brain HQ intervention in cognitive functions such as processing speed [36] and the combination with COGPACK [37]; the authors indicate that this lack of effects could be due to the age of the participants (older than in other studies) and that the effects of the medications could reduce the effectiveness of the treatment [37]. However, the same authors report good adherence and satisfaction of the participants towards the treatment.
Among the studies carried out with Brain HQ in the schizophrenia population with comorbid depression and anxiety [32], it was found that a predictor of cognitive gain in working memory and attention is the patient's commitment to treatment, as well as the level of cognitive performance at the beginning of the treatment, finding that those who benefited the most from the training were the people who showed the lowest performance in the pretest. On the other hand [30], she points out that a significant predictor was the number of hours of treatment, such that a greater number of hours of training produced larger improvements in working memory and processing speed. In a study evaluating the combination of Brain HQ training and Modafinium pharmacological treatment, the authors found improvements in trained tasks; however, the medication group showed no differential effects from the group receiving cognitive training alone [34]. Auditory-targeted cognitive training with Brain HQ also showed a positive correlation with measures associated with auditory processing speed in this population [35].
Another of the programs studied in the population with schizophrenia was CIRCuiTS, a computerized program for cognitive remediation. Interventions with this program led to better performance in visual memory [38], working memory, and processing speed [39], but showed no effect on attention, reasoning, and problem-solving. However, it was demonstrated to be a protective factor against cognitive decline in this population [39]. A study with the Neuronpersonaltrainer program showed effects on attentional processes, memory, and emotional processing in people with early stages of schizophrenia, although it did not show transfer to daily life functioning and social cognition [40]. Finally, the study by Matsuoka et al. [41] evaluated the neurological changes after training with the cognitive remediation software Jcores VCAT-J; the authors found that this intervention induced microstructural changes in the posterior lobe of the left cerebellum, which were associated with changes in the verbal fluency of the participants.
Multiple sclerosis
In adults with multiple sclerosis, the most widely implemented training program was the Rehacom cognitive rehabilitation software, which was included in 6 studies [42-47]. Studies found improvements in measures of processing speed [42,43,46,48-50], verbal and visuospatial working memory [42-44,46,47,51-53], verbal fluency [44,46,47], visuospatial skills [46], attention [46,47,50,53], and general cognitive performance measured with the SDMT digit and symbol test. However, changes in many of these cognitive processes were not sustained after rehabilitation [45,43], while improvements in attention [42] and processing speed [46] were maintained after months.
The Cogni-track cognitive remediation program, based on computerized working memory exercises, and showing high adherence to treatment, improved working memory in patients with multiple sclerosis. The authors found that the intervention is more effective in programs supported by machine learning algorithms that allow activities to have an adaptive and progressive difficulty [51]. Also, studies in this population were conducted with Neuroracer [48], demonstrating effects on processing speed and psychomotor function. A novel Speed Processing Training (SOPT) program demonstrated a transfer effect close to the processing speed measured with WAIS-III [49]. With the Cogmed program [52], near-transfer effects were observed on working memory and far on several measures of attention, with a secondary effect on mood.
The work of Pérez-Martín et al. [50] evaluated a computerized novel training based on n-back combined with self-training at home to reinforce cognitive strategies; the intervention showed positive effects on attention, working memory, and processing speed, with transfer effects on mood. One study compared the effectiveness of computer-based (Captain's Log, Mindpower), manual, and combined cognitive rehabilitation, but the authors did not find that all three approaches showed effectiveness in rehabilitating working memory, executive function, processing speed, and selective attention in subjects with multiple sclerosis. However, they did not find superiority of one approach over the other, concluding that all three are equally effective [53].
Depression and anxiety
In another population studied, young adults and middle adults were patients with depressive disorders. Most studies found positive effects of different programs on executive functioning in general [54-56] and some specific executive functions. In patients with major depressive disorder, a clinical trial with the Cogniplus program significantly improved attentional processes and strengthened adaptive and socialization skills [57]. In this same population, the computerized game-based program PEAK led to improvements in executive functioning and processing speed with no effect on depressive symptoms [54], and intervention with the Cogmed working memory training platform improved executive function, processing speed, and emotional working memory [55].
Their clinical trial [56] compared goal management training with computerized training. The study showed that the former was superior to the latter in reducing everyday executive dysfunction, with effects on symptom reduction at a six-month follow-up.
In anxiety disorder individual's adaptive n-back training led to improvements in WM, with transfer to the reduction of self-reported worry and anxiety symptoms [58]. In people with emotional disorders related to stress, advanced gaze contingent attention training led to significant improvements in selective attention, while generating several beneficial effects: increased attention to positive over negative information, greater reappraisal ability to regulate negative emotions, and reduced state rumination compared with the control group [59].
In adults with post-traumatic stress, cognitive-affective training with a gamified PEC-SCA did not show a generalized benefit on EF or symptoms [60]. Lumosity showed improved performance for participants who received working memory training and yoga than those who received working memory training alone. The improvement of group 1 participants in working memory skills is possibly due to the additional benefits of yoga [61]. Lumocity was also studied in veteran combatants with post-traumatic stress disorders; home-based cognitive training demonstrated feasibility, adherence, and satisfaction in participants. Such training also led to improvements in self-perceived executive functions, as well as subjective improvement in symptoms of depression post-traumatic stress [62].
Acquired brain damage
In adults with acquired brain injury, we found two clinical trials evaluating the BrainGymmer program: one of the studies showed an improvement in cognitive flexibility after the intervention [63], while a second study carried out by the same authors, although improvements were recognized in some EFs, they occurred both in the intervention group and in the control groups, suggesting that the improvement was due to non-specific training effects [64]. Nor was there any evidence of effects on any cognitive function associated with the intervention with Cognifit in the same population [65].
Another study with the Erica cognitive remediation platform showed improvement in attention and memory capacity in the intervention group, with benefits in mood in patients with ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke [66]. An RCT compared a paper-and-pencil intervention with Rehacom, finding superiority in the latter's effects in favoring sustained attention and working memory [67]. In patients with subacute stroke, a clinical trial found that training of 6 to 10 sessions with virtual reality activities based on tasks of daily living led to improvements in flexibility, inhibition, conceptualization, programming and memory, and global cognition [68].
In patients with stroke, a virtual reality environment for prospective memory rehabilitation showed a significant improvement in prospective memory skills, which remained stable four weeks after treatment [69]. Power AFA software is successful in improving language and cognitive recovery in patients with post-stroke aphasia in the chronic phase [70]. In a study of patients with traumatic brain injury, impaired attention, and executive control, improvements in attention regulation were observed following an intervention with APT - Attention Process Training-Based Cognitive Training [71].
Substance abuse-associated disorders
Different programs based on computer systems have also been investigated in disorders related to the abuse of psychoactive substances. In an intervention with Cogmed, improvements in verbal working memory function were found in patients with histories of drug abuse, but did not show transfer effects to other cognitive processes, nor did it reduce symptoms of drug abuse [72,73].
The effects of the computerized program Curb Your Addiction were studied in patients in the process of rehabilitation for methamphetamine use, finding improvements in working memory in addition to traditional treatment. Additionally, it was shown to reduce clinical symptoms of impulsivity and improve self-regulation [74]. This same program in patients with substance abuse disorder was associated with increased volume in mesolimbic reward regions that coincided with improvements in impulsivity scores [75]. In this same population, an intervention with Lumosity was shown to improve performance in inhibition tasks, with an effect on quality-of-life indicators [76]. And a novel program based on Goal Management Training together with pharmacological treatment showed a significant effect on inhibitory control, with transfer to working memory and planning, as well as a reduction in impulsivity [77].
In recently detoxified alcohol use disorder patients, two versions of a novel n-back task-based program showed improvements in inhibition, with greater effects in the emotional version of training compared to training with neutral stimuli [78]. In adult smokers, a non-commercial computer program showed no significant effect on EF after it was applied [79].
Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
Three studies on young adults with ADHD were identified. One of them [80] evaluated the effects of a computerized program of progressive attention training (CPAT) and found that the intervention group showed significant improvements in selective-spatial attention, as well as near transfer to executive attention, with effects that were sustained after follow-up, although with no effect on self-reported ADHD symptoms. The other two studies evaluated the Cogmed working memory training platform. In one of them, the training effects were small [81], while the other study showed improvements in working memory tasks, without transfer effect nor differential effects in longer interventions compared to short interventions. However, the participants of the extended version of the intervention demonstrated greater use of strategies and not only of solving tasks [82].
Other clinical conditions
In adults with cognitive impairment, HappyneuronPro generated improvements in executive functioning, increased frontal theta power, and reduced posterior alpha EEG power at two weeks of training [83].
In patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder, an intervention with Cogtrain, a program designed by the National Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and Depression, generated improvements in Executive Functioning and processing speed and contributed to the reduction of cognitive depressive symptoms [84].
Regarding surviving cancer patients, two studies report an evaluation of the feasibility and effects of cognitive training with Brain HQ: Wu et al. [85] found that although the program was shown to be feasible and highly acceptable, it only showed benefits on reaction time, while Von et al. [86] found that both computerized cognitive training programs and remotely administered active attention control computer programs are feasible, as they generate small positive effect size and adherence on cognitive processes exercises.
The pilot study by [87] evaluated a program based on video games called Mycognitivon in cancer survivors with cognitive impairment; the intervention group showed that memory, perception, and motor function had a different evolution in the intervention group, showing less deterioration compared to the control group. An intervention with the HappyneuronPro program in women with breast cancer generated improvements in memory and concentration, verbal learning, and WM, which were maintained after five months [88].
Two studies were found in patients with Huntington's disease. In one of them, a multidisciplinary rehabilitation intervention integrated with aerobic exercises, computerized cognitive training (Neuronation) and dual-task training and sleep hygiene, and nutritional guidance, led to significant improvements in verbal learning and memory, attention, flexibility, cognitive, and processing speed in the intervention group compared to the control group [89]. At the same time, the second study developed with the HappyneuronPro program, while showing adherence in one group of the sample, did not achieve widespread feasibility in the sample as a whole [90].
In two clinical trials [91,92], the effect of computer-based cognitive remediation programs was evaluated in patients with HIV, one of them implemented an intervention with Lumosity [92], and in another, an intervention with PSSCogRehab [20]. Both interventions studied led to reducing the working memory deficit in these patients.
Healthy population
As mentioned above, 4 of the studies were conducted in a healthy population of average adults, while in young adults, 20 were identified, most of them in university students.
Programs based on the n-back paradigm were one of the most frequent to train working memory [93-97] and showed transfer effects to other processes such as attentional control [95], cognitive flexibility [97], inhibition [95,97], dual tasking [94], reaction time [98], and visual short-term memory [95] in healthy adults. In studies with healthy adults, training based on other classical tasks such as the Stroop test [99,100], the Flanker test [100], and other classical tasks [100-102] has also been recognized. Commercial computer training programs such as Lumosity [103-104], Cogmed [105], Mind frontiers [106-108], and Gwakkamole app [109] have been identified as well. Also, novel programs designed by researchers [110-114] have been remarked.
One of the commercial programs based on the n-back paradigm was Brain Twister2, an ascending complexity scheme that generated increasingly complex training demands. Interventions based on this program demonstrated greater near transfer to untrained working memory tasks and far transfer to attentional control [115]. Some authors found that in task-based n-back training, the improvements seemed restricted to tasks like those trained in working memory, but without transfer to other cognitive processes [93,94,116]. While other programs, based on strategies and not on tasks, showed greater transfer to other untrained tasks [96,100].
Three studies used training with the Mind Frontiers serious game-based cognitive stimulation program. Zwilling et al. [106] observed effects of near transfer to working memory tasks and far transfer to perceptual speed tasks in an intervention with this program in healthy young adults, while Baniqued et al. [107] found similar near transfer to working memory tasks and far from processing speed and reaction time. In another study, Mind frontiers showed transfer to decision-making and general executive functioning, with greater effect when combined with other programs such as meditation and high-intensity cardio resistance training [108].
On the other hand, in an intervention with Lumosity, improvements were observed in cognitive flexibility, attention, and reaction times, although these changes were not reflected in evoked potentials [104]. An fMRI study demonstrated that a novel executive control training intervention based on the Flanker task caused an increase in amygdala-IFG connectivity, further showing improvements in inhibitory control, attention, and emotional regulation [100]. A study contrasted a novel program based on classical tasks to train working memory by comparing a linear scheme and one with progressive difficulty. The authors concluded that cognitive training programs should incorporate adaptive task difficulty to enhance the transfer of training gains and maximize the efficiency of task-related brain activity [117].
Some studies that implemented working memory training, such as Cogmed [105] and other non-commercial programs created by the researchers [114,118], showed improvements that were restricted to specific working memory tasks without no other near and far transfer effects. In this vein, training with MultiTask also did not show significant effects on working memory, cognitive flexibility, or inhibition [119]. Another working memory training program such as Neuronation showed effects on trained working memory tasks, but also showed substantial improvements in near transfer tasks to other domains of working memory [120]. Some inhibition training programs, such as Gwakkamole [109] and other novel programs [112,113], did not significantly affect inhibition or transfer to other domains, such as working memory, cognitive flexibility, and planning. While Namratha et al. [101] found that working memory training in healthy average adults achieves greater results when combined with yoga training. Task repetition-based training demonstrated close transfer to similar tasks but no transfer effect to inhibitory control [118].
Discussion
This scoping review aimed to provide an overview of the evidence collected to date on computer-based cognitive stimulation and rehabilitation programs for executive functions applied in young and mid-adulthood. The main finding of this scoping review was that most studies on the use of computer-based cognitive training programs had shown favorable results on executive functions in young and middle adults.
The executive functions of working memory, attention, processing speed, and inhibitory control were the most studied in the population between 18 and 60 years of age. Working memory has been the most studied executive function also in other population groups [93,111]. In this scoping review, in addition to being the most frequent, it is also the executive function that showed the greatest benefits of cognitive training programs mediated by computer systems and in which greater effects of near and far transference were recognized both in healthy and healthy populations, which demonstrated that training in this cognitive domain could benefit the development of other cognitive abilities, such as reasoning skills, mental focus in daily activities, multitasking, and attention.
Rehabilitation and stimulation of other executive functions, such as cognitive flexibility, planning, verbal fluency, inhibitory control, and emotional regulation, were less frequent, and the effects on inhibitory control generally showed more limited effects [33,109]. These results show an important knowledge gap in future research and intervention designs mediated by computer systems.
A large part of the studies in healthy young adults was carried out on university students [98,105,110,112,114-116]. In these, the participants generally belonged to the same university that led the study, situation which can lead to a significant bias since when doing a convenience sampling with a captive population, although the risk of dropout in the study is minimized, it limits the results to the sociodemographic characteristics of that population.
Among the populations with the most studied clinical conditions in young and middle adults were multiple sclerosis [42-50,53], schizophrenia [30-39,41,67], acquired brain injury [63-65,67,69,70], substance use disorders [72-78], and depressive disorders, [32,54-57,78] and a minority of studies were conducted in young adults with Huntington's disease [89,90], stress-related emotional disorders [59-62], and cancer survivors [80,86-88]. Many of these studies evaluated the effects of interventions on the executive functions of sustained attention, concentration, and speed of information processing.
Regarding the effects of the interventions, the review shows varied results and, in some aspects, contradictory. Although most of the studies showed effects of near transference that, for the most part, ranged from moderate to significant, other programs studied did not show the expected effects or showed a very limited transference, especially in the effects of far transference, which indicates that the degree of generalization is limited in these intervention programs [20], as reported by Etherton et al. [105], who in their results found that working memory training with the Cogmed program does not improve performance on unrelated tasks or improve other cognitive abilities. From these results, some researchers conclude that the effect of distant transfer after executive function training is far from clear.
Research has found multiple benefits of integrating computer systems into cognitive stimulation and rehabilitation in adults. The use of online access platforms allows the professional in charge of the intervention to have a wide range of activities to select, manage, and schedule, which permits them to design personalized work sessions and record the evolution of the subject. Some of these platforms have digital test batteries and machine learning modalities that provide "intelligent tutoring" [104], giving instructions, accompaniment, and constant feedback to the subject and the personnel in charge of care. The clinical interventions showed better effects when accompanied by sessions at home; access to the computerized program from multiple devices precisely provides continuity to the clinic from home or another location without requiring special equipment. This characteristic had a favorable impact on retention and adherence to treatment while allowing the optimization of technological and human resources, since it allows individual but simultaneous intervention with several subjects simultaneously.
The computerized machine learning algorithms take the data of the person's performance and learn from this data to adapt to the complexity of the activities and provide a training scheme with ascending and progressive complexity, this being one of the most outstanding and best characteristics results in interventions [51]. Clinical interventions showed better effects when they included game-based, adaptive, challenging activities of increasing complexity and in highly motivating environments [51,58,83,119]. The researchers suggest that future interventions look for ecological validity in the design of the activities, so that the tasks represent the problems that adults face in their daily lives [71,120]. Several studies agreed that the greatest benefits were obtained by people with lower levels of cognitive impairment at the time of the pretest, which may be due to a ceiling effect [32].
Some research found that the improvement in some domains was not due to a specific improvement in that domain, but rather a consequence of the more efficient and strategic use of the cognitive skills learned during training. They also identified that considerably better results are obtained by combining the intervention based on tools and computational skills with training in metacognitive strategies and problem-solving [50,61,100]. Therefore, this may be a promising research field for further study.
Conclusions
Following the above, in most studies, interventions mediated by computer systems are effective in stimulating some executive functions in young and middle adults. However, these findings also demonstrate the need to study computer-based treatments for other clinical and subclinical conditions in young and middle adults with impaired executive functioning that have not been addressed in empirical studies and include follow-up measures in the methodological design of the studies. It is necessary to carry out more studies in young and middle adults with other diagnoses, such as mild cognitive impairment, obsessive-compulsive disorders, anxiety disorder, neurodevelopmental disorders, and intellectual disability, among others, since few studies were identified in the reviewed literature.
Finally, based on the results of this review, it was possible to collect an important corpus of studies on the effects of rehabilitation and stimulation of executive functions in young and middle adults with programs mediated by computer systems. However, the absence of Latin American publications in this population was evident. Therefore, the authors suggest, for future research, the development of a systematic review and meta-analysis that allows the evaluation of the size of the effect, the quality of the studies, and biases. For future studies, the authors suggest that the tasks be designed to train multiple cognitive skills and not specifically focus on task performance.
References
1. Goldstein S, Naglieri JA, Princiotta D, Otero TM. Introduction: A history of executive functioning as a theoretical and clinical construct. In: Handbook of executive functioning. New York, NY, US: Springer Science + Business Media; 2014. p. 3-12. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8106-5_1
2. Portellano Pérez JA, García Alba J. Neuropsicología de la atención, las funciones ejecutivas y la memoria. Madrid: Síntesis; 2014.
3. Goldberg E. El director ejecutivo del cerebro: Una mirada a los lóbulos frontales. In: El cerebro ejecutivo Lóbulos frontales y mente civilizada. Barcelona: Planeta; 2015. p. 37-38.
4. Blair C, Ursache A. A bidirectional theory of executive functions and self-regulation. In: Vohs K, Baumeister R, editores. Handbook of self-regulation. New York: Guilford Press; 2011. p. 300-320.
5. Miyake A, Friedman NP, Emerson MJ, Witzki AH, Howerter A, Wager TD. The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex «Frontal Lobe» tasks: a latent variable analysis. Cogn Psychol. 2000;41(1):49-100. doi: https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1999.0734
6. Flores Lázaro JC, Ostrosky F. Desarrollo neuropsicológico de los lóbulos frontales y funciones ejecutivas. México: El Manual Moderno; 2012
7. Zelazo PD, Li Q, Müller U. Hot and cool aspects of executive function: Relations in early development: Interrelationships among executive functioning, wo. In: Schneider W, Schumann-Hengsteler R, Sodian B, editors. Young children’s cognitive development: Interrelationships among executive functioning, wo. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 2005. p. 71-93.
8. Cañabate SC, Alcázar AM. Control ejecutivo, toma de decisiones, razonamiento y resolución de problemas. In: Redolar D, editor. Neurociencia cognitiva. España: Editorial Médica Panamericana; 2013. p. 719-745.
9. Baddeley A, Eysenck MW, Anderson MC. Memoria de trabajo. In: Memoria. 2da edición. Madrid: Alianza. 2009. p. 63-91.
10. Delgado-Mejía ID, Etchepareborda MC. . Rev Neurol. 2013;57 Suppl 1:S95-103. doi: https://doi.org/10.33588/rn.57S01.2013236
11. Vayas R, Carrera L. Disfunción ejecutiva. Síntomas y relevancia de su detección desde Atención Primaria. Revista Clínica de Medicina de Familia. 2012;5(3):191-7. doi. https://doi.org/10.4321/S1699-695X2012000300007
12. Portellano JA. Intervención neuropsicológica de las funciones ejecutivas. In: Neuroeducación y funciones ejecutivas. Madrid. CEPE; 2018. p. 117-146.
13. Trápaga CM. Introducción a la estimulación y rehabilitación de las funciones cognitivas. In: Trápaga CM, Pelayo HJ, Sánchez I, Bello Z, Bautista A. Editores. De la psicología cognitiva a la neuropsicología. México: Manual Moderno; 2018. p. 18-59.
14. Liu Q, Zhu X, Ziegler A, Shi J. The effects of inhibitory control training for preschoolers on reasoning ability and neural activity. Sci Rep. 2015;5(1):14200. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/srep14200
15. Seelye AM, Schmitter-Edgecombe M, Das B, Cook DJ. Application of Cognitive Rehabilitation Theory to the Development of Smart Prompting Technologies. IEEE Reviews in Biomedical Engineering. 2012; 5:29-44. doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/RBME.2012.2196691
16. Homer BD, Ober TM, Flynn RM. Children and Adolescents’ Development of Executive Functions in Digital Contexts. In: Proceedings of the Technology, Mind, and Society . New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery; 2018 . p. 1-3. (TechMindSociety ’18). doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/3183654.3183696
17. Owen AM, Hampshire A, Grahn JA, Stenton R, Dajani S, Burns AS, et al. Putting brain training to the test. Nature. 2010;465(7299):775-8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09042
18. Schubert T, Strobach T, Karbach J. New directions in cognitive training: on methods, transfer, and application. Psychological Research. 2014;78(6):749-55. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-014-0619-8
19. Guerrero G, García A. Plataformas de rehabilitación neuropsicológica: estado actual y líneas de trabajo. Neurología. 2015;30(6):359-66. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nrl.2013.06.015
20. Robledo-Castro, CR, Castillo-Ossa, Corchado, JM. Artificial Cognitive Systems Applied in Executive Function Stimulation and Rehabilitation Programs: A Systematic Review. Arabian journal for science and engineering. 2022;48:2399-2427. 28 doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-022-07292-5
21. Gates NJ, Rutjes AW, Di Nisio M, Karim S, Chong LY, March E, et al. Computerised cognitive training for maintaining cognitive function in cognitively healthy people in late life. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;3:CD012277. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012277.pub2
22. Ten Brinke LF, Best JR, Chan JLC, Ghag C, Erickson KI, Handy TC, et al. The Effects of Computerized Cognitive Training With and Without Physical Exercise on Cognitive Function in Older Adults: An 8-Week Randomized Controlled Trial. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2020;75(4):755-63. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/glz115
23. Yoo C, Yong M hyun, Chung J, Yang Y. Effect of computerized cognitive rehabilitation program on cognitive function and activities of living in stroke patients. J Phys Ther Sci. 2015;27(8):2487-9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1589/jpts.27.2487
24. Gates NJ, Vernooij RW, Di Nisio M, Karim S, March E, Martínez G, et al. Computerised cognitive training for preventing dementia in people with mild cognitive impairment. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;3:CD012279. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012279.pub2
25. Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2018;18(1):143. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x
26. Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 2005;8(1):19-32. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616
27. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467-73. doi: https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850
28. Miller EK, Cohen JD. An Integrative Theory of Prefrontal Cortex Function. Annual Review of Neuroscience. 2001;24(1):167-202. doi: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.24.1.167
29. Stelzer F, Andés ML, Canet-Juric L, Introzzi I. Working Memory and Fluid Intelligence. A Review of its Relations. Acta de investigación psicológica. 2016;6(1):2302-16. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/s2007-4719(16)30051-5
30. Bell MD, Laws H, Pittman B, Johannesen JK. Comparison of focused cognitive training and portable “brain-games” on functional outcomes for vocational rehabilitation participants. Sci Rep. . 2018;8(1):1779. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-20094-w
31. Biagianti B, Fisher M, Howard L, Rowlands A, Vinogradov S, Woolley J. Feasibility and preliminary efficacy of remotely delivering cognitive training to people with schizophrenia using tablets. Schizophr Res Cogn. . 2017;10:7-14. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scog.2017.07.003
32. Harvey PD, Balzer AM, Kotwicki RJ. Training engagement, baseline cognitive functioning, and cognitive gains with computerized cognitive training: A cross-diagnostic study. Schizophr Res Cogn. . 2020;19:100150. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scog.2019.100150
33. Piskulic D, Barbato M, Liu L, Addington J. Pilot study of cognitive remediation therapy on cognition in young people at clinical high risk of psychosis. Psychiatry Research . 2015;225(1):93-98. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2014.10.021
34. Michalopoulou PG, Lewis SW, Drake RJ, Reichenberg A, Emsley R, Kalpakidou AK, et al. Modafinil combined with cognitive training: Pharmacological augmentation of cognitive training in schizophrenia. European Neuropsychopharmacology . 2015;25(8):1178-89. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroneuro.2015.03.009
35. Tarasenko M, Perez VB, Pianka ST, Vinogradov S, Braff DL, Swerdlow NR, et al. Measuring the capacity for auditory system plasticity: An examination of performance gains during initial exposure to auditory-targeted cognitive training in schizophrenia. Schizophr Res . 2016;172(1-3):123-30. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.schres.2016.01.019
36. Mahncke HW, Kim SJ, Rose A, Stasio C, Buckley P, Caroff S, et al. Evaluation of a plasticity-based cognitive training program in schizophrenia: Results from the eCaesar trial. Schizophr Res . 2019; 208:182-189. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.schres.2019.03.006
37. Jahshan C, Vinogradov S, Wynn JK, Hellemann G, Green MF. A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing a “Bottom-Up” and “Top-Down” Approach to Cognitive Training in Schizophrenia. J Psychiatr Res . 2019;109:118-25. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2018.11.027
38. Reeder C, Huddy V, Cella M, Taylor R, Greenwood K, Landau S, et al. A new generation computerised metacognitive cognitive remediation programme for schizophrenia (CIRCuiTS): a randomised controlled trial. Psychol Med . 2017;47(15):2720-2730. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291717001234
39. Palumbo D, Mucci A, Giordano GM, Piegari G, Aiello C, Pietrafesa D, et al. The Efficacy, Feasibility And Acceptability Of A Remotely Accessible Use Of CIRCuiTS, A Computerized Cognitive Remediation Therapy Program For Schizophrenia: A Pilot Study. NDT . 2019;15:3103-3113. doi: https://doi.org/10.2147/NDT.S221690
40. Fernandez-Gonzalo S, Turon M, Jodar M, Pousa E, Hernandez Rambla C, García R, et al. A new computerized cognitive and social cognition training specifically designed for patients with schizophrenia/schizoaffective disorder in early stages of illness: A pilot study. Psychiatry Res . 2015;228(3):501-509. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2015.06.007
41. Matsuoka K, Morimoto T, Matsuda Y, Yasuno F, Taoka T, Miyasaka T, et al. Computer-assisted cognitive remediation therapy for patients with schizophrenia induces microstructural changes in cerebellar regions involved in cognitive functions. Psychiatry Res Neuroimaging. . 2019; 292:41-6. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pscychresns.2019.09.001
42. Messinis L, Nasios G, Kosmidis MH, Zampakis P, Malefaki S, Ntoskou K, et al. Efficacy of a Computer-Assisted Cognitive Rehabilitation Intervention in Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis Patients: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial. Behav Neurol . 2017;2017:5919841. doi: https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/5919841
43. Messinis L, Kosmidis MH, Nasios G, Konitsiotis S, Ntoskou A, Bakirtzis C, et al. Do Secondary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis patients benefit from Computer- based cognitive neurorehabilitation? A randomized sham controlled trial. Mult Scler Relat Disord . 2020;39:101932. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msard.2020.101932
44. Arian Darestani A, Naeeni Davarani M, Hassani-Abharian P, Zarrindast MR, Nasehi M. The therapeutic effect of treatment with RehaCom software on verbal performance in patients with multiple sclerosis. J Clin Neurosci . 2020;72:93-97. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocn.2020.01.007
45. Campbell J, Langdon D, Cercignani M, Rashid W. A Randomised Controlled Trial of Efficacy of Cognitive Rehabilitation in Multiple Sclerosis: A Cognitive, Behavioural, and MRI Study . Neural Plast. 2016;2016:4292585. doi: https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/4292585
46. Naeeni Davarani M, Arian Darestani A, Hassani-Abharian P, Vaseghi S, Zarrindast MR, Nasehi M. RehaCom rehabilitation training improves a wide-range of cognitive functions in multiple sclerosis patients. Appl Neuropsychol Adult .2022;29(2):262-272. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/23279095.2020.1747070
47. Bonavita S, Sacco R, Della Corte M, Esposito S, Sparaco M, d’Ambrosio A, et al. Computer-aided cognitive rehabilitation improves cognitive performances and induces brain functional connectivity changes in relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis patients: an exploratory study. J Neurol . 2015;262(1):91-100. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-014-7528-z
48. Bove RM, Rush G, Zhao C, Rowles W, Garcha P, Morrissey J, et al. A Videogame-Based Digital Therapeutic to Improve Processing Speed in People with Multiple Sclerosis: A Feasibility Study. Neurol Ther . 2019;8(1):135-145. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40120-018-0121-0
49. Chiaravalloti ND, Goverover Y, Costa SL, DeLuca J. A Pilot Study Examining Speed of Processing Training (SPT) to Improve Processing Speed in Persons With Multiple Sclerosis. Frontiers in Neurology . 2018;9- 685. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2018.00685
50. Pérez-Martín MY, González-Platas M, Eguía-Del Río P, Croissier-Elías C, Jiménez Sosa A. Efficacy of a short cognitive training program in patients with multiple sclerosis. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat .2017;13:245-52. doi: https://doi.org/10.2147/NDT.S124448
51. Pedullà L, Brichetto G, Tacchino A, Vassallo C, Zaratin P, Battaglia MA, et al. Adaptive vs. non-adaptive cognitive training by means of a personalized App: a randomized trial in people with multiple sclerosis. J Neuroeng Rehabil . 2016;13:88. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-016-0193-y
52. Blair M, Goveas D, Safi A, Marshall C, Rosehart H, Orenczuk S, et al. Does cognitive training improve attention/working memory in persons with MS? A pilot study using the Cogmed Working Memory Training program. Mult Scler Relat Disord . 2021; 49:102770. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msard.2021.102770
53. Rahmani M, Rahimian Boogar I, Talepasand S, Nokani M. Comparing the Effectiveness of Computer-Based, Manual-based, and Combined Cognitive Rehabilitation on Cognitive Functions in Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis Patients. Basic Clin Neurosci . 2020;11(1):99-110. doi: https://doi.org/10.32598/bcn.9.10.430
54. Motter JN, Grinberg A, Lieberman DH, Iqnaibi WB, Sneed JR. Computerized cognitive training in young adults with depressive symptoms: Effects on mood, cognition, and everyday functioning. J Affect Disord. . 2019;245:28-37. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2018.10.109
55. Ronold EH, Joormann J, Hammar Å. Computerized Working Memory Training in Remission From Major Depressive Disorder: Effects on Emotional Working Memory, Processing Speed, Executive Functions, and Associations With Symptoms. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience . 2022;16:887596. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2022.887596
56. Hagen BI, Stubberud J. Goal Management Training and Computerized Cognitive Training in Depression-a 2-Year Follow-Up of a Randomized Controlled Trial. Frontiers in Psychiatry . 2021;12. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.737518
57. Listunova L, Kienzle J, Bartolovic M, Jaehn A, Grützner TM, Wolf RC, et al. Cognitive remediation therapy for partially remitted unipolar depression: A single-blind randomized controlled trial. J Affect Disord .2020;276:316-26. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2020.07.008
58. Hotton M, Derakshan N, Fox E. A randomised controlled trial investigating the benefits of adaptive working memory training for working memory capacity and attentional control in high worriers. Behav Res Ther . 2018;100:67-77. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2017.10.011
59. Sánchez-López A, De Raedt R, van Put J, Koster EHW. A novel process-based approach to improve resilience: Effects of computerized mouse-based (gaze)contingent attention training (MCAT) on reappraisal and rumination. Behav Res Ther . 2019;118:110-120. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2019.04.005
60. Fonzo GA, Fine NB, Wright RN, Achituv M, Zaiko YV, Merin O, et al. Internet-delivered computerized cognitive & affective remediation training for the treatment of acute and chronic posttraumatic stress disorder: Two randomized clinical trials. J Psychiatr Res 2019;115:82-89. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2019.05.007
61. McBride RL, Horsfield S, Sandler CX, Cassar J, Casson S, Cvejic E, et al. Cognitive remediation training improves performance in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome. Psychiatry Res . 2017;257:400-405. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2017.08.035
62. Clausen AN, Thelen J, Francisco AJ, Bruce J, Martin L, McDowd J, Aupperle RL. Computer-Based Executive Function Training for Combat Veterans With PTSD: A Pilot Clinical Trial Assessing Feasibility and Predictors of Dropout. Front Psychiatry. 2019;10:62. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00062
63. Van de Ven RM, Schmand B, Groet E, Veltman DJ, Murre JMJ. The effect of computer-based cognitive flexibility training on recovery of executive function after stroke: rationale, design and methods of the TAPASS study. BMC Neurol . 2015;15:144. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12883-015-0397-y
64. Van de Ven RM, Murre JMJ, Buitenweg JIV, Veltman DJ, Aaronson JA, Nijboer TCW, et al. The influence of computer-based cognitive flexibility training on subjective cognitive well-being after stroke: A multi-center randomized controlled trial. PLoS One . 2017;12(11):e0187582. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0187582
65. Välimäki M, Mishina K, Kaakinen JK, Holm SK, Vahlo J, Kirjonen M, et al. Digital Gaming for Improving the Functioning of People With Traumatic Brain Injury: Randomized Clinical Feasibility Study. J Med Internet Res . 2018;20(3):e77. doi: https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.7618
66. De Luca R, Aragona B, Leonardi S, Torrisi M, Galletti B, Galletti F, et al. Computerized Training in Poststroke Aphasia: What About the Long-Term Effects? A Randomized Clinical Trial. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis.2018;27(8):2271-2276. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2018.04.019
67. Fernandez E, Bergado Rosado JA, Rodriguez Perez D, Salazar Santana S, Torres Aguilar M, Bringas ML. Effectiveness of a Computer-Based Training Program of Attention and Memory in Patients with Acquired Brain Damage. Behav Sci (Basel) . 2017;8(1):4. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/bs8010004
68. Oliveira J, Gamito P, Lopes B, Silva AR, Galhordas J, Pereira E, et al. Computerized cognitive training using virtual reality on everyday life activities for patients recovering from stroke. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol . 2022;17(3):298-303. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2020.1749891
69. Mitrovic A, Mathews M, Ohlsson S, Holland J, McKinlay A. Computer-Based Post-Stroke Rehabilitation of Prospective Memory. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition . 2016;5(2):204-214. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2016.03.006
70. De Luca R, Leonardi S, Spadaro L, Russo M, Aragona B, Torrisi M, et al. Improving Cognitive Function in Patients with Stroke: Can Computerized Training Be the Future? J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis . 2018;27(4):1055-1060. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2017.11.008
71. Dundon NM, Dockree SP, Buckley V, Merriman N, Carton M, Clarke S, et al. Impaired auditory selective attention ameliorated by cognitive training with graded exposure to noise in patients with traumatic brain injury. . Neuropsychologia. 2015;75:74-87. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.05.012
72. Khemiri L, Brynte C, Stunkel A, Klingberg T, Jayaram-Lindström N. Working Memory Training in Alcohol Use Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. . 2019;43(1):135-46. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/acer.13910
73. Rass O, Schacht RL, Buckheit K, Johnson MW, Strain EC, Mintzer MZ. A randomized controlled trial of the effects of working memory training in methadone maintenance patients. Drug Alcohol Depend . 2015;156:38-46. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2015.08.012
74. Brooks SJ, Wiemerslage L, Burch KH, Maiorana SA, Cocolas E, Schiöth HB, et al. The impact of cognitive training in substance use disorder: the effect of working memory training on impulse control in methamphetamine users. Psychopharmacology (Berl). . 2017;234(12):1911-1921. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-017-4597-6
75. Brooks SJ, Burch KH, Maiorana SA, Cocolas E, Schioth HB, Nilsson EK, et al. Psychological intervention with working memory training increases basal ganglia volume: A VBM study of inpatient treatment for methamphetamine use. Neuroimage Clin . 2016;12:478-91. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2016.08.019
76. Marceau EM, Berry J, Lunn J, Kelly PJ, Solowij N. Cognitive remediation improves executive functions, self-regulation and quality of life in residents of a substance use disorder therapeutic community. Drug Alcohol Depend . 2017;178:150-8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2017.04.023
77. Valls-Serrano C, Caracuel A, Verdejo-Garcia A. Goal Management Training and Mindfulness Meditation improve executive functions and transfer to ecological tasks of daily life in polysubstance users enrolled in therapeutic community treatment. Drug Alcohol Depend . 2016;165:9-14. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2016.04.040
78. Lewis B, Garcia CC, Price JL, Schweizer S, Nixon SJ. Cognitive training in recently-abstinent individuals with alcohol use disorder improves emotional stroop performance: Evidence from a randomized pilot trial. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2022;231:109239. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2021.109239
79. Loughead J, Falcone M, Wileyto EP, Albelda B, Audrain-McGovern J, Cao W, et al. Can brain games help smokers quit?: Results of a randomized clinical trial. Drug Alcohol Depend . 2016;168:112-8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2016.08.621
80. Kolodny T, Ashkenazi Y, Farhi M, Shalev L. Computerized Progressive Attention Training (CPAT) vs. Active Control in Adults with ADHD. Journal of Cognitive Enhancement . 2017;1(4):526-538. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41465-017-0056-x
81. Liu ZX, Glizer D, Tannock R, Woltering S. EEG alpha power during maintenance of information in working memory in adults with ADHD and its plasticity due to working memory training: A randomized controlled trial. Clin Neurophysiol . 2016;127(2):1307-20. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2015.10.032
82. Mawjee K, Woltering S, Tannock R. Working Memory Training in Post-Secondary Students with ADHD: A Randomized Controlled Study. PLoS One . 2015;10(9):e0137173. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0137173
83. Best MW, Gale D, Tran T, Haque MK, Bowie CR. Brief executive function training for individuals with severe mental illness: Effects on EEG synchronization and executive functioning. Schizophr Res . 2019; 203:32-40. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.schres.2017.08.052
84. Kashyap H, Reddy P, Mandadi S, Narayanaswamy JC, Sudhir PM, Reddy YCJ. Cognitive training for neurocognitive and functional impairments in obsessive compulsive disorder: A case report. Journal of Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders . 2019;23:100480. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocrd.2019.100480
85. Wu LM, Amidi A, Tanenbaum ML, Winkel G, Gordon WA, Hall SJ, et al. Computerized cognitive training in prostate cancer patients on androgen deprivation therapy: A pilot study. Support Care Cancer . 2018;26(6):1917-1926. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-017-4026-8
86. Von Ah D, McDonald BC, Crouch AD, Ofner S, Perkins S, Storey S, Considine R, Unverzagt F. Randomized double-masked controlled trial of cognitive training in breast cancer survivors: a preliminary study. Support Care Cancer . 2022:(9):7457-7467. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-022-07182-4
87. Bellens A, Roelant E, Sabbe B, Peeters M, van Dam PA. A video-game based cognitive training for breast cancer survivors with cognitive impairment: A prospective randomized pilot trial. Breast . 2020;53:23-32. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2020.06.003
88. Damholdt MF, Mehlsen M, O’Toole MS, Andreasen RK, Pedersen AD, Zachariae R. Web-based cognitive training for breast cancer survivors with cognitive complaints-a randomized controlled trial. Psychooncology. . 2016;25(11):1293-300. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.4058
89. Bartlett DM, Govus A, Rankin T, Lampit A, Feindel K, Poudel G, Teo WP, Lo J, Georgiou-Karistianis N, Ziman MR, Cruickshank TM. The effects of multidisciplinary rehabilitation on neuroimaging, biological, cognitive and motor outcomes in individuals with premanifest Huntington's disease. Journal of the neurological sciences . 2020;416:117022. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jns.2020.117022
90. Yhnell E, Furby H, Lowe RS, Brookes-Howell LC, Drew CJG, Playle R, et al. A randomised feasibility study of computerised cognitive training as a therapeutic intervention for people with Huntington’s disease (CogTrainHD). Pilot and Feasibility Studies . 2020;6(1):88. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40814-020-00623-z
91. Towe SL, Patel P, Meade CS. The Acceptability and Potential Utility of Cognitive Training to Improve Working Memory in Persons Living With HIV: A Preliminary Randomized Trial. J Assoc Nurses AIDS Care . 2017;28(4):633-43. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jana.2017.03.007
92. Towe SL, Hartsock JT, Xu Y, Meade CS. Web-based cognitive training to improve working memory in persons with co-occurring HIV infection and cocaine use disorder: Outcomes from a randomized controlled trial. AIDS Behav . 2020; 25(5):1542-1551. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-020-02993-0
93. Linares R, Borella E, Lechuga MT, Carretti B, Pelegrina S. Nearest transfer effects of working memory training: A comparison of two programs focused on working memory updating. PLOS ONE . 2019;14(2):e0211321. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211321
94. Waris O, Soveri A, Laine M. Transfer after Working Memory Updating Training. PLOS ONE . 2015;10(9): e0138734. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0138734
95. Schwarb H, Nail J, Schumacher EH. Working memory training improves visual short-term memory capacity. Psychological Research . 2016;80(1):128-48. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-015-0648-y
96. Fellman D, Jylkkä J, Waris O, Soveri A, Ritakallio L, Haga S, et al. The role of strategy use in working memory training outcomes. Journal of Memory and Language . 2020;110:104064. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2019.104064
97. Gordon S, Todder D, Deutsch I, Garbi D, Alkobi O, Shriki O, et al. Effects of neurofeedback and working memory-combined training on executive functions in healthy young adults. Psychol Res . 2020;84(6):1586-609. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-019-01170-w
98. Xiu L, Zhou R, Jiang Y. Working memory training improves emotion regulation ability: Evidence from HRV. Physiol Behav . 2016;155:25-9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2015.12.004
99. Maraver MJ, Bajo MT, Gomez-Ariza CJ. Training on Working Memory and Inhibitory Control in Young Adults. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience . 2016;10. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00588
100. Cohen N, Margulies DS, Ashkenazi S, Schaefer A, Taubert M, Henik A, et al. Using executive control training to suppress amygdala reactivity to aversive information. Neuroimage . 2016;125:1022-1031. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.10.069
101. Namratha HG, George VM, Bajaj G, Mridula J, Bhat JS. Effect of yoga and working memory training on cognitive communicative abilities among middle aged adults. Complement Ther Clin Pract . 2017;28:92-100. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctcp.2017.05.007
102. Tallus J, Soveri A, Hämäläinen H, Tuomainen J, Laine M. Effects of Auditory Attention Training with the Dichotic Listening Task: Behavioural and Neurophysiological Evidence. PLOS ONE . 2015;10(10):e0139318. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139318
103. Bennike IH, Wieghorst A, Kirk U. Online-based Mindfulness Training Reduces Behavioral Markers of Mind Wandering. Journal of Cognitive Enhancement . 2017;1(2):172-181. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41465-017-0020-9
104. Olfers KJF, Band GPH. Game-based training of flexibility and attention improves task-switch performance: near and far transfer of cognitive training in an EEG study. Psychol Res . 2018;82(1):186-202. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-017-0933-z
105. Etherton JL, Oberle CD, Rhoton J, Ney A. Effects of Cogmed working memory training on cognitive performance. Psychol Res . 2019;83(7):1506-18. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-1012-9
106. Zwilling CE, Daugherty AM, Hillman CH, Kramer AF, Cohen NJ, Barbey AK. Enhanced decision-making through multimodal training. npj Sci Learn . 2019;4(1):1-10. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-019-0049-x
107. Baniqued PL, Allen CM, Kranz MB, Johnson K, Sipolins A, Dickens C, et al. Working Memory, Reasoning, and Task Switching Training: Transfer Effects, Limitations, and Great Expectations? PLOS ONE . 2015;10(11):e0142169. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0142169
108. Daugherty AM, Zwilling C, Paul EJ, Sherepa N, Allen C, Kramer AF, et al. Multi-modal fitness and cognitive training to enhance fluid intelligence. Intelligence . 2018;66:32-43. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2017.11.001
109. Wells A, Parong J, Mayer RE. Limits on Training Inhibitory Control with a Focused Video Game. J Cogn Enhanc . 2021;5(1):83-98. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41465-020-00184-2
110. Shahar N, Pereg M, Teodorescu AR, Moran R, Karmon-Presser A, Meiran N. Formation of abstract task representations: Exploring dosage and mechanisms of working memory training effects. Cognition . 2018;181:151-159. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.08.007
111. Schmicker M, Müller P, Schwefel M, Müller NG. Attentional Filter Training but Not Memory Training Improves Decision-Making. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience . 2017;11:138. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00138
112. Zhao X, Wang H, Maes JHR. Training and transfer effects of extensive task-switching training in students. Psychological Research . 2020;84(2):389-403. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-1059-7
113. Hilbert S, Schwaighofer M, Zech A, Sarubin N, Arendasy M, Bühner M. Working memory tasks train working memory but not reasoning: A material- and operation-specific investigation of transfer from working memory practice. Intelligence . 2017;61:102-114. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2017.01.010
114. Pereg M, Shahar N, Meiran N. Can we learn to learn? The influence of procedural working-memory training on rapid instructed-task-learning. Psychological Research. . 2019;83:132-46. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-1122-4
115. Hogrefe AB, Studer-Luethi B, Kodzhabashev S, Perrig WJ. Mechanisms Underlying N-back Training: Response Consistency During Training Influences Training Outcome. Journal of Cognitive Enhancement . 2017;4(1):406-18. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41465-017-0042-3
116. Foster JL, Harrison TL, Hicks KL, Draheim C, Redick TS, Engle RW. Do the effects of working memory training depend on baseline ability level? J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. . 2017;43(11):1677-1689. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000426
117. Flegal KE, Ragland JD, Ranganath C. Adaptive task difficulty influences neural plasticity and transfer of training. NeuroImage . 2019;188:111-121. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.12.003
118. Talanow T, Ettinger U. Effects of task repetition but no transfer of inhibitory control training in healthy adults. Acta Psychol (Amst) . 2018;187:37-53. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2018.04.016
119. Martinčević M, Vranić A. Casual Game or Cognitive Gain: Multitask Casual Game as a Training for Young Adults. Journal of Cognitive Enhancement. 2020;434-445. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41465-020-00173-5
120. Strobach T, Huestegge L. Evaluating the Effectiveness of Commercial Brain Game Training with Working-Memory Tasks. J Cogn Enhanc . 2017;1(4):539-58. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41465-017-0053-0
Appendix A: Descriptive matrix: study characteristics.
Authors | Year | Country | Study design | Primary measures (Type of measure implemented) | Population profile | Participant characteristics | Intervention characteristics | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
No. | Middle age | Duration in weeks, sessions per week, follow-up | Number of sessions; session duration | computer based rehabilitation program | Program Features | ||||||
Bell et al. [30] | 2018 | USA | Randomized controlled clinical trial; Between subjects (pre-post); 2 groups; CG active. | WM (NPT, EA) | Schizophrenia | 77 | 51.18 | 26 weeks, NS; 6 and 12 months. | 2:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.; NS | Brain HQ, Brain Fitness | Web platform, commercial, gamified |
Biagianti et al. [31] | 2017 | USA | Non-randomized, double-blind controlled clinical trial; Between subjects (pre-post), 2 groups; without CG | Global cognition, verbal memory and problem solving (NPT) | Schizophrenia | 74 | 49.24 | 8 weeks, 5; none. | 40; 60 minutes | Brain HQ, Brain Fitness | Online Commercial Platform, gamified |
Harvey et al. [32] | 2020 | USA | Crossover diagnostic study; Between subjects (pre-post); 3 groups; Without CG. | PS, WM and attention (NPT) | Schizophrenia, depression and bipolarity | 49 | 28.6 | NS | NS; 45 minutes | Brain HQ, Brain Fitness | Online Commercial Platform, gamified |
Piskulic et al. [33] | 2015 | Canada | Pilot study; between subjects (pre-post), 2 groups, randomized; Passive CG. | PS, attention, vigilance, verbal learning, reasoning and problem solving (NPT) | Youth at high risk of psychosis | 29 | 19.72 | 36 weeks, NS ; none. | NS | Brain HQ, Brain Fitness | Online Commercial Platform, gamified |
Michalopoulou et al. [34] | 2015 | United Kingdom | Randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trial with placebo; Between subjects (pre-post), 2 groups; CG active. | Executive Functions (NPT) | Schizophrenia | 48 | 35.4 | 2 weeks; NS; none. | 19; NS | Brain HQ, Brain Fitness | Online Commercial Platform, gamified |
Tarasenko et al. [35] | 2016 | USA | Single group design. | Auditory PS (NPT) | Schizophrenia | 37 | 44.7 | 1 day; 1; none. | 1; 60 minutes | Brain HQ, Brain Fitness | Online Commercial Platform, gamified |
Mahncke et al. [36] | 2019 | USA | Multicenter, double-blind, randomized controlled clinical trial; Between subjects (pre-post); 2 groups, prospective; Active QA | Auditory and visual processing speed, executive function, general cognitive functioning (NPT, NST) | Schizophrenia | 82 | 42.9 | 26 weeks, 5; none. | 130; 60 minutes | Brain HQ, Brain Fitness | Online Commercial Platform, gamified |
Jahshan et al. [37] | 2019 | USA | Randomized controlled clinical trial, single blind; Between subjects (pre-post); 3 groups; active CG | Executive functioning, WM, Attention, problem solving (NPT, NST, EGG) | Schizophrenia | 99 | 51.59 | 12 weeks, NS; none. | 36; NS | Brain HQ, Brain Fitness | Online Commercial Platform, gamified |
Reder et al. [38] | 2017 | United Kingdom | Single-blind, multicenter, randomized clinical superiority trial; active CG. | Memory and executive function (NPT) | Schizophrenia | 93 | 38.3 | 12 weeks, 3; 14 weeks. | 40; 60 minutes | CIRCUITS | Cognitive remediation, gamified, based on activities of daily living |
Palumbo et al. [39] | 2019 | Italy | Pilot study; single group design. | CF, learning, PS, WM and executive control (NPT) | Schizophrenia | 17 | 36,37 | 12 weels, 3; none. | 40; 60 minutes | CIRCUITS | Cognitive remediation, gamified, based on activities of daily living |
Fernández-Gonzalo et al. [40] | 2015 | Spain | Randomized controlled pilot study; Between subjects (pre-post), 2 groups, randomized; active CG | CF, IC, VF, PS, planning, problem solving, logical memory and visual reproduction (NPT) | Schizophrenia | 53 | 30.9 | 5 weeks; two; 4 weeks. | 30; 60 minutes | GNPT - NeuroPersonalTrainer | Web platform, cognitive remediation, commercial, clinical |
Matsuoka et al. [41] | 2019 | Japan | Randomized, blinded controlled clinical trial; Between subjects (pre-post), 2 groups; CG active. | VF, verbal memory, TM, motor speed, attention and executive function (NPT, RM) | Schizophrenia | 31 | 36.1 | 12 weeks, 2; none. | 24; 60 minutes | Jcores | Rehabilitation software, cognitive remediation, clinical |
Messinis et al. [42] | 2017 | Greece | Randomized controlled clinical trial; Between subjects (pre-post), 2 groups; Passive CG. | Episodic memory, PS, attention and executive functions (NPT) | Multiple sclerosis | 58 | 46.03 | 10 weeks, NE ; none. | NE | Rehacom | Commercial, Clinical, modular therapy system |
Messinis et al. [43] | 2020 | Greece | Randomized controlled clinical trial; Between subjects (pre-post), 2 groups; CG active. | PS, WM, episodic memory (NPT) | Multiple sclerosis | 36 | 46.47 | 8 weeks, 3; none. | 24; 45 minutes | Rehacom | Commercial, Clinical, modular therapy system |
Arian Darestani et al. [44] | 2020 | Iran | Randomized controlled clinical trial; Between subjects (pre-post), 2 groups; Passive CG. | VF, verbal learning and memory (NPT) | Multiple sclerosis | 60 | 39.23 | 5 weeks; 2;5 weeks. | 10; 60 minutes | Rehacom | Commercial, Clinical, modular therapy system |
Campbell et al. [45] | 2016 | United Kingdom | Open-label, randomized controlled clinical trial; Between subjects (pre-post), 2 groups; CG active. | Processing speed, visuospatial memory, and divided attention (NPT, RM) | Multiple sclerosis | 38 | 46.21 | 6 weeks; 3; 12 weeks. | 18; 45 minutes | Rehacom | Commercial, Clinical, modular therapy system |
Naeeni et al. [46] | 2022 | Iran | Pilot study. Between subjects (pre-post); 2 groups. | Visual attention, working memory, verbal and non-verbal executive functions, processing speed (NPT) | multiple sclerosis | 54 | 39.3 | 5 weeks, 5, none | 25, 60 minutes | Rehacom | Commercial, Clinical, modular therapy system |
Bonavita et al. [47] | 2015 | Italy | Exploratory, open study; Between subjects (pre-post), 2 groups, randomized; Passive CG. | PS, visual and verbal sustained memory (NPT) | Multiple sclerosis | 36 | 48 | 8 weeks, 2; none. | NS; 50 minutes | rehacom | Commercial, Clinical, modular therapy system |
Bove e t al. [48] | 2019 | USA | Viability study; single group design | Executive functions and PS (NPT, NST) | Multiple sclerosis | 21 | 53,8 | 4 weeks; 5;none. | 20; 25 minutes | Neurorocer - Proyecto EVO | Commercial rehabilitation platform, gamified, applied at home |
Chiaravalloti et al. [49] | 2022 | United States | This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. between subjects. (pre-post), 2 groups, CG with placebo. | Processing speed (NPT) | multiple sclerosis | 84 | 52.3 | 5 weeks, 2, 6 months | 60 minutes | Speed Processing Training (SOPT) | Computerized novel. |
Perez-Martin et al. [50] | 2017 | Spain | Randomized controlled clinical trial; Between subjects (pre-post), 2 groups; Passive CG. | Attention, PS, memory, executive functions (NPT) | Multiple sclerosis | 62 | 44.93 | NS | 12; 60 to 75 minutes | NS | Novel, designed by researchers |
Pedulla et al. [51] | 2016 | Italy | Randomized controlled clinical trial; Between subjects (pre-post), 2 groups; CG active. | WM (NPT) | Multiple sclerosis | 28 | 47.5 | 8 weeks, 5; none. | 40; 30 minutes | COGNI-TRAcK - Cognitive Training Kit | Rehabilitation, institutional, clinical software |
Blair et al. [52] | 2021 | Canada | Pilot study. Between subjects (pre-post); 2 groups, TAU CG. | Inhibition, attention. (NPT) | multiple sclerosis | 30 | 51.1 | 5 weeks, 5, none | 25, 60 minutes | CWWM - Cogmed Working Memory Training | Commercial platform to train WM, gamified |
Rahmani et al. [53] | 2020 | Iran | Randomized controlled clinical trial; Between subjects (pre-post); 5 groups, factorial; Active and passive CG. | WM, selective attention, executive function, and PS (NPT) | Multiple sclerosis | 60 | 29.65 | 20 weeks, 1; 2 months. | twenty-one; 60 minutes | Captain's Log, Mindpower | Commercial, gamified, computerized cognitive rehabilitation training (CCRT) |
Motter et al. [54] | 2019 | USA | Randomized, controlled, double-blind clinical trial; Between subjects (pre-post); 2 groups; Active CG. | PS and daily operation (NPT) | depressive disorders | 46 | twenty-one | 8 weeks, 5; none. | 40; 15 minutes | Peak | commercial, gamified |
Ronold et al. [55] | 2022 | Norway | Pilot study. Between subjects (pre-post); 2 only group | Executive functions, emotional working memory, inhibition, processing speed (NPT) | Depression | 20 | 36.2 | 5 weeks, 5; none. | 25, 45 minutes | CWWM - Cogmed Working Memory Training | Commercial platform to train WM, gamified |
Hagen et al., [56] | 2021 | does not record | Between subjects (pre-post); 2 groups. Active CG (Goal management training) | Depression. (NPT) | self-perceived executive functions | 43 | 43.2 | 4 weeks, 2, 6 months and 2 years | 9, NS. | NS | NS |
Listunova et al. [57] | 2020 | Germany | Randomized controlled clinical trial, single blind; Between subjects (pre-post); 2 groups, parallel; Passive CG. | Divided and selective attention, alertness, TM, response inhibition, and planning (NP) | depressive disorders | 57 | 45.39 | 5 weeks; 3; none. | 8 to 15, 60 minutes | Cogniplus | Intelligent, commercial, gamified interactive system |
Hotton et al. [58] | 2018 | UK | Randomized controlled clinical trial; Between subjects (pre-post), 2 groups; Passive CG. | TM and control of attention (NP) | Anxiety disorder | 41 | 29.2 | 2 weeks; NE; none. | fifteen; NS | n-back training | Novel, based on classical tasks, n-back task |
Sanchez et al. [59] | 2019 | Spain | proof of concept; Between subjects (pre-post), 2 groups, randomized; active CG. | Emotional regulation (NPT, NST, EA) | Emotional disorders related to stress. | 41 | 22.1 | 1 day; 1; none. | 1; NS | ECAT - advanced gaze contingent attention training | Novel, active contingent attention training (MCAT) training |
Fonzo et al. [60] | 2019 | Israel | Randomized, blinded controlled clinical trial; Between subjects (pre-post); 4 groups, parallel; CG active. | Sustained attention, task switching, inhibition, PS, verbal memory, emotional regulation. (NPT, PM) | post traumatic stress disorder | 164 | 36.08 | 5 weeks; NE; none. | 30; 30 to 45 minutes | NS | Novel, based on video games |
McBride et al. [61] | 2017 | Australia | Preliminary Study, Single Group Design | Attention, WM, processing speed, and executive functioning (NPT) | Chronic Fatigue Syndrome | 36 | 36 | 12 weeks, 11; none. | NS | Lumosity | commercial, gamified |
Clausen et al. [62] | 2019 | USA | Pilot study; Between subjects (pre-post); 3 groups, nonrandomized, parallel; CG active. | Planning, inhibition, memory, PS, CF, verbal attention. (NPT,RM) | post traumatic stress disorder | 40 | 32.6 | 6 weeks; 5;none. | 30; 30 minutes | Lumosity | Commercial, gamified, applied at home |
Van deVen et al. [63] | 2015 | Netherlands | Randomized, multicenter, double-blind controlled clinical trial; Between subjects (pre-post); 3 groups, parallel; Active and passive CG. | CF and executive function (NPT) | stroke | 120 | 30 to 80 years | 12 weeks, 5; none. | 58; 30 to 45 minutes | BrainGymmer | Online trading platform, gamified |
Van deVen et al. [64] | 2017 | Netherlands | Randomized, controlled, double-blind clinical trial; Between subjects (pre-post); 3 groups, parallel; Passive CG. | Executive functioning, CF, WM attention, reasoning (NPT) | stroke | 87 | 57 | 12 weeks, NE; 4 weeks. | 58; 30 minutes | BrainGymmer | trading platform , gamified |
Valimaki et al. [65] | 2018 | Finlandia | Feasibility study, double blind; Between subjects (pre-post); 3 groups, parallel; Active and passive CG. | PS, attention, executive functions, and TM (NPT) | acquired brain damage | 90 | 42.14 | 8 weeks, 7; none. | NS; 30 minutes | Cognifit | Multi-device platform, Commercial, gamified |
DeLuca et al. [66] | 2018 | Italy | Randomized controlled clinical trial, single blind; Between subjects (pre-post); 3 groups; active CG | VF, Reversive Motor Learning, instrumental activities of daily living (NP) | Ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, presence of cognitive impairment | 35 | 42.15 | 8 weeks, 6; none. | 24; 45 minutes | Erica | Web platform, cognitive remediation, commercial, clinical |
Fernandez et al. [67] | 2018 | Cuba | Randomized controlled clinical trial; Between subjects (pre-post), 2 groups; CG active. | Attention, memory, visuospatial processing, and executive functions (NPT) | acquired brain damage | 80 | 33.7 | 8 weeks, 5; none. | NS; 50 minutes | Rehacom | Commercial, Clinical, modular therapy system |
Oliveira et al. [68] | 2022 | Portugal | Pilot study. Between subjects (pre-post); only group. | Acquired Brain Injury (CVA) (NPT) | Flexibility, inhibition, working memory, attention | 30 | 60 | 5 weeks | 10, NS | Systemic lisbon battery | Virtual reality based on tasks of daily life. |
Mitrovic et al. [69] | 2016 | New Zealand | Single group design. | Prospective memory (NPT) | Stroke | 15 | 65 | 4 weeks; two; none. | 10; 60 minutes | Visual imagery training | Novel, designed by the authors, based on visual image training |
DeLuca et al. [70] | 2018 | Italy | Randomized controlled clinical trial, single blind; Between subjects (pre-post), 2 groups; CG active. | Selective attention, TM, abstraction capacity, flexibility (NPT) | Post-stroke aphasia | 32 | 51.9 | 8 weeks, 3; 3 months. | 24; 45 minutes | Power Afa | Aphasia Software and Rehabilitation, Commercial, Clinical |
Dundon et al. [71] | 2015 | Ireland | Between subjects (pre-post), 2 groups, randomized; Passive CG. | Cognitive control, executive control, memory, processing speed and Attention. (NPT, EGG) | Traumatic brain injury, impairment in attention and executive control | 40 | 37.3 | NS | NS | APT - Cognitive Training Based on Attention Process Training | Based on care training, Institutional, clinical. |
Khemiri et al. [72] | 2019 | Sweden | Randomized, controlled, double-blind clinical trial; Between subjects (pre-post); 2 groups; CG active. | Verbal and visuospatial TM (NP) | substance use disorder | 50 | 49.6 | 5 weeks; 5; none. | 25; 30 to 45 minutes | CWWM - Cogmed Working Memory Training | Commercial platform to train TM, gamified, applied at home |
Rass et al. [73] | 2015 | USA | Randomized controlled clinical trial; Between subjects (pre-post), 2 groups; CG active. | WM, memory, metamemory, PS, Psychomotor Attention (NPT, NST) | substance use disorder | 56 | 43.5 | 6 weeks; 4;6 months. | 25; 45 minutes | CWWM - Cogmed Working Memory Training | Commercial platform to train WM, gamified |
Brooks et al. [74] | 2017 | Sweden | Exploratory pilot study; Between subjects (pre-post); 3 groups, parallel, randomized; CG active. | WM (NPT) | substance use disorder | 66 | 29.1 | 4 weeks; NS; none. | NS; 30 minutes | CYa - Curb Your Addiction | Rehabilitation software, clinical, based on N-back paradigm |
Brooks et al. [75] | 2016 | South Africa | Between subjects (pre-post); 3 groups, parallel, randomized; Passive CG. | WM (NPT, RM) | substance use disorder | 57 | 28.42 | 4 weeks; 5;none. | twenty; 30 minutes | CYa - Curb Your Addiction | Rehabilitation software, clinical, based on N-back paradigm |
Marceau et al. [76] | 2017 | Australia | Between subjects (pre-post); 2 groups, sequential, not randomized; Active QA | Attention, memory, self-awareness, inhibition, visual and verbal TM, emotion regulation, decision making, and problem solving. (NPT) | substance use disorder | 33 | 32.5 | 4 weeks; 3; none. | 12; 120 minutes | Lumosity | commercial, gamified |
Valls-Serrano et al. [77] | 2016 | Spain | Between subjects (pre-post); 2 groups, randomized; Passive CG. | WM, CI, decision making, planning (NPT) | substance use disorder | 32 | 35.19 | 8 weeks; two; none | 16; 120 minutes | Goal Management Training | Novel based on goal management |
Lewis et al. [78] | 2022 | United States | Pilot study. Between subjects (pre-post); 3 groups, CG TAU | Inhibition, working memory (NPT) | Disorders associated with substance use | 77 | 42.6 | NS | 12, 45 minutes | NS | Novel based on n-back |
Loughead et al. [79] | 2016 | USA | Randomized controlled clinical trial; Between subjects (pre-post), 2 groups; CG active. | Memory, attention, executive function, emotional regulation, inhibition (NPT) | smokers | 213 | 43.28 | 12 weeks, NS; 6 months. | NS; 20 minutes | NS | Cognitive remediation, Novel, based on previous studies |
Kolodny et al. [80] | 2017 | Israel | Between subjects (pre-post), blind; 2 randomized groups; CG active. | Sustained, selective attention, conflict resolution (NP) | ADHD | 30 | 25.2 | 8 weeks, 2; none. | 16; 60 minutes | CPAT - Computerized Progressive Attention Training Program | Based on progressive attention training, novel |
Liu et al. [81] | 2016 | Canada | Randomized controlled clinical trial; Between subjects (pre-post); 3 groups, parallel; Active and passive CG. | TM (NPT, EGG) | ADHD | 99 | 24.21 | 5 weeks; 5; none. | 25; 45 minutes | Cogmed | Commercial platform to train WM, gamified |
Mawjee et al. [82] | 2015 | Canada | Randomized controlled clinical trial; Between subjects (pre-post); 3 groups, parallel; Active and passive CG. | WM (NPT, NST) | Post-secondary students with ADHD | 97 | 23.9 | 5 weeks; 5; none. | 25; 45 minutes | CWWM - Cogmed Working Memory Training | Commercial platform to train WM, gamified |
Best et al. [83] | 2019 | Canada | Between subjects (pre-post); 3 groups, parallel; Active QA | Executive functions (NPT, EGG) | cognitive decline | 25 | 33.18 | 2 weeks, 3; none. | NS; 40 minutes | Happy Neuron Pro | Web platform, cognitive remediation, commercial, clinical |
Kashyap et al. [84] | 2019 | India | Case study | Executive functions, verbal fluency, planning, attention, and TM (NPT) | Obsessive compulsive disorder | 1 | 29 | 12 weeks, 1; none. | 12; 180 minutes | Cogtrain | Compensatory cognitive training, open access, gamified |
Wu et al. [85] | 2018 | USA | Randomized controlled pilot study; Between subjects (pre-post), 2 groups; Passive CG. | Verbal and visual memory (NPT, NST, EA) | Cancer | 44 | 66.5 | 8 weeks, 5; none. | NS; 60 minutes | Brain HQ, Brain Fitness | Online Commercial Platform, gamified |
Von et al., [86] | 2022 | USA | Randomized, double-blind controlled trial. Between subjects (pre-post), 2 groups. CG active. | Self-perceived executive function, working memory, processing speed, verbal fluency (NP) | cancer survivors | 30 | 57.6 | 10 weeks, 4, none | 40, 60 minutes | Brain HQ, Brain Fitness | Online Commercial Platform, gamified |
Bellens et al. [87] | 2020 | Belgium | Randomized controlled pilot study; Between subjects (pre-post), 2 groups, randomized; Passive CG. | Executive function, attention, memory, language and perception (NPT) | breast cancer survivors | 46 | 52.1 | 12 weeks, 3; none. | NS; 60 minutes | Aquasnap - Mycognition | commercial, gamified |
Damholdt et al. [88] | 2016 | Denmark | Randomized controlled clinical trial; Between subjects (pre-post), 2 groups; Passive CG. | Attention, PS, learning, memory, problem solving (NPT, EA) | History of breast cancer | 157 | 54.98 | 6 weeks; 5; 5 months. | 30; 30 minutes | HappyNeuronPro | Web platform, commercial, clinical |
Bartlet et al. [89] | 2020 | Australia | Randomized controlled clinical trial; Between subjects (pre-post), 2 groups; CG active; Passive CG. | Verbal learning, memory, attention, cognitive flexibility, and processing speed (NPT, RS, PM) | Huntington's disease | 31 | NE | 6 weeks; NE; 36 months. | NS | Neuronation | commercial, gamified |
Yhnell et al. [90] | 2020 | United Kingdom | Randomized controlled clinical trial; Between subjects (pre-post), 2 groups; Passive CG. | Executive functions: planning, and cognitive flexibility (NPT, NST, EA) | Huntington's disease | 26 | 45.8 | 12 weeks, 3; none. | 36; 30 minutes | HappyNeuronPro | Web platform, commercial, clinical, applied at home |
Towe et al. [91] | 2017 | USA | Randomized controlled clinical trial, Between subjects (pre-post); 2 groups; Active QA | WM (NPT) | HIV, and neurocognitive impairment | 21 | 47.9 | 10 weeks, 2; none. | 12; NE | PSSCogRehab | Rehabilitation Software, Commercial |
Towe et al. [92] | 2020 | USA | Randomized controlled clinical trial; Between subjects (pre-post), 2 groups; CG active. | WM (NPT) | HIV | 56 | 48.62 | 10 weeks, NE ; none. | 48; NE | lumosity | commercial, gamified |
Linares et al. [93] | 2019 | Spain | Randomized controlled clinical trial; Between subjects (pre-post); 6 groups, parallel; CG active. | TM (NPT) update | healthy | 193 | 21.36 | NS | 6; 30 minutes | n-back training | Novel, based on classical tasks, n-back task |
Waris et al. [94] | 2015 | Finlandia | Between subjects (pre-post), 2 groups, randomized; CG active. | WM (NPT) | healthy | 31 | 24.16 | 5 weeks; 3; none. | NS; 45 minutes | NS | Novel, based on classic tasks, n-back tasks, Jaeggi tasks |
Schwarb et al. [95] | 2016 | USA | single group design | WM, short term memory, Attention control (NPT, NST) | healthy | 53 | 20.39 | 4 weeks; two; none. | 8; 60 minutes | n-back training | Novel, based on classical tasks, n-back task |
Felman et al. [96] | 2020 | Finlandia | Large scale randomized controlled clinical trial; Between subjects (pre-post); 3 groups, parallel. | WM (SNP) | healthy | 258 | 32.74 | 4 weeks; NS; none. | 12; 30 minutes | n-back training | Novel, based on classical tasks, n-back task |
Gordon et al. [97] | 2019 | Israel | Between subjects (pre-post); 6 groups, factorial; Passive CG. | CI, WM, CF (NPT, EGG) | Israel Defense Force soldiers healthy | 140 | 22.12 | 5 weeks; two; 4 weeks. | 10; 60 minutes | NS | Novel, based on WWM task developed by Shahar and Meiran, N-back paradigm |
Xiu et al. [98] | 2016 | China | Between subjects (pre-post), 2 groups, randomized; Passive CG. | TM (NST, EGG) | healthy college students | 40 | 21.7 | 4 weeks; 5;none. | 20 to 30 minutes | Running Working Memory | Novel, based on classic tasks |
Maraver et al. [99] | 2016 | Spain | Between subjects (pre-post); 4 groups, parallel; CG active. | WM, CI, executive control (NPT) | healthy | 112 | 20.51 | 2 weeks, 2; none. | 6; 120 minutes | NS | Novel, based on classical tasks, stroop task |
Cohen et al. [100] | 2016 | Germany | Between subjects (pre-post), 2 groups, randomized. | Attention, emotional control, IQ (RM) | healthy | 26 | 25 | 1 week; 18, several sessions a day; none. | NS; 15 minutes | NS | Novel, based on classic tasks, flanker task |
Namratha et al. [101] | 2017 | India | Between subjects (pre-post); 3 groups, factorial, randomized; Passive CG. | WM (NPT, EA) | healthy | 45 | 51 | NE | 10; 45 minutes | NS | Novel, based on classical tasks, TM training |
Tallus et al. [102] | 2015 | Finlandia | Between subjects (pre-post), 2 groups, randomized; CG active. | Hearing care and TM (NPT, PE) | healthy | 26 | 20 to 34 years | 4 weeks; 4; none. | 16; 25 minutes | NS | Novel, based on classical tasks, dichotic listening task |
Bennike et al. [103] | 2017 | Denmark | Randomized controlled clinical trial; Between subjects (pre-post), 2 groups; CG active. | Attention, concentration, mental distraction, dispositional mindfulness (NP) | healthy | 95 | 41.4 | 4 weeks; 7;none. | 30, 20 minutes | Lumosity | commercial, gamified |
Olfers et al. [104] | 2017 | Netherlands | Randomized controlled clinical trial; Between subjects (pre-post); 3 groups, parallel; CG active. | CF, Attention and TM (NPT, EGG) | healthy | 72 | 23 | 6 weeks; NE, none. | twenty; 45 minutes | Lumosity | commercial, gamified |
Etherton et al. [105] | 2019 | USA | Between subjects (pre-post); 3 groups, parallel, randomized; Passive CG. | WM (NPT, NST) | healthy college students | 92 | 20.07 | 5 weeks; 5; none. | 25; 40 minutes | Cogmed Working Memory Training | Commercial platform to train WM, gamified |
Zwilling et al. [106] | 2019 | USA | Between subjects (pre-post); 4 groups, parallel; CG active. | Executive functions, visuospatial TM, and analogical reasoning. (NPT) | healthy | 160 | 23.8 | 16 weeks, 3; none. | 48; 70 minutes | Mind Frontiers | commercial, gamified |
Baniqued et al. [107] | 2015 | USA | Between subjects (pre-post), 2 groups, randomized; CG active. | WM (NPT, NST, RM) | healthy | 90 | 20.8 | 5 weeks; 4; none. | twenty; 75 minutes | Mind Frontiers | commercial, gamified |
Daugherty et al. [108] | 2019 | USA | Large-scale cluster randomized controlled clinical trial. Between subjects (pre-post); 4 groups; active CG | Visuospatial TM, executive functions, and analogical reasoning (NPT, PM) | healthy | 2. 3. 4 | 23.35 | 16 weeks, 3; none. | 40; 75 minutes | Mind Frontiers | commercial, gamified |
Wells et al. [109] | 2020 | USA | Between subjects (pre-post), 2 groups, not randomized; CG active. | IC (NPT) | healthy | 52 | 18.98 | 2 weeks, 2; none. | 4; 30 minutes | Gwakkamole | Video game, commercial |
Shahar et al. [110] | 2018 | Israel | Between subjects (pre-post); 3 groups, randomized, parallel; Active and passive CG. | Procedural TM, Declarative TM, Reasoning (NPT) | healthy college students | 175 | 23.32 | 7 weeks, 2; none. | 14; 30 minutes | NS | Novel, procedural TM training |
Schmicker et al. [111] | 2017 | Germany. | Between subjects (pre-post), 2 groups, randomized; CG active. | WM, attention filtering, decision making, inhibition (PEN) | healthy | 29 | 24.31 | 1 week; 5; none. | 5; NE | NS | Novel, designed by the authors |
Zhao et al. [112] | 2020 | China | Between subjects (pre-post), 2 groups, not randomized; CG active. | Task Change (NPT) | healthy college students | 60 | 19.85 | NE | 12; NE | NS | Novel, based on classic tasks |
Hilbert et al. [113] | 2017 | Germany | Between subjects (pre-post), double blind; 7 groups, parallel; CG active and passive. | WM, reasoning (NP) | healthy college students | 216 | 22 | 2 weeks, 6; none. | 12, 20 minutes | NS | Novel, based on Oberauer's tasks |
Pereg et al. [114] | 2019 | Israel | Between subjects (pre-post); 3 groups, parallel, randomized; Active and passive CG. | Procedural TM (NST) | University students | 175 | 23.32 | 10 weeks, NE ; none. | 12 to 14; 30 minutes | NS | Novel, procedural TM training |
Hogrefe et al. [115] | 2017 | Swiss | Between subjects (pre-post); 3 groups, parallel, randomized; Passive CG. | WM (NPT, NST) | healthy college students | 137 | 22.93 | 4 weeks; 5;none. | twenty; 15 minutes | BrainTwister2 | Novel, platform independent application, based on N-back tasks |
Foster et al. [116] | 2017 | Australia | Between subjects (pre-post); 3 groups, parallel, randomized; CG active. | WM (NPT, NST) | healthy college students | 143 | 24.56 | NS | 20 to 75 minutes | NS | Novel, verbal and spatial TM tasks |
Flegal to. [117] | 2019 | USA | Randomized controlled clinical trial, single blind; Between subjects (pre-post); 2 groups, parallel; Active and passive CG. | WM (NPT, RM) | healthy | 63 | 20.8 | 3 weeks; 4; none. | 12; NS | NS | Novel, based on classic tasks, TM refresher training |
Talanow et al. [118] | 2018 | Germany | Randomized controlled clinical trial; Between subjects (pre-post); 3 groups, parallel; CG active and passive. | Inhibition, executive functions (NPT) | healthy | 102 | 22.49 | NS | 8; NS | NS | Novel, based on classical tasks, stroop task |
Martincevic et al. [119] | 2020 | Croatia | Randomized controlled clinical trial, single blind; Between subjects (pre-post), 2 groups; CG active. | Displacement, update, inhibition, executive functions (NPT) | healthy | 73 | 20.46 | 4 weeks; 3;6 months. | 12, 15 to 20 minutes | Multitask game | serious games, commercial |
Strobach et al. [120] | 2017 | Germany | Large scale controlled study; Between subjects (pre-post), 2 groups, randomized; CG active. | Memory, inhibition (NPT) | healthy | 176 | 42.8 | NS | twenty-one; 35 minutes | Neuronation | Commercial, gamified, applied at home |
Note: Sample size; NPT: neuropsychological tests; EGG: Electroencephalogram; MRI: Magnetic resonance imaging; EA: Interviews and self-reports; NST: non-standardized tests; PM: Physiological measures; SF: Self reports; EP: evoked potentials; NS: Not specified; ADHD: attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. CG: control group; TAU: treatment as usua; WM: Working memory; PS: Processing speed; VF: Verbal Fluency; IC: inhibitory control; CF: cognitive flexibility.