Today we are fortunate to interview Dr. Jerri Edwards, an connect Professor at University of South Florida's School of Aging Studies and Co-Investigator of the influential Active study. Dr. Edwards was trained by Dr. Karlene K. Ball, and her research is aimed toward discovering how cognitive abilities can be maintained and even enhanced with advancing age.
Alvaro Fernandez (Af): Please interpret to our readers your main research areas.
Jerri Edwards (Je): I am particularly curious in how cognitive interventions may help older adults to avoid or at least delay functional difficulties and thereby maintain their independence longer. Much of my work has focused on the functional ability of driving along with assessing driving fitness among older adults and remediation of cognitive decline that results in driving difficulties.
Some research questions that interest me include, how can we maintain healthier lives longer? How can training improve cognitive abilities, both to improve those abilities and also to slow-down, or delay, cognitive decline? The exact cognitive ability that I have studied the most is processing speed, which is one of the cognitive skills that decline early on as we age.
Af: Can you interpret what cognitive processing speed is, and why it is relevant to our daily lives?
Je: Processing speed is reasoning quickness. Just like a computer with a 486 processor can do a lot of the same things as a computer with a Pentium 4 processor, but it takes much longer, our minds tend to slow down with age as compared to when we were younger. We can do the same tasks, but it takes more time. Quick speed of processing is foremost for quick decision manufacture in our daily lives. When you are driving, if something unexpected happens, how quickly can you consideration the situation and conclude how to react?
Af: Please impart how the Active trial used the cognitive training program, and what the results were found to be when they were published in the Journal of the American healing relationship in December 2006?
Je: I was a co-investigator of the Active study, a multi-site, controlled study, with thousands of adults over sixty-five, to rate the effectiveness of three distinct cognitive training methods with three distinct groups:
- The first group used a memory training schedule along with a range of traditional memory techniques such as mnemonics and the method of loci.
- The second group was trained in learn inductive reasoning skills.
- The third group was exposed to computer-based programs to train processing speed.
All 3 groups spent the same number of time in their respective training programs, around 2 hours a week for 5 weeks, going through exercises of increasing difficulty. The Active study was designed to track participants' execution over a number of years, so, after this introductory 5-week intervention, some groups received training booster sessions, after 1 year and again after 3 years.
Willis and colleagues published the 5-year results in Jama last December and the results were very positive. All 3 types of cognitive programs were shown to have an result immediately after the program, after 3 years, and after 5. But, the results of the group that used a computer-based schedule to train processing speed showed clear short-term and long-term results. Individuals who experienced improved speed of processing also showed good execution on tasks of instrumental activities of daily living such as quickly looking an item on a crowded pantry shelf and reading medication bottles. They also reacted to road signs more quickly. We found this replacement of training in our prior studies using the training protocol as well.
In short, principal percentages of the participants improved their memory, reasoning and information-processing speed across all three methods. The most impressive result was that, when tested five years later, the participants in the computer-based schedule had less of a decline in the skill they were trained in than did a operate group that received no cognitive training.
Af: The results of the Active study were quite impressive and contributed in large part to the number of media coverage about brain fitness last year. However, as you have probably seen, there is a good deal of blurring about brain fitness among the media and the collective at large. Can you help our readers understand two tasteless questions: 1) Why are new programs good than, say, doing crosswords puzzles?, and 2) Can one well say that these programs can reverse age-related decline?
To sass the first question, I would say that a crossword puzzle is not a form of cognitive training. It can be stimulating, but it is not a form of structured reasoning practice that has been shown to improve exact cognitive skills - other than the skill of doing crossword puzzles, of course.
In terms of the second question, it is too early to say whether we can well reverse decline in a permanent way. There are many skills involved and the studies are not long adequate to well collate distinct trajectories. What we can say is that by doing some exercises, one can improve cognitive speed of processing by 146-250%, and that a principal part of that correction stays even after 5 years. We cannot say more definitively.
But I think it is qualified to be able to say that, in all of the programs tested, the payoff from cognitive training, or what we can call "mental exercise", seemed far greater than we are accustomed to getting from bodily exercise. Just dream if you could say that 10 hours of workouts at the gym every day this month was adequate to help keep you fit five years from now.
Af: research like this seems to gift major opportunities for society. For example, wouldn't guarnatee companies, or the Aarp, want to sponsor more research and rate whether to offer this type of training to their members? Won't major employers see opportunities to improve the execution of older employees by identifying the cognitive skills that may need the most correction and offering tailored training? We could theorize that a man with faster processing abilities will also be able to make faster decisions and learn faster...
Je: That makes sense, based on what we know. Cognitive abilities evolve in distinct ways as we age, and some typically start to decline in our thirties. Cognitive interventions may help train and improve those abilities, and there is already research that strongly indicates where and how training can be useful. More research is still required to deliver more exact and tailored interventions in a range of environments. I theorize we will see the field grow significantly - and not just for aging-related priorities. Cognitive training may become useful for a range of health conditions, such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's patients, for example. More research will help researchers refine assessments and training programs.
Copyright (c) 2008 SharpBrains
