Processing speed (PS) is an important indicator of cognitive functioning and normal aging. However, the tools used to evaluate these are often rather simplistic and only assess one cognitive component. The aim of this study was to use cognitive mobile games (CMG) to evaluate the evolution of reaction times over the life span during different cognitive tasks.
Methodology:
We carried out a retrospective observational study in which we obtained anonymized results of 15,000 subjects. Scores of five CMG that train arithmetic, vocabulary, response control, visual attention and recognition, and working memory were analyzed.
Results:
Overall, we observed a highly statistically significant decrease (P < 0.001) in PS and a decrease of accuracy (P < 0.001) with increasing participant age, indicating that for each cognitive function tested, older participants performed cognitive tasks more slowly than younger participants. We also observed an interaction between the age of the participants and the number of errors. These results are consistent with physiological data with respect to aging and cognition.
Conclusion:
Owing to their wide availability and ease of use, CMG could be used as a simple tool to monitor cognitive function such as PS. Further studies are needed to study the influence of pathologies on those variables.
EshkoorSA, HamidTA, MunCY, NgCK. Mild cognitive impairment and its management in older people. Clin Interv Aging, 2015; 10:687–693.
3.
VogelA, SalemLC, AndersenBB, WaldemarG. Differences in quantitative methods for measuring subjective cognitive decline—Results from a prospective memory clinic study. Int Psychogeriatr, 2016; 28:1513–1520.
4.
OfenN, ShingYL. From perception to memory: Changes in memory systems across the lifespan. Neurosci Biobehav Rev, 2013; 37:2258–2267.
5.
BallesterosS, MayasJ, RealesJM. Cognitive function in normal aging and in older adults with mild cognitive impairment. Psicothema, 2013; 25:18–24.
6.
TamA, LuedkeAC, WalshJJ, et al.Effects of reaction time variability and age on brain activity during Stroop task performance. Brain Imaging Behav, 2015; 9:609–618.
7.
BaltesPB, LindenbergerU. Emergence of a powerful connection between sensory and cognitive functions across the adult life span: A new window to the study of cognitive aging?. Psychol Aging, 1997; 12:12–21.
8.
GutchessAH, ParkDC. Effects of aging on associative memory for related and unrelated pictures. Eur J Cogn Psychol, 2009; 21:235–254.
9.
CraikF, SalthouseT. The Handbook of Aging and Cognition. Psychology Press, New York; 2008.
10.
BallesterosS, BischofGN, GohJO, ParkDC. Neural correlates of conceptual object priming in young and older adults: An event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging study. Neurobiol Aging, 2013; 34:1254–1264.
11.
SilvaMA, LeeJM. Neurocognitive testing. In: Reference Module in Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Psychology. Elsevier, Cambridge; 2021.
12.
Agelink van RentergemJA, de VentNR, SchmandBA, et al.The factor structure of cognitive functioning in cognitively healthy participants: A meta-analysis and meta-analysis of individual participant data. Neuropsychol Rev, 2020; 30:51–96.
13.
ChenK-C, WengC-Y, HsiaoS, et al.Cognitive decline and slower reaction time in elderly individuals with mild cognitive impairment. Psychogeriatrics, 2017; 17:364–370.
14.
PradoCE, WattS, TreebyMS, CroweSF. Performance on neuropsychological assessment and progression to dementia: A meta-analysis. Psychol Aging, 2019; 34:954–977.
15.
VanceDE. Speed of processing in older adults: A cognitive overview for nursing. J Neurosci Nurs, 2009; 41:290–297.
16.
HarveyPD. Domains of cognition and their assessment. Dialogues Clin Neurosci, 2019; 21:227–237.
17.
BoothT, DykiertD, CorleyJ, et al.Reaction time variability and brain white matter integrity. Neuropsychology, 2019; 33:642–657.
18.
PiauA, WildK, MattekN, KayeJ. Current state of digital biomarker technologies for real-life, home-based monitoring of cognitive function for mild cognitive impairment to mild Alzheimer disease and implications for clinical care: Systematic review. J Med Internet Res, 2019; 21:e12785.
19.
LeeH, BaniquedaPL, CosmanJ, et al.Examining cognitive function across the lifespan using a mobile application. Comput Hum Behav, 2012; 28:1934–1946.
20.
NouchiR, TakiY, TakeuchiH, et al.Brain training game boosts executive functions, working memory and processing speed in the young adults: A randomized controlled trial. PLoS One, 2013; 8:e55518.
21.
GatesNJ, Ws RutjesA, Di NisioM, et al.Computerised cognitive training for maintaining cognitive function in cognitively healthy people in midlife. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2019; 3:CD012278.
22.
GatesNJ, Wm VernooijR, Di NisioM, et al.Computerised cognitive training for preventing dementia in people with mild cognitive impairment. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2019; 3:CD012279.
23.
GatesNJ, Ws RutjesA, Di NisioM, et al.Computerised cognitive training for 12 or more weeks for maintaining cognitive function in cognitively healthy people in late life. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2020; 2:CD012277.
24.
KooBM, VizerLM. Mobile technology for cognitive assessment of older adults: A scoping review. Innov Aging, 2019; 3:igy038.
25.
BonnechèreB, Van VoorenM, BierJ-C, et al.The use of mobile games to assess cognitive function of elderly with and without cognitive impairment. J Alzheimers Dis, 2018; 64:1285–1293.
26.
BonnechèreB, BierJ-C, Van HoveO, et al.Age-associated capacity to progress when playing cognitive mobile games: Ecological retrospective observational study. JMIR Serious Games, 2020; 8:e17121.
27.
Van HoveO, Van MuylemA, LeducaD, et al.The use of cognitive mobile games to assess cognitive function of healthy subjects under various inspiratory loads. Med Novel Technol Devices, 2019; 1:100005.
28.
Khaligh-RazaviS-M, HabibiS, SadeghiM, et al.Integrated cognitive assessment: Speed and accuracy of visual processing as a reliable proxy to cognitive performance. Sci Rep, 2019; 9:1102.
29.
WarmerdamE, HausdorffJM, AtrsaeiA, et al.Long-term unsupervised mobility assessment in movement disorders. Lancet Neurol, 2020; 19:462–470.
30.
BonnechèreB, KlassM, LangleyC, SahakianBJ. Brain training using cognitive apps can improve cognitive performance and processing speed in older adults. Sci Rep, 2021; 11:12313.
31.
Di BriscoAM, MiglioratiS. A new mixed-effects mixture model for constrained longitudinal data. Stat Med, 2020; 39:129–145.
32.
BatesD, MächlerM, BolkerB, WalkerS. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw, 2015; 67:1–48.
33.
NieminenP, LehtiniemiH, VähäkangasK, et al.Standardised regression coefficient as an effect size index in summarising the reported findings between quantitative exposure and response variables in epidemiological studies. Epidemiol Biostat Public Health, 2013; 10(4):e8854.
34.
FearnheadP, MaidstoneR, LetchfordA. Detecting changes in slope with an L0 penalty. J Comput Graph Stat, 2019; 28:265–275.
35.
VerhaeghenP. Aging and vocabulary scores: A meta-analysis. Psychol Aging, 2003; 18:332–339.
36.
MethqalI, ProvostJ-S, WilsonMA, et al.Age-related shift in neuro-activation during a word-matching task. Front Aging Neurosci, 2017; 9:265.
37.
MurphyDH, CastelAD. Age-related similarities and differences in the components of semantic fluency: Analyzing the originality and organization of retrieval from long-term memory. Neuropsychol Dev Cogn B Aging Neuropsychol Cogn, 2021; 28:748–761.
38.
Steen-BakerAA, NgS, PayneBR, et al.The effects of context on processing words during sentence reading among adults varying in age and literacy skill. Psychol Aging, 2017; 32:460–472.
39.
EichTS, ParkerD, LiuD, et al.Functional brain and age-related changes associated with congruency in task switching. Neuropsychologia, 2016; 91:211–221.
40.
EichTS, MacKay-BrandtA, SternY, GopherD. Age-based differences in task switching are moderated by executive control demands. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci, 2018; 73:954–963.
41.
MalavitaMS, VidyasagarTR, McKendrickAM. The effect of aging and attention on visual crowding and surround suppression of perceived contrast threshold. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 2017; 58:860–867.
42.
MatthewsK, NazrooJ, WhillansJ. The consequences of self-reported vision change in later-life: Evidence from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing. Public Health, 2017; 142:7–14.
43.
RhodesRE, KatzB. Working memory plasticity and aging. Psychol Aging, 2017; 32:51–59.
44.
ThevenotC, DewiJ, BagnoudJ, et al.The use of automated procedures by older adults with high arithmetic skills during addition problem solving. Psychol Aging, 2020; 35:411–420.
45.
RutterLA, VahiaIV, ForesterBP, et al.Heterogeneous indicators of cognitive performance and performance variability across the lifespan. Front Aging Neurosci, 2020; 12:62.
46.
YanoM. Aging effects in response inhibition: General slowing without decline in inhibitory functioning. J Hum Ergol (Tokyo), 2011; 40:129–139.
47.
ClarkR, HazeltineE, FreedbergM, VossMW. Age differences in episodic associative learning. Psychol Aging, 2018; 33:144–157.
48.
JinY, JingM, MaX. Effects of digital device ownership on cognitive decline in a middle-aged and elderly population: Longitudinal observational study. J Med Internet Res, 2019; 21:e14210.
49.
GranicI, LobelA, EngelsRCME. The benefits of playing video games. Am Psychol, 2014; 69:66–78.
50.
XuW, TanL, WangH-F, et al.Education and risk of dementia: Dose-response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Mol. Neurobiol, 2016; 53:3113–3123.
51.
LivingstonG, HuntleyJ, SommerladA, et al.Dementia prevention, intervention, and care: 2020 report of the Lancet Commission. Lancet, 2020; 396:413–446.
52.
van der LeeSJ, WoltersFJ, IkramMK, et al.The effect of APOE and other common genetic variants on the onset of Alzheimer's disease and dementia: A community-based cohort study. Lancet Neurol, 2018; 17:434–444.
53.
LiC-I, LiT-C, LiuC-S, et al.Risk score prediction model for dementia in patients with type 2 diabetes. Eur J Neurol, 2018; 25:976–983.
54.
ZhangX, CaiX, ShiX, et al.Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease as a risk factor for cognitive dysfunction: A meta-analysis of current studies. J Alzheimers Dis, 2016; 52:101–111.
55.
StefanidisKB, AskewCD, GreavesK, SummersMJ. The effect of non-stroke cardiovascular disease states on risk for cognitive decline and dementia: A systematic and meta-analytic review. Neuropsychol Rev, 2018; 28:1–15.
56.
ZhengF, YanL, ZhongB, et al.Progression of cognitive decline before and after incident stroke. Neurology, 2019; 93:e20–e28.
57.
OmbergL, NetoEC, PerumalTM, et al. Remote smartphone monitoring of Parkinson's disease and individual response to therapy. Nat Biotechnol 2021. [Epub ahead of print]; DOI: 10.1038/s41587-021-00974-9.
58.
OgunniyiA, LekwauwaUG, OsuntokunBO. Influence of education on aspects of cognitive functions in non-demented elderly Nigerians. Neuroepidemiology, 1991; 10:246–250.
59.
BonnechèreB, SahakianBJ. Can mobile technology help prevent the burden of dementia in low- and mid-income countries?. Front Public Health, 2020; 8:554938.
60.
StojanR, Voelcker-RehageC. A systematic review on the cognitive benefits and neurophysiological correlates of exergaming in healthy older adults. J Clin Med, 2019; 8:E734.
61.
KraftJN, O'SheaA, AlbizuA, et al.Structural neural correlates of double decision performance in older adults. Front Aging Neurosci, 2020; 12:278.
