On 2014 Jan 16, Hilda Bastian commented:

When originally conceived, this trial was expected to show significant improvements in key functional abilities for independent living in older people (Jobe JB, 2001). It was planned to run for two years with training in the experimental groups and one set of booster training (for about half of the people in the experimental groups). There would be 4 periods of testing a number of outcomes, reported in composite endpoints (baseline, after training, then after 1 and 2 years).

After the trial's completion at 2 years, there was no impact on the primary functional outcomes (Ball K, 2002). A post hoc hypothesis by the authors for this lack of effect was that the testing in the control group may itself have had some cognitive effect. However, the people in the experimental groups received the same tests, so any positive effect would presumably have been experienced across the trial.

The more likely reason for the lack of effect is that cognitive training in a specific cognitive function affects only that function, without a major practical impact (Melby-Lervåg M, 2013, Reijnders J, 2013). In a comment on that 2-year report, Brenes (Brenes GA, 2003) pointed out, among other issues, that it was not clear that the skills taught in the training (such as mnemonics) were in fact practiced by the participants in their daily lives.

In this publication after 10 years, the authors write that no benefit in functional living had been expected before at least 5 years, subsequent to the finding of a lack of effect at 2 years. They added a set of booster training and an extra 3 testing periods.

Results at 5 years found one of the 3 experimental groups, and one of the 3 booster subgroups, each had an effect in one of the functional outcomes, but there were no effects on most of the functional outcomes for most of the groups and subgroups (Willis SL, 2006).

The data for the individual components of the composites are not included in this report for 10-year results. The people in the experimental groups fared modestly better in the self-report outcome among 3 composite endpoints for primary outcomes, but not in the other 2. As the authors say in relation to those outcomes, "The current study showed weak to absent effects of cognitive training on performance-based measures of daily function."

One of the groups showing a modest effect in that 1 outcome was the memory training group. However, it is not clear how memory training could be having an effect on function, when the effect on memory had dissipated years before. Given the large number of subjective tests, the modest impact on one of the functional outcomes may be a chance finding.

(The conflict of interest declaration for this paper discloses that the memory intervention in this trial is being developed commercially.)

On 2014 Jan 16, Hilda Bastian commented:

When originally conceived, this trial was expected to show significant improvements in key functional abilities for independent living in older people (Jobe JB, 2001). It was planned to run for two years with training in the experimental groups and one set of booster training (for about half of the people in the experimental groups). There would be 4 periods of testing a number of outcomes, reported in composite endpoints (baseline, after training, then after 1 and 2 years).

After the trial's completion at 2 years, there was no impact on the primary functional outcomes (Ball K, 2002). A post hoc hypothesis by the authors for this lack of effect was that the testing in the control group may itself have had some cognitive effect. However, the people in the experimental groups received the same tests, so any positive effect would presumably have been experienced across the trial.

The more likely reason for the lack of effect is that cognitive training in a specific cognitive function affects only that function, without a major practical impact (Melby-Lervåg M, 2013, Reijnders J, 2013). In a comment on that 2-year report, Brenes (Brenes GA, 2003) pointed out, among other issues, that it was not clear that the skills taught in the training (such as mnemonics) were in fact practiced by the participants in their daily lives.

In this publication after 10 years, the authors write that no benefit in functional living had been expected before at least 5 years, subsequent to the finding of a lack of effect at 2 years. They added a set of booster training and an extra 3 testing periods.

Results at 5 years found one of the 3 experimental groups, and one of the 3 booster subgroups, each had an effect in one of the functional outcomes, but there were no effects on most of the functional outcomes for most of the groups and subgroups (Willis SL, 2006).

The data for the individual components of the composites are not included in this report for 10-year results. The people in the experimental groups fared modestly better in the self-report outcome among 3 composite endpoints for primary outcomes, but not in the other 2. As the authors say in relation to those outcomes, "The current study showed weak to absent effects of cognitive training on performance-based measures of daily function."

One of the groups showing a modest effect in that 1 outcome was the memory training group. However, it is not clear how memory training could be having an effect on function, when the effect on memory had dissipated years before. Given the large number of subjective tests, the modest impact on one of the functional outcomes may be a chance finding.

(The conflict of interest declaration for this paper discloses that the memory intervention in this trial is being developed commercially.)