“… Buschert et al ( 2011 ) | RCT, single-blind, active control | n = 43 aMCI n = 27 mild AD n = 16 Tx n = 10 Cntl n = 12 Age: =71.2 s = 7.0 | • 11 session minimum - 20 “units”, 120 min/ week • Group-based, multicomponent cognitive intervention including memory, cognitive stimulation, face-name association, errorless learning, principles of meta-cognition, education | ADAS-cog, MMSE, TMT B, RBANS, story recall, MADRS, QoL-AD | • Significant interaction between treatment and progression for ADAS-Cog (F = 6.2, p = 0.02, η2 = 0.26), MMSE (F = 3.8, p = 0.07, η2 = 0.17), RBANS story memory (F = 3.4, p = 0.08, η2 = 0.16) and TMT = B (F = 3.5, p = 0.08, η2 = 0.16) • Main effects for treatment were found for MMSE (F = 8.5, p < 0.01, η2 = .23), RBANS story memory (F = 12.5, p < 0.01, η2 = 0.41) and RBANS Story recall (F = 9.9, p < 0.01, η2 = 0.36) | • ↑ in global cog status, and specific cog and non-cog functions • aMCI demonstrate significant change in ADAS-Cog scores • aMCI subjects demonstrated tendency toward higher attentional skills demonstrated by TMT-B • No significant effect on memory performance compared to active controls | 0.661 | 5. | Carretti et al ( 2013 ) | RCT, active control | n = 20 (aMCI) Tx n = 10 Cntl n = 10 Age: Tx: = 71.8 s = 2.20 Cntl: = 70.6 s = 2.63 | • 5, 90 min sessions • Individual-based, one-on-one sessions using restorative strategies which focused on working memory techniques | NPE, Vocab, CWMS, DS-FWD; DS-BWD, Dot matrix, List recall, Pattern comparison, Cattell test | • Significant effect post training in CWMS (3.8), Dot Matrix (2.3), Cattell test (0.50) vs control CWMS (0.60), Dot Matrix (2.3), Cattell test (−0.40). P -values for these tests where groups improved by 1 SD are <0.01, <0.05, and <0.05, respectively | • Verbal working memory training is a promising approach to sustaining memory function in aMCI • Working memory training showed transfer to some cognitive components of memory part of the core cognitive impairments responsible for MCI → AD | −0.713 |
6. |
…”