Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2016 Jan;71(1):87-97.
doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbv022. Epub 2015 Apr 15.

The Transfer of Cognitive Speed of Processing Training to Older Adults' Driving Mobility Across 5 Years

Lesley A Ross  1 , Jerri D Edwards  2 , Melissa L O'Connor  3 , Karlene K Ball  4 , Virginia G Wadley  4 , David E Vance  4
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

The Transfer of Cognitive Speed of Processing Training to Older Adults' Driving Mobility Across 5 Years

Lesley A Ross et al. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2016 Jan.

Abstract

Objectives: Multilevel models assessed the effects of cognitive speed of processing training (SPT) on older adults' self-reported driving using intention-to-treat (ITT, randomization to training or control conditions) and dosage (treatment-received via number of training sessions) analyses across 5 years.

Method: Participants randomized to SPT (n = 598) were compared with those randomized to either the no-contact control (n = 598) or memory training, which served as an active control (n = 610). Driving mobility (frequency, exposure, and space) was assessed over time.

Results: No significant effects were found within the ITT analyses. However, number of SPT sessions did affect driving mobility outcomes. In the full sample (N = 1,806), higher SPT doses were associated with maintained driving frequency as compared with both control groups, but no effects were found for driving exposure or space. Subsample analyses (n = 315) revealed that persons at-risk for mobility declines (i.e., poor initial processing speed) who received additional booster SPT sessions reported greater maintenance of both driving frequency and exposure over time as compared with the no-contact and active control groups.

Discussion: These results and prior research indicate that cognitive SPT transfers to prolonged driving mobility among older adults. Future research should investigate the mechanisms behind transfer effects to real-world activities, such as driving.

Keywords: Cognitive training; Divided attention; Driving mobility; Speed of processing training; Training transfer; UFOV..

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Driving frequency by training and control groups in full sample. Note: Driving frequency means are presented (range 0–7). Driving frequency was the average number of days driven in a week. Training and control groups did not differ on baseline driving frequency (see Table 1, p > .05). Booster training occurred at years 1 and 3. Cohen’s d for speed of processing trained group compared with no-contact control group was 0.10.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Driving frequency by training and control groups in at-risk participants who received booster sessions. Note: Driving frequency means are presented (range 0–7). Driving frequency was the average number of days driven in a week. Training and control groups did not differ on baseline driving frequency (see Table 1, p > .05). Participants were at-risk for future mobility declines based on the baseline Useful Field of View Test score. Booster training occurred at years 1 and 3. Cohen’s d for speed of processing trained group compared with no-contact control group was 0.53.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Driving exposure by training and control groups in at-risk participants who received booster sessions. Note: Driving exposure means are presented (range 0–8). Driving exposure was the sum of driving in challenging situations (e.g., driven alone, in the rain, etc.) over the previous 2 months. Training and control groups did not differ on baseline driving exposure (see Table 1, p > .05). Participants were at-risk for future mobility declines based on the baseline Useful Field of View Test score. Booster training occurred at years 1 and 3. Cohen’s d for speed of processing trained group compared with no-contact control group was 0.60.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. AAA Senior Driving. (2014). Facts & Research Retrieved July 13, 2014 from http://seniordriving.aaa.com/resources-family-friends/conversations-abou...
    1. Alzheimer’s Association. (2012). 2012 Alzheimer’s disease facts and figures. Alzheimer’s and Dementia, 8, 131–168. 10.1016/j.jalz.2012.02.001 - PubMed
    1. Anstey K. J., Windsor T. D., Luszcz M. A., Andrews G. R. (2006). Predicting driving cessation over 5 years in older adults: Psychological well-being and cognitive competence are stronger predictors than physical health. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 54, 121–126. 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.00471.x - PubMed
    1. Anstey K. J., Wood J., Lord S., Walker J. G. (2005). Cognitive, sensory and physical factors enabling driving safety in older adults. Clinical Psychology Review, 25, 45–65. 10.1016/j.cpr.2004.07.008 - PubMed
    1. Ball K., Edwards J. D., Ross L. A. (2007). The impact of speed of processing training on cognitive and everyday functions. The Journals of Gerontology. Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 62 Spec No 1, 19–31. - PubMed

Publication types