ACTIVE: Advanced Cognitive Training for Independent and Vital Elderly (ACTIVE)

• ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00298558
• Recruitment Status: Completed
• First Posted: March 2, 2006
• Results First Posted: February 24, 2014
• Last Update Posted: April 16, 2014
• Sponsor: HealthCore-NERI
• Collaborators: National Institute on Aging (NIA); National Institute of Nursing Research (NINR)
• Information provided by (Responsible Party): HealthCore-NERI

• Study Type: Interventional
• Study Design: Allocation: Randomized; Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment; Masking: Single (Participant); Primary Purpose: Prevention
• Conditions: Aging; Healthy
• Intervention: Behavioral: Cognitive Training
• Enrollment: 2832

Participant Flow

Recruitment Details	Recruitment occurred from March 1998 through October 1999 at six metropolitan field centers: University of Alabama at Birmingham, Boston Hebrew Rehabilitation Center for Aged (now Hebrew Senior Life), Indiana University School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Pennsylvania State University, and Wayne State University.
Pre-assignment Details	Eligibility and demographics were gathered at telephone screening.Health history, physical status, functional status, mental status, cognitive and function measures were gathered via in-person exams in individual and small-group formats at baseline.Eligible subjects were randomly assigned to one of three interventions or no-contact control group.

Arm/Group Title	Memory Training	Reasoning Training	Speed of Processing Training	Control
Arm/Group Description	Memory training focused on verbal episodic memory. Participants were taught mnemonic strategies for remembering lists and sequences of items, text material, and main ideas and details of stories and other text-based information.	Reasoning training focused on the ability to solve problems that follow a serial pattern. Participants were taught strategies to identify the pattern or sequence required to solve a problem.	Speed of processing training focused on visual search and the ability to identify and locate visual information quickly in a divided attention format. Participants practiced increasingly complex speeded tasks on a computer.	This group did not complete any cognitive training interventions
Period Title: Baseline
Started	711	705	712	704
Completed	711	705	712	704
Not Completed	0	0	0	0
Period Title: Intervention
Started	711	705	712	704
Completed	620	627	637	285
Not Completed	91	78	75	419
Period Title: Immediate Post Test
Started	711	705	712	704
Completed	640	629	653	639
Not Completed	71	76	59	65
Period Title: Booster
Started	372	371	370	0
Completed	283	301	295	0
Not Completed	89	70	75	0
Period Title: 1st Annual (A1)
Started	640	629	653	639
Completed	585	566	601	584
Not Completed	55	63	52	55
Period Title: 2nd Annual (A2)
Started	585	566	601	584
Completed	563	555	574	552
Not Completed	22	11	27	32
Period Title: 3rd Annual Booster
Started	372	371	370	0
Completed	250	243	230	0
Not Completed	122	128	140	0
Period Title: 3rd Annual (A3) and 5th Annual (A5)
Started	563	555	574	552
Completed	472	469	490	448
Not Completed	91	86	84	104
Period Title: 10th Annual (A10)
Started	472	469	490	448
Completed	300	316	319	285
Not Completed	172	153	171	163

Baseline Characteristics

Arm/Group Title		Memory Training	Reasoning Training	Speed of Processing Training	Control	Total
Arm/Group Description		Memory training focused on verbal episodic memory. Participants were taught mnemonic strategies for remembering lists and sequences of items, text material, and main ideas and details of stories and other text-based information.	Reasoning training focused on the ability to solve problems that follow a serial pattern. Participants were taught strategies to identify the pattern or sequence required to solve a problem.	Speed of processing training focused on visual search and the ability to identify and locate visual information quickly in a divided attention format. Participants practiced increasingly complex speeded tasks on a computer.	This group did not complete any cognitive training interventions	Total of all reporting groups
Overall Number of Baseline Participants		703	699	702	698	2802
Baseline Analysis Population Description		Of 2832 randomized subjects, 30 subjects were randomized inappropriately in violation of the protocol and excluded from the analysis. Therefore, 2802 subjects were used for the baseline analysis.
Age, Categorical; Measure Type: Count of Participants; Unit of measure: Participants
	Number Analyzed	703 participants	699 participants	702 participants	698 participants	2802 participants
	<=18 years	0 0.0%	0 0.0%	0 0.0%	0 0.0%	0 0.0%
	Between 18 and 65 years	0 0.0%	0 0.0%	0 0.0%	0 0.0%	0 0.0%
	>=65 years	703 100.0%	699 100.0%	702 100.0%	698 100.0%	2802 100.0%
Age, Continuous; Mean (Standard Deviation); Unit of measure: Years
	Number Analyzed	703 participants	699 participants	702 participants	698 participants	2802 participants
		73.5 (6.02)	73.5 (5.76)	73.4 (5.78)	74.0 (6.05)	73.6 (5.91)
Sex: Female, Male; Measure Type: Count of Participants; Unit of measure: Participants
	Number Analyzed	703 participants	699 participants	702 participants	698 participants	2802 participants
	Female	537 76.4%	537 76.8%	538 76.6%	514 73.6%	2126 75.9%
	Male	166 23.6%	162 23.2%	164 23.4%	184 26.4%	676 24.1%
Region of Enrollment; Measure Type: Number; Unit of measure: Participants
United States	Number Analyzed	703 participants	699 participants	702 participants	698 participants	2802 participants
		703	699	702	698	2802

Outcome Measures

1. Primary Outcome

Title	Changes in Cognitive Abilities of Memory From Baseline to Year 10
Description	Memory outcome was computed as the summation of Rey Auditory-Verbal Learning Test (AVLT), the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test (HVLT), and the Rivermead Behavioral Paragraph Recall test immediate recall. The possible range of the memory outcome is 0 to 132. Higher values represent a better outcome. Changes in outcome were computed as "10 year minus baseline" and the negative values indicate the decline from baseline.
Time Frame	Up to 10 years

Outcome Measure Data

Analysis Population Description

Of the randomized subjects, 943 subjects who had the memory outcome at year 10 were used.

Arm/Group Title	Memory Training	Reasoning Training	Speed of Processing Training	Control
Arm/Group Description:	Memory training focused on verbal episodic memory. Participants were taught mnemonic strategies for remembering lists and sequences of items, text material, and main ideas and details of stories and other text-based information.	Reasoning training focused on the ability to solve problems that follow a serial pattern. Participants were taught strategies to identify the pattern or sequence required to solve a problem.	Speed of processing training focused on visual search and the ability to identify and locate visual information quickly in a divided attention format. Participants practiced increasingly complex speeded tasks on a computer.	This group did not complete any cognitive training interventions
Overall Number of Participants Analyzed	231	248	248	216
Mean (Standard Deviation); Unit of Measure: units on a scale
	-10.6 (28.3)	-11.2 (26.3)	-12.7 (25.5)	-9.4 (29.6)

Statistical Analysis 1

Statistical Analysis Overview	Comparison Group Selection	Memory Training, Control
	Comments	Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.
	Type of Statistical Test	Superiority or Other
	Comments	[Not Specified]
Statistical Test of Hypothesis	P-Value	0.43
	Comments	[Not Specified]
	Method	Mixed Models Analysis
	Comments	The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.
Method of Estimation	Estimation Parameter	Effect Size
	Estimated Value	0.06
	Confidence Interval	(2-Sided) 99%; -0.14 to 0.27
	Estimation Comments	Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.

Statistical Analysis 2

Statistical Analysis Overview	Comparison Group Selection	Reasoning Training, Control
	Comments	Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.
	Type of Statistical Test	Superiority or Other
	Comments	[Not Specified]
Statistical Test of Hypothesis	P-Value	0.17
	Comments	[Not Specified]
	Method	Mixed Models Analysis
	Comments	The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.
Method of Estimation	Estimation Parameter	Effect Size
	Estimated Value	-0.11
	Confidence Interval	(2-Sided) 99%; -0.31 to 0.10
	Estimation Comments	Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.

Statistical Analysis 3

Statistical Analysis Overview	Comparison Group Selection	Speed of Processing Training, Control
	Comments	Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.
	Type of Statistical Test	Superiority or Other
	Comments	[Not Specified]
Statistical Test of Hypothesis	P-Value	0.52
	Comments	[Not Specified]
	Method	Mixed Models Analysis
	Comments	The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.
Method of Estimation	Estimation Parameter	Effect Size
	Estimated Value	-0.05
	Confidence Interval	(2-Sided) 99%; -0.25 to 0.15
	Estimation Comments	Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.

2. Primary Outcome

Title	Changes in Cognitive Abilities of Reasoning From Baseline to Year 10
Description	Reasoning outcome was computed as the summation of total correct for Letter Series, Letter Sets, and Word Series. The possible range of the reasoning outcome is 0 to 75. Higher values represent a better outcome. Changes in outcome were computed as "10 year minus baseline" and the negative values indicate the decline from baseline.
Time Frame	Up to 10 years

Outcome Measure Data

Analysis Population Description

Of the randomized subjects, 938 subjects who had the reasoning outcome at year 10 were used.

Arm/Group Title	Memory Training	Reasoning Training	Speed of Processing Training	Control
Arm/Group Description:	Memory training focused on verbal episodic memory. Participants were taught mnemonic strategies for remembering lists and sequences of items, text material, and main ideas and details of stories and other text-based information.	Reasoning training focused on the ability to solve problems that follow a serial pattern. Participants were taught strategies to identify the pattern or sequence required to solve a problem.	Speed of processing training focused on visual search and the ability to identify and locate visual information quickly in a divided attention format. Participants practiced increasingly complex speeded tasks on a computer.	This group did not complete any cognitive training interventions
Overall Number of Participants Analyzed	230	246	248	214
Mean (Standard Deviation); Unit of Measure: units on a scale
	-3.23 (8.61)	-0.049 (7.91)	-3.94 (8.34)	-3.04 (8.02)

Statistical Analysis 1

Statistical Analysis Overview	Comparison Group Selection	Memory Training, Control
	Comments	Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.
	Type of Statistical Test	Superiority or Other
	Comments	[Not Specified]
Statistical Test of Hypothesis	P-Value	0.69
	Comments	[Not Specified]
	Method	Mixed Models Analysis
	Comments	The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.
Method of Estimation	Estimation Parameter	Effect Size
	Estimated Value	-0.02
	Confidence Interval	(2-Sided) 99%; -0.17 to 0.12
	Estimation Comments	Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.

Statistical Analysis 2

Statistical Analysis Overview	Comparison Group Selection	Reasoning Training, Control
	Comments	Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.
	Type of Statistical Test	Superiority or Other
	Comments	[Not Specified]
Statistical Test of Hypothesis	P-Value	<0.01
	Comments	[Not Specified]
	Method	Mixed Models Analysis
	Comments	The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.
Method of Estimation	Estimation Parameter	Effect Size
	Estimated Value	0.23
	Confidence Interval	(2-Sided) 99%; 0.09 to 0.38
	Estimation Comments	Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.

Statistical Analysis 3

Statistical Analysis Overview	Comparison Group Selection	Speed of Processing Training, Control
	Comments	Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.
	Type of Statistical Test	Superiority or Other
	Comments	[Not Specified]
Statistical Test of Hypothesis	P-Value	0.27
	Comments	[Not Specified]
	Method	Mixed Models Analysis
	Comments	The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.
Method of Estimation	Estimation Parameter	Effect Size
	Estimated Value	-0.06
	Confidence Interval	(2-Sided) 99%; -0.20 to 0.08
	Estimation Comments	Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.

3. Primary Outcome

Title	Changes in Cognitive Abilities of Speed of Processing From Baseline to Year 10
Description	Speed of processing outcome was computed as the summation of three Useful Field of View tasks requiring identification and localization of information, with 75% accuracy, under varying levels of cognitive demand. For the analysis, the reversed score was used and the possible range of the reversed speed of processing outcome is 0 to 1500. Higher values for the reversed scores represent a better outcome. Changes in outcome were computed as "10 year minus baseline" and the negative values indicate the decline from baseline.
Time Frame	Up to 10 years

Outcome Measure Data

Analysis Population Description

Of the randomized subjects, 879 subjects who had the speed outcome at year 10 were used.

Arm/Group Title	Memory Training	Reasoning Training	Speed of Processing Training	Control
Arm/Group Description:	Memory training focused on verbal episodic memory. Participants were taught mnemonic strategies for remembering lists and sequences of items, text material, and main ideas and details of stories and other text-based information.	Reasoning training focused on the ability to solve problems that follow a serial pattern. Participants were taught strategies to identify the pattern or sequence required to solve a problem.	Speed of processing training focused on visual search and the ability to identify and locate visual information quickly in a divided attention format. Participants practiced increasingly complex speeded tasks on a computer.	This group did not complete any cognitive training interventions
Overall Number of Participants Analyzed	216	231	229	203
Mean (Standard Deviation); Unit of Measure: units on a scale
	-144.4 (228.6)	-126.2 (253.6)	24.3 (252.1)	-123.3 (277.7)

Statistical Analysis 1

Statistical Analysis Overview	Comparison Group Selection	Memory Training, Control
	Comments	Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.
	Type of Statistical Test	Superiority or Other
	Comments	[Not Specified]
Statistical Test of Hypothesis	P-Value	0.45
	Comments	[Not Specified]
	Method	Mixed Models Analysis
	Comments	The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.
Method of Estimation	Estimation Parameter	Effect Size
	Estimated Value	-0.07
	Confidence Interval	(2-Sided) 99%; -0.29 to 0.16
	Estimation Comments	Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.

Statistical Analysis 2

Statistical Analysis Overview	Comparison Group Selection	Reasoning Training, Control
	Comments	Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.
	Type of Statistical Test	Superiority or Other
	Comments	[Not Specified]
Statistical Test of Hypothesis	P-Value	0.95
	Comments	[Not Specified]
	Method	Mixed Models Analysis
	Comments	The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.
Method of Estimation	Estimation Parameter	Effect Size
	Estimated Value	0.005
	Confidence Interval	(2-Sided) 99%; -0.22 to 0.23
	Estimation Comments	Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.

Statistical Analysis 3

Statistical Analysis Overview	Comparison Group Selection	Speed of Processing Training, Control
	Comments	Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.
	Type of Statistical Test	Superiority or Other
	Comments	[Not Specified]
Statistical Test of Hypothesis	P-Value	<0.01
	Comments	[Not Specified]
	Method	Mixed Models Analysis
	Comments	The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.
Method of Estimation	Estimation Parameter	Effect Size
	Estimated Value	0.66
	Confidence Interval	(2-Sided) 99%; 0.43 to 0.88
	Estimation Comments	Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.

4. Primary Outcome

Title	Changes in Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) Difficulty From Baseline to Year 10
Description	The self-reported measure of everyday IADL function was the summation of the IADL difficulty sub-scores from the Minimum Dataset - Home Care (MDS-HC) which assesses performance in the past 7 days on 19 daily tasks spanning meal preparation, housework, finances, health care, telephone, shopping, travel, and need for assistance in dressing, personal hygiene, and bathing. For the analysis, the reversed score was used and the possible range of the reversed everyday IADL function outcome is 0 to 38. Higher values for the reversed scores represent a better outcome. Changes in outcome were computed as "10 year minus baseline" and the negative values indicate the decline from baseline.
Time Frame	Up to 10 years

Outcome Measure Data

Analysis Population Description

Of the randomized subjects, 1211 subjects who had the IADL outcome at year 10 were used.

Arm/Group Title	Memory Training	Reasoning Training	Speed of Processing Training	Control
Arm/Group Description:	Memory training focused on verbal episodic memory. Participants were taught mnemonic strategies for remembering lists and sequences of items, text material, and main ideas and details of stories and other text-based information.	Reasoning training focused on the ability to solve problems that follow a serial pattern. Participants were taught strategies to identify the pattern or sequence required to solve a problem.	Speed of processing training focused on visual search and the ability to identify and locate visual information quickly in a divided attention format. Participants practiced increasingly complex speeded tasks on a computer.	This group did not complete any cognitive training interventions
Overall Number of Participants Analyzed	297	314	316	284
Mean (Standard Deviation); Unit of Measure: units on a scale
	-3.05 (7.38)	-2.66 (6.31)	-2.34 (5.62)	-3.61 (7.67)

Statistical Analysis 1

Statistical Analysis Overview	Comparison Group Selection	Memory Training, Control
	Comments	Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.
	Type of Statistical Test	Superiority or Other
	Comments	[Not Specified]
Statistical Test of Hypothesis	P-Value	<0.01
	Comments	[Not Specified]
	Method	Mixed Models Analysis
	Comments	The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.
Method of Estimation	Estimation Parameter	Effect Size
	Estimated Value	0.48
	Confidence Interval	(2-Sided) 99%; 0.12 to 0.84
	Estimation Comments	Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.

Statistical Analysis 2

Statistical Analysis Overview	Comparison Group Selection	Reasoning Training, Control
	Comments	Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.
	Type of Statistical Test	Superiority or Other
	Comments	[Not Specified]
Statistical Test of Hypothesis	P-Value	<0.01
	Comments	[Not Specified]
	Method	Mixed Models Analysis
	Comments	The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.
Method of Estimation	Estimation Parameter	Effect Size
	Estimated Value	0.38
	Confidence Interval	(2-Sided) 99%; 0.02 to 0.74
	Estimation Comments	Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.

Statistical Analysis 3

Statistical Analysis Overview	Comparison Group Selection	Speed of Processing Training, Control
	Comments	Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.
	Type of Statistical Test	Superiority or Other
	Comments	[Not Specified]
Statistical Test of Hypothesis	P-Value	<0.01
	Comments	[Not Specified]
	Method	Mixed Models Analysis
	Comments	The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.
Method of Estimation	Estimation Parameter	Effect Size
	Estimated Value	0.36
	Confidence Interval	(2-Sided) 99%; 0.01 to 0.72
	Estimation Comments	Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.

5. Primary Outcome

Title	Changes in Everyday Problem Solving From Baseline to Year 10
Description	Everyday Problem Solving was computed as the summation of the Everyday Problems Test (EPT) and Observed Tasks of Daily Living (OTDL). The possible range of the everyday problem solving outcome is 0 to 56. Higher values represent a better outcome. Changes in outcome were computed as "10 year minus baseline" and the negative values indicate the decline from baseline.
Time Frame	Up to 10 years

Outcome Measure Data

Analysis Population Description

Of the randomized subjects, 1104 subjects who had the everyday problem solving outcome at year 10 were used.

Arm/Group Title	Memory Training	Reasoning Training	Speed of Processing Training	Control
Arm/Group Description:	Memory training focused on verbal episodic memory. Participants were taught mnemonic strategies for remembering lists and sequences of items, text material, and main ideas and details of stories and other text-based information.	Reasoning training focused on the ability to solve problems that follow a serial pattern. Participants were taught strategies to identify the pattern or sequence required to solve a problem.	Speed of processing training focused on visual search and the ability to identify and locate visual information quickly in a divided attention format. Participants practiced increasingly complex speeded tasks on a computer.	This group did not complete any cognitive training interventions
Overall Number of Participants Analyzed	270	290	295	249
Mean (Standard Deviation); Unit of Measure: units on a scale
	-6.10 (9.75)	-5.58 (9.56)	-5.98 (9.32)	-5.67 (9.85)

Statistical Analysis 1

Statistical Analysis Overview	Comparison Group Selection	Memory Training, Control
	Comments	Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.
	Type of Statistical Test	Superiority or Other
	Comments	[Not Specified]
Statistical Test of Hypothesis	P-Value	0.97
	Comments	[Not Specified]
	Method	Mixed Models Analysis
	Comments	The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.
Method of Estimation	Estimation Parameter	Effect Size
	Estimated Value	0.004
	Confidence Interval	(2-Sided) 99%; -0.23 to 0.24
	Estimation Comments	Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.

Statistical Analysis 2

Statistical Analysis Overview	Comparison Group Selection	Reasoning Training, Control
	Comments	Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.
	Type of Statistical Test	Superiority or Other
	Comments	[Not Specified]
Statistical Test of Hypothesis	P-Value	0.86
	Comments	[Not Specified]
	Method	Mixed Models Analysis
	Comments	The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.
Method of Estimation	Estimation Parameter	Effect Size
	Estimated Value	-0.02
	Confidence Interval	(2-Sided) 99%; -0.25 to 0.22
	Estimation Comments	Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.

Statistical Analysis 3

Statistical Analysis Overview	Comparison Group Selection	Speed of Processing Training, Control
	Comments	Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.
	Type of Statistical Test	Superiority or Other
	Comments	[Not Specified]
Statistical Test of Hypothesis	P-Value	0.93
	Comments	[Not Specified]
	Method	Mixed Models Analysis
	Comments	The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.
Method of Estimation	Estimation Parameter	Effect Size
	Estimated Value	0.008
	Confidence Interval	(2-Sided) 99%; -0.23 to 0.24
	Estimation Comments	Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.

6. Primary Outcome

Title	Changes in Everyday Speed of Processing From Baseline to Year 10
Description	Everyday Speed of processing was computed as the summation of Complex Reaction Time (CRT) and Timed IADL (TIADL). For the analysis, the reversed score was used and the possible range of the reversed everyday speed of processing outcome is -3 to 100. Higher values for the reversed scores represent a better outcome. Changes in outcome were computed as "10 year minus baseline" and the negative values indicate the decline from baseline.
Time Frame	Up to 10 years

Outcome Measure Data

Analysis Population Description

Of the randomized subjects, 938 subjects who had the everyday speed of processing outcome at year 10 were used.

Arm/Group Title	Memory Training	Reasoning Training	Speed of Processing Training	Control
Arm/Group Description:	Memory training focused on verbal episodic memory. Participants were taught mnemonic strategies for remembering lists and sequences of items, text material, and main ideas and details of stories and other text-based information.	Reasoning training focused on the ability to solve problems that follow a serial pattern. Participants were taught strategies to identify the pattern or sequence required to solve a problem.	Speed of processing training focused on visual search and the ability to identify and locate visual information quickly in a divided attention format. Participants practiced increasingly complex speeded tasks on a computer.	This group did not complete any cognitive training interventions
Overall Number of Participants Analyzed	229	249	245	215
Mean (Standard Deviation); Unit of Measure: units on a scale
	-1.53 (2.17)	-1.39 (1.88)	-1.47 (1.98)	-1.42 (1.78)

Statistical Analysis 1

Statistical Analysis Overview	Comparison Group Selection	Memory Training, Control
	Comments	Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.
	Type of Statistical Test	Superiority or Other
	Comments	[Not Specified]
Statistical Test of Hypothesis	P-Value	0.78
	Comments	[Not Specified]
	Method	Mixed Models Analysis
	Comments	The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.
Method of Estimation	Estimation Parameter	Effect Size
	Estimated Value	0.02
	Confidence Interval	(2-Sided) 99%; -0.19 to 0.23
	Estimation Comments	Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.

Statistical Analysis 2

Statistical Analysis Overview	Comparison Group Selection	Reasoning Training, Control
	Comments	Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.
	Type of Statistical Test	Superiority or Other
	Comments	[Not Specified]
Statistical Test of Hypothesis	P-Value	0.96
	Comments	[Not Specified]
	Method	Mixed Models Analysis
	Comments	The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.
Method of Estimation	Estimation Parameter	Effect Size
	Estimated Value	-0.004
	Confidence Interval	(2-Sided) 99%; -0.21 to 0.21
	Estimation Comments	Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.

Statistical Analysis 3

Statistical Analysis Overview	Comparison Group Selection	Speed of Processing Training, Control
	Comments	Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.
	Type of Statistical Test	Superiority or Other
	Comments	[Not Specified]
Statistical Test of Hypothesis	P-Value	0.56
	Comments	[Not Specified]
	Method	Mixed Models Analysis
	Comments	The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.
Method of Estimation	Estimation Parameter	Effect Size
	Estimated Value	-0.05
	Confidence Interval	(2-Sided) 99%; -0.26 to 0.16
	Estimation Comments	Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.

7. Secondary Outcome

Title	Changes in Health-related Quality of Life (HRQol), Driving Function, Health Service Use
Description	To determine if the cognitive interventions have beneficial effects on the distal outcomes of driving safety, personal care activities of daily living, health service utilization, and mortality.
Time Frame	10th Year

Outcome Measure Data Not Reported

8. Secondary Outcome

Title	Examine Health, Genetic and Cognitive Moderators
Description	To examine heath, genetic, and cognitive moderators (including cardiovascular disease,diabetes, depression, Apolipoprotein E (APOE) genotype, and low cognition and engagement) in individual response to training.
Time Frame	10th Year

Outcome Measure Data Not Reported

9. Secondary Outcome

Title	Estimate the Effects of ACTIVE Training to General Population
Description	To estimate and project the effects of ACTIVE training to the general population of older adults by linking the measures and outcomes of ACTIVE to the Health and Retirement Study(and its subsidiary studies), a population-based, nationally-representative cohort.
Time Frame	10th Year

Outcome Measure Data Not Reported

Adverse Events

Time Frame	[Not Specified]
Adverse Event Reporting Description	[Not Specified]
Arm/Group Title	Memory Training	Reasoning Training	Speed of Processing Training	Control
Arm/Group Description	Memory training focused on verbal episodic memory. Participants were taught mnemonic strategies for remembering lists and sequences of items, text material, and main ideas and details of stories and other text-based information.	Reasoning training focused on the ability to solve problems that follow a serial pattern. Participants were taught strategies to identify the pattern or sequence required to solve a problem.	Speed of processing training focused on visual search and the ability to identify and locate visual information quickly in a divided attention format. Participants practiced increasingly complex speeded tasks on a computer.	This group did not complete any cognitive training interventions
All-Cause Mortality
	Memory Training	Reasoning Training	Speed of Processing Training	Control
	Affected / at Risk (%)	Affected / at Risk (%)	Affected / at Risk (%)	Affected / at Risk (%)
Total	--/--	--/--	--/--	--/--
Serious Adverse Events
	Memory Training	Reasoning Training	Speed of Processing Training	Control
	Affected / at Risk (%)	Affected / at Risk (%)	Affected / at Risk (%)	Affected / at Risk (%)
Total	0/711 (0.00%)	0/705 (0.00%)	0/712 (0.00%)	0/704 (0.00%)
Other (Not Including Serious) Adverse Events
Frequency Threshold for Reporting Other Adverse Events	0%
	Memory Training	Reasoning Training	Speed of Processing Training	Control
	Affected / at Risk (%)	Affected / at Risk (%)	Affected / at Risk (%)	Affected / at Risk (%)
Total	0/711 (0.00%)	0/705 (0.00%)	0/712 (0.00%)	0/704 (0.00%)

Limitations and Caveats

[Not Specified]

More Information

Certain Agreements

Principal Investigators are NOT employed by the organization sponsoring the study.

There IS an agreement between Principal Investigators and the Sponsor (or its agents) that restricts the PI's rights to discuss or publish trial results after the trial is completed.

The only disclosure restriction on the PI is that the sponsor can review results communications prior to public release and can embargo communications regarding trial results for a period of 180 days from the time submitted to the sponsor for review. The sponsor cannot require changes to the communication and cannot extend the embargo.

Results Point of Contact

• Name/Title: Sharon L. Tennstedt, PhD
• Organization: New England Research Institutes
• Phone: 617-972-3362
• EMail: stennstedt@neriscience.com

Publications of Results:

Ball K, Berch DB, Helmers KF, Jobe JB, Leveck MD, Marsiske M, Morris JN, Rebok GW, Smith DM, Tennstedt SL, Unverzagt FW, Willis SL; Advanced Cognitive Training for Independent and Vital Elderly Study Group. Effects of cognitive training interventions with older adults: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2002 Nov 13;288(18):2271-81.

Willis SL, Tennstedt SL, Marsiske M, Ball K, Elias J, Koepke KM, Morris JN, Rebok GW, Unverzagt FW, Stoddard AM, Wright E; ACTIVE Study Group. Long-term effects of cognitive training on everyday functional outcomes in older adults. JAMA. 2006 Dec 20;296(23):2805-14.

Other Publications:

Jobe JB, Smith DM, Ball K, Tennstedt SL, Marsiske M, Willis SL, Rebok GW, Morris JN, Helmers KF, Leveck MD, Kleinman K. ACTIVE: a cognitive intervention trial to promote independence in older adults. Control Clin Trials. 2001 Aug;22(4):453-79.

Jones RN, Rosenberg AL, Morris JN, Allaire JC, McCoy KJ, Marsiske M, Kleinman KP, Rebok GW, Malloy PF. A growth curve model of learning acquisition among cognitively normal older adults. Exp Aging Res. 2005 Jul-Sep;31(3):291-312.

Kuo HK, Jones RN, Milberg WP, Tennstedt S, Talbot L, Morris JN, Lipsitz LA. Cognitive function in normal-weight, overweight, and obese older adults: an analysis of the Advanced Cognitive Training for Independent and Vital Elderly cohort. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2006 Jan;54(1):97-103.

Diehl M, Marsiske M, Horgas AL, Rosenberg A, Saczynski JS, Willis SL. The Revised Observed Tasks of Daily Living: A Performance-Based Assessment of Everyday Problem Solving in Older Adults. J Appl Gerontol. 2005;24(3):211-230.

Wadley VG, Crowe M, Marsiske M, Cook SE, Unverzagt FW, Rosenberg AL, Rexroth D. Changes in everyday function in individuals with psychometrically defined mild cognitive impairment in the Advanced Cognitive Training for Independent and Vital Elderly Study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2007 Aug;55(8):1192-8.

Cook SE, Marsiske M, Thomas KR, Unverzagt FW, Wadley VG, Langbaum JB, Crowe M. Identification of mild cognitive impairment in ACTIVE: algorithmic classification and stability. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2013 Jan;19(1):73-87. doi: 10.1017/S1355617712000938. Epub 2012 Oct 25.

Owsley C, Sloane M, McGwin G Jr, Ball K. Timed instrumental activities of daily living tasks: relationship to cognitive function and everyday performance assessments in older adults. Gerontology. 2002 Jul-Aug;48(4):254-65.

Gallo JJ, Rebok GW, Tennsted S, Wadley VG, Horgas A; Advanced Cognitive Training for Independent and Vital Elderly (Active) Study Investigators. Linking depressive symptoms and functional disability in late life. Aging Ment Health. 2003 Nov;7(6):469-80.

Caskie GI, Willis SL. Congruence of self-reported medications with pharmacy prescription records in low-income older adults. Gerontologist. 2004 Apr;44(2):176-85.

Edwards JD, Ross LA, Wadley VG, Clay OJ, Crowe M, Roenker DL, Ball KK. The useful field of view test: normative data for older adults. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2006 May;21(4):275-86. Epub 2006 May 15.

Wolinsky FD, Unverzagt FW, Smith DM, Jones R, Wright E, Tennstedt SL. The effects of the ACTIVE cognitive training trial on clinically relevant declines in health-related quality of life. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2006 Sep;61(5):S281-7.

Crowe M, Andel R, Wadley V, Cook S, Unverzagt F, Marsiske M, Ball K. Subjective cognitive function and decline among older adults with psychometrically defined amnestic MCI. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2006 Dec;21(12):1187-92.

Kuo HK, Jones RN, Milberg WP, Tennstedt S, Talbot L, Morris JN, Lipsitz LA. Effect of blood pressure and diabetes mellitus on cognitive and physical functions in older adults: a longitudinal analysis of the advanced cognitive training for independent and vital elderly cohort. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005 Jul;53(7):1154-61.

Wolinsky FD, Unverzagt FW, Smith DM, Jones R, Stoddard A, Tennstedt SL. The ACTIVE cognitive training trial and health-related quality of life: protection that lasts for 5 years. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2006 Dec;61(12):1324-9.

Ball K, Edwards JD, Ross LA. The impact of speed of processing training on cognitive and everyday functions. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2007 Jun;62 Spec No 1:19-31. Review.

Rebok GW, Carlson MC, Langbaum JB. Training and maintaining memory abilities in healthy older adults: traditional and novel approaches. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2007 Jun;62 Spec No 1:53-61. Review.

Unverzagt FW, Kasten L, Johnson KE, Rebok GW, Marsiske M, Koepke KM, Elias JW, Morris JN, Willis SL, Ball K, Rexroth DF, Smith DM, Wolinsky FD, Tennstedt SL. Effect of memory impairment on training outcomes in ACTIVE. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2007 Nov;13(6):953-60.

Edwards JD, Ross LA, Ackerman ML, Small BJ, Ball KK, Bradley S, Dodson JE. Longitudinal predictors of driving cessation among older adults from the ACTIVE clinical trial. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2008 Jan;63(1):P6-12.

Morgan AA, Marsiske M, Whitfield KE. Characterizing and explaining differences in cognitive test performance between african american and European American older adults. Exp Aging Res. 2008 Jan-Mar;34(1):80-100. doi: 10.1080/03610730701776427.

Vance DE, Ross LA, Crowe MG, Wadley VG, Edwards JD, Ball KK. THE RELATIONSHIP OF MEMORY, REASONING, AND SPEED OF PROCESSING ON FALLING AMONG OLDER ADULTS. Phys Occup Ther Geriatr. 2008;27(3):212-228.

Ackerman ML, Edwards JD, Ross LA, Ball KK, Lunsman M. Examination of cognitive and instrumental functional performance as indicators for driving cessation risk across 3 years. Gerontologist. 2008 Dec;48(6):802-10.

Langbaum JB, Rebok GW, Bandeen-Roche K, Carlson MC. Predicting memory training response patterns: results from ACTIVE. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2009 Jan;64(1):14-23. doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbn026. Epub 2009 Feb 4.

Tucker-Drob EM, Johnson KE, Jones RN. The cognitive reserve hypothesis: a longitudinal examination of age-associated declines in reasoning and processing speed. Dev Psychol. 2009 Mar;45(2):431-46. doi: 10.1037/a0014012.

Ross LA, Clay OJ, Edwards JD, Ball KK, Wadley VG, Vance DE, Cissell GM, Roenker DL, Joyce JJ. Do older drivers at-risk for crashes modify their driving over time? J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2009 Mar;64(2):163-70. doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbn034. Epub 2009 Feb 4.

Wolinsky FD, Vander Weg MW, Martin R, Unverzagt FW, Ball KK, Jones RN, Tennstedt SL. The effect of speed-of-processing training on depressive symptoms in ACTIVE. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2009 Apr;64(4):468-72. doi: 10.1093/gerona/gln044. Epub 2009 Jan 30.

Wolinsky FD, Mahncke HW, Kosinski M, Unverzagt FW, Smith DM, Jones RN, Stoddard A, Tennstedt SL. The ACTIVE cognitive training trial and predicted medical expenditures. BMC Health Serv Res. 2009 Jun 29;9:109. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-9-109.

Unverzagt FW, Smith DM, Rebok GW, Marsiske M, Morris JN, Jones R, Willis SL, Ball K, King JW, Koepke KM, Stoddard A, Tennstedt SL. The Indiana Alzheimer Disease Center's Symposium on Mild Cognitive Impairment. Cognitive training in older adults: lessons from the ACTIVE Study. Curr Alzheimer Res. 2009 Aug;6(4):375-83.

Wolinsky FD, Mahncke HW, Weg MW, Martin R, Unverzagt FW, Ball KK, Jones RN, Tennstedt SL. The ACTIVE cognitive training interventions and the onset of and recovery from suspected clinical depression. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2009 Sep;64(5):577-85. doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbp061. Epub 2009 Jul 17.

Edwards JD, Lunsman M, Perkins M, Rebok GW, Roth DL. Driving cessation and health trajectories in older adults. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2009 Dec;64(12):1290-5. doi: 10.1093/gerona/glp114. Epub 2009 Aug 12.

Edwards JD, Delahunt PB, Mahncke HW. Cognitive speed of processing training delays driving cessation. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2009 Dec;64(12):1262-7. doi: 10.1093/gerona/glp131. Epub 2009 Sep 2.

Kvale EA, Clay OJ, Ross-Meadows LA, McGee JS, Edwards JD, Unverzagt FW, Ritchie CS, Ball KK. Cognitive speed of processing and functional declines in older cancer survivors: an analysis of data from the ACTIVE trial. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2010 Jan 1;19(1):110-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2354.2008.01018.x. Epub 2009 Aug 26.

Wolinsky FD, Mahncke H, Vander Weg MW, Martin R, Unverzagt FW, Ball KK, Jones RN, Tennstedt SL. Speed of processing training protects self-rated health in older adults: enduring effects observed in the multi-site ACTIVE randomized controlled trial. Int Psychogeriatr. 2010 May;22(3):470-8. doi: 10.1017/S1041610209991281. Epub 2009 Dec 15.

O'Connor ML, Edwards JD, Wadley VG, Crowe M. Changes in mobility among older adults with psychometrically defined mild cognitive impairment. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2010 May;65B(3):306-16. doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbq003. Epub 2010 Feb 10.

Yen YC, Rebok GW, Gallo JJ, Jones RN, Tennstedt SL. Depressive symptoms impair everyday problem-solving ability through cognitive abilities in late life. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2011 Feb;19(2):142-50. doi: 10.1097/JGP.0b013e3181e89894.

Wolinsky FD, Vander Weg MW, Martin R, Unverzagt FW, Willis SL, Marsiske M, Rebok GW, Morris JN, Ball KK, Tennstedt SL. Does cognitive training improve internal locus of control among older adults? J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2010 Sep;65(5):591-8. doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbp117. Epub 2009 Dec 11.

Aiken Morgan AT, Marsiske M, Dzierzewski JM, Jones RN, Whitfield KE, Johnson KE, Cresci MK. Race-related cognitive test bias in the active study: a mimic model approach. Exp Aging Res. 2010 Oct;36(4):426-52. doi: 10.1080/0361073X.2010.507427.

Gross AL, Rebok GW, Unverzagt FW, Willis SL, Brandt J. Word list memory predicts everyday function and problem-solving in the elderly: results from the ACTIVE cognitive intervention trial. Neuropsychol Dev Cogn B Aging Neuropsychol Cogn. 2011 Mar;18(2):129-46. doi: 10.1080/13825585.2010.516814. Epub 2010 Nov 10.

Ball K, Edwards JD, Ross LA, McGwin G Jr. Cognitive training decreases motor vehicle collision involvement of older drivers. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2010 Nov;58(11):2107-13. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2010.03138.x.

Parisi JM, Gross AL, Rebok GW, Saczynski JS, Crowe M, Cook SE, Langbaum JB, Sartori A, Unverzagt FW. Modeling change in memory performance and memory perceptions: findings from the ACTIVE study. Psychol Aging. 2011 Sep;26(3):518-24. doi: 10.1037/a0022458.

O'Connor ML, Edwards JD, Small BJ, Andel R. Patterns of level and change in self-reported driving behaviors among older adults: who self-regulates? J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2012 Jul;67(4):437-46. doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbr122. Epub 2011 Dec 1.

Gross AL, Rebok GW. Memory training and strategy use in older adults: results from the ACTIVE study. Psychol Aging. 2011 Sep;26(3):503-17. doi: 10.1037/a0022687.

Gross AL, Rebok GW, Unverzagt FW, Willis SL, Brandt J. Cognitive predictors of everyday functioning in older adults: results from the ACTIVE Cognitive Intervention Trial. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2011 Sep;66(5):557-66. doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbr033. Epub 2011 May 9.

Unverzagt FW, Guey LT, Jones RN, Marsiske M, King JW, Wadley VG, Crowe M, Rebok GW, Tennstedt SL. ACTIVE cognitive training and rates of incident dementia. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2012 Jul;18(4):669-77. doi: 10.1017/S1355617711001470. Epub 2012 Mar 9.

Sisco SM, Marsiske M. Neighborhood Influences on Late Life Cognition in the ACTIVE Study. J Aging Res. 2012;2012:435826. doi: 10.1155/2012/435826. Epub 2012 Aug 26.

Gross AL, Inouye SK, Rebok GW, Brandt J, Crane PK, Parisi JM, Tommet D, Bandeen-Roche K, Carlson MC, Jones RN. Parallel but not equivalent: challenges and solutions for repeated assessment of cognition over time. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2012;34(7):758-72. doi: 10.1080/13803395.2012.681628. Epub 2012 Apr 30.

Gross AL, Rebok GW, Brandt J, Tommet D, Marsiske M, Jones RN. Modeling learning and memory using verbal learning tests: results from ACTIVE. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2013 Mar;68(2):153-67. doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbs053. Epub 2012 Aug 28.

Sartori AC, Wadley VG, Clay OJ, Parisi JM, Rebok GW, Crowe M. The relationship between cognitive function and life space: the potential role of personal control beliefs. Psychol Aging. 2012 Jun;27(2):364-74. doi: 10.1037/a0025212. Epub 2011 Aug 29.

Lin F, Chen DG, Vance DE, Ball KK, Mapstone M. Longitudinal relationships between subjective fatigue, cognitive function, and everyday functioning in old age. Int Psychogeriatr. 2013 Feb;25(2):275-85. doi: 10.1017/S1041610212001718. Epub 2012 Oct 19.

Publications automatically indexed to this study by ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier (NCT Number):

Clark DO, Xu H, Callahan CM, Unverzagt FW. Does Body Mass Index Modify Memory, Reasoning, and Speed of Processing Training Effects in Older Adults. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2016 Nov;24(11):2319-2326. doi: 10.1002/oby.21631.

• Responsible Party: HealthCore-NERI
• ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00298558
• Other Study ID Numbers: IA0091; U01NR004507 ( U.S. NIH Grant/Contract ); U01NR004508 ( U.S. NIH Grant/Contract ); U01AG014260 ( U.S. NIH Grant/Contract ); U01AG014282 ( U.S. NIH Grant/Contract ); U01AG014263 ( U.S. NIH Grant/Contract ); U01AG014289 ( U.S. NIH Grant/Contract ); U01AG014276 ( U.S. NIH Grant/Contract )
• First Submitted: February 28, 2006
• First Posted: March 2, 2006
• Results First Submitted: April 24, 2013
• Results First Posted: February 24, 2014
• Last Update Posted: April 16, 2014