Blog
About

65
views
2
recommends
+1 Recommend
0
shares
  • Review: found
Is Open Access

Review of 'Cognitive Reserve in the Healthy Elderly: Cognitive and Psychological Factors'

Bookmark
4
Interesting study that is relevant for the aging research.
Average rating:
    Rated 4.5 of 5.
Level of importance:
    Rated 4 of 5.
Level of validity:
    Rated 3 of 5.
Level of completeness:
    Rated 5 of 5.
Level of comprehensibility:
    Rated 5 of 5.
Competing interests:
One of the co-author has shared publications.

Reviewed article

  • Record: found
  • Abstract: found
  • Article: found
Is Open Access

Cognitive Reserve in the Healthy Elderly: Cognitive and Psychological Factors

(2014)
Cognitive reserve (CR) helps explain the mismatch between expected cognitive decline and observed maintenance of cognitive functioning in older age. Factors such as education, literacy, lifestyle, and social networking are usually considered to be proxies of CR and its variability between individuals. A more direct approach to examine CR is through the assessment of capacity to gain from practice in a standardized challenging cognitive task that demands activation of cognitive resources. In this study, we applied a testing-the-limits paradigm to a group of 136 healthy elderly subjects (60-75 years) and additionally examined the possible contribution of complex mental activities and quality of sleep to cognitive performance gain. We found a significant, but variable gain and identified verbal memory, cognitive flexibility and problem solving as significant factors. This outcome is in line with our earlier study on CR in healthy mental aging (Zihl et al., 2014). Interestingly and contrary to expectations, our analysis revealed that complex mental activities and sleep quality do not significantly influence CR. Contrasting “high” and ”low” cognitive performers revealed significant differences in verbal memory and cognitive flexibility; again, complex mental activities and sleep quality did not contribute to this measure of CR. In conclusion, the results of this study support and extend previous findings on CR in older age; further they underline the need for improvements in existing protocols for assessing CR in a dynamic manner.
    Bookmark

    Review information

    10.14293/S2199-1006.1.SOR-SOCSCI.ADKHNX.v1.RGQBJM

    This work has been published open access under Creative Commons Attribution License CC BY 4.0, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Conditions, terms of use and publishing policy can be found at www.scienceopen.com.

    Review text

    In this interesting study, the authors replicated the use of the paradigm testing-the-limits paradigm (Digit Symbol Substitution Test- DSST) in a group of 136 healthy elderly subjects (age range: 60–75 years) with high level of education (≥13 years of schooling). This mentally challenging task is considered to assess Cognitive Reserve (CR) in a dynamic way. Additionally, the authors assessed several cognitive and non cognitive variables that contribute to, or interact with CR, as cognitive multitasking, verbal learning and long-term memory, verbal short-term and working memory, information processing speed/attention and cognitive flexibility, interference, verbal fluency, visual problem-solving, and reading performance and psychological variables as mood, social and physical activities, sleep quality, and well-being.
    The authors in their introduction consider that it is important to demonstrate that the DSST is a valid and reliable measure of the CR, and should be reproduced. While I strongly agree with this assertion, the authors had already applied this instrument in a similar population (N=140, age 57–74 yrs, M = 67.27, SD = 4.16, >13 years education, see Zihl J et al. PLoS One. 2014;9: e84590). The use of a high selected healthy elderly group (with high educational level) was possibly related with the observed lack of association between CR and the non-cognitive variables assessed with this study. While the authors reflect this in the discussion, these should also be justified in the introduction section.
    Regarding the methods and results sections, some minor comments/suggestions:
    1) The authors acknowledge that “All corresponding p-values reported are Bonferroni-corrected due to multiple comparisons, with significance level set at α = .05”. These Bonferroni corrections are not clear in the data presented (eg., report significant data with p=.05 – see table 2).
    2) Considering the relations between psychological variables and cognitive variables, between cognitive variables and CR, as well as between CR and both cognitive and psychological variables, a moderation/mediation analysis should be also investigated.
    3) As the authors report that there was no evidence that psychological measures were influenced by aging, the same should be reported for cognitive measures.
    4) The authors could provide the data showing that “comparison of high and low performers in this study revealed higher performance in measures of cognitive architecture in subjects with higher mood scores and higher engagement in leisure activities, supporting the view that mood and cognitive lifestyle are key determinants of cognitive performance in healthy older ” page 6, if we consider that no significant differences were found in psychological measures obtained from low and high performers (results section) – page 5.

    Comments

    Thank you very much for your detailed review and your very helpful comments and

    suggestions, which we have considered in our revision.

    1. It is now stated more clearly in the text how the Bonferroni correction was applied.

    2. A more ambitious statistical approach has been chosen and a regression model included

    in the manuscript.

    3. We have mentioned the significant correlations between age and cognitive measures in

    the result section.

    4. The have changed the section on the comparison of high and low performers accordingly.

    2015-11-28 08:11 UTC
    +1

    Comment on this review