0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Cognitive Reserve and Related Constructs: A Unified Framework Across Cognitive and Brain Dimensions of Aging

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Cognitive reserve and related constructs are valuable for aging-related research, but consistency and clarification of terms is needed as there is still no universally agreed upon nomenclature. We propose a new set of definitions for the concepts of reserve, maintenance, and resilience, and we invoke parallel concepts for each that are applicable to cognition and to brain. Our definitions of reserve and resilience correspond reasonably well to dictionary definitions of these terms. We demonstrate logical/methodological problems that arise from incongruence between commonly used conceptual and operational definitions. In our view, cognitive reserve should be defined conceptually as one’s total cognitive resources at a given point in time. IQ and education are examples of common operational definitions (often referred to as proxies) of cognitive reserve. Many researchers define cognitive reserve conceptually as a property that allows for performing better than expected cognitively in the face of aging or pathology. Performing better than expected is demonstrated statistically by interactions in which the moderator is typically IQ or education. The result is an irreconcilable situation in which cognitive reserve is both the moderator and the moderation effect itself. Our proposed nomenclature resolves this logical inconsistency by defining performing better than expected as cognitive resilience. Thus, in our usage, we would test the hypothesis that high cognitive reserve confers greater cognitive resilience. Operational definitions (so-called proxies) should not conflate factors that may influence reserve—such as occupational complexity or engagement in cognitive activities—with cognitive reserve itself. Because resources may be depleted with aging or pathology, one’s level of cognitive reserve may change over time and will be dependent on when assessment takes place. Therefore, in addition to cognitive reserve and cognitive resilience, we introduce maintenance of cognitive reserve as a parallel to brain maintenance. If, however, education is the measure of reserve in older adults, it precludes assessing change or maintenance of reserve. Finally, we discuss consideration of resistance as a subcategory of resilience, reverse causation, use of residual scores to assess performing better than expected given some adverse factor, and what constitutes high vs. low cognitive reserve across different studies.

          Related collections

          Most cited references42

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Cognitive reserve in ageing and Alzheimer's disease.

          The concept of cognitive reserve provides an explanation for differences between individuals in susceptibility to age-related brain changes or pathology related to Alzheimer's disease, whereby some people can tolerate more of these changes than others and maintain function. Epidemiological studies suggest that lifelong experiences, including educational and occupational attainment, and leisure activities in later life, can increase this reserve. For example, the risk of developing Alzheimer's disease is reduced in individuals with higher educational or occupational attainment. Reserve can conveniently be divided into two types: brain reserve, which refers to differences in the brain structure that may increase tolerance to pathology, and cognitive reserve, which refers to differences between individuals in how tasks are performed that might enable some people to be more resilient to brain changes than others. Greater understanding of the concept of cognitive reserve could lead to interventions to slow cognitive ageing or reduce the risk of dementia. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Long-term effects of cognitive training on everyday functional outcomes in older adults.

            Cognitive training has been shown to improve cognitive abilities in older adults but the effects of cognitive training on everyday function have not been demonstrated. To determine the effects of cognitive training on daily function and durability of training on cognitive abilities. Five-year follow-up of a randomized controlled single-blind trial with 4 treatment groups. A volunteer sample of 2832 persons (mean age, 73.6 years; 26% black), living independently in 6 US cities, was recruited from senior housing, community centers, and hospitals and clinics. The study was conducted between April 1998 and December 2004. Five-year follow-up was completed in 67% of the sample. Ten-session training for memory (verbal episodic memory), reasoning (inductive reasoning), or speed of processing (visual search and identification); 4-session booster training at 11 and 35 months after training in a random sample of those who completed training. Self-reported and performance-based measures of daily function and cognitive abilities. The reasoning group reported significantly less difficulty in the instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) than the control group (effect size, 0.29; 99% confidence interval [CI], 0.03-0.55). Neither speed of processing training (effect size, 0.26; 99% CI, -0.002 to 0.51) nor memory training (effect size, 0.20; 99% CI, -0.06 to 0.46) had a significant effect on IADL. The booster training for the speed of processing group, but not for the other 2 groups, showed a significant effect on the performance-based functional measure of everyday speed of processing (effect size, 0.30; 99% CI, 0.08-0.52). No booster effects were seen for any of the groups for everyday problem-solving or self-reported difficulty in IADL. Each intervention maintained effects on its specific targeted cognitive ability through 5 years (memory: effect size, 0.23 [99% CI, 0.11-0.35]; reasoning: effect size, 0.26 [99% CI, 0.17-0.35]; speed of processing: effect size, 0.76 [99% CI, 0.62-0.90]). Booster training produced additional improvement with the reasoning intervention for reasoning performance (effect size, 0.28; 99% CI, 0.12-0.43) and the speed of processing intervention for speed of processing performance (effect size, 0.85; 99% CI, 0.61-1.09). Reasoning training resulted in less functional decline in self-reported IADL. Compared with the control group, cognitive training resulted in improved cognitive abilities specific to the abilities trained that continued 5 years after the initiation of the intervention. clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00298558.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Whitepaper: Defining and investigating cognitive reserve, brain reserve, and brain maintenance

              Several concepts, which in the aggregate get might be used to account for "resilience" against age- and disease-related changes, have been the subject of much research. These include brain reserve, cognitive reserve, and brain maintenance. However, different investigators have use these terms in different ways, and there has never been an attempt to arrive at consensus on the definition of these concepts. Furthermore, there has been confusion regarding the measurement of these constructs and the appropriate ways to apply them to research. Therefore the reserve, resilience, and protective factors professional interest area, established under the auspices of the Alzheimer's Association, established a whitepaper workgroup to develop consensus definitions for cognitive reserve, brain reserve, and brain maintenance. The workgroup also evaluated measures that have been used to implement these concepts in research settings and developed guidelines for research that explores or utilizes these concepts. The workgroup hopes that this whitepaper will form a reference point for researchers in this area and facilitate research by supplying a common language.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Aging Neurosci
                Front Aging Neurosci
                Front. Aging Neurosci.
                Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                1663-4365
                27 May 2022
                2022
                : 14
                : 834765
                Affiliations
                [1] 1Department of Psychiatry, University of California , San Diego, La Jolla, CA, United States
                [2] 2Center for Behavior Genetics of Aging, University of California , San Diego, La Jolla, CA, United States
                [3] 3Center of Excellence for Stress and Mental Health, VA San Diego Healthcare System , San Diego, CA, United States
                [4] 4Department of Psychology, San Diego State University , San Diego, CA, United States
                [5] 5Department of Psychological & Brain Sciences, Boston University , Boston, MA, United States
                Author notes

                Edited by: Anja Soldan, Johns Hopkins University, United States

                Reviewed by: David Bartrés-Faz, University of Barcelona, Spain; Colin Groot, Lund University, Sweden

                *Correspondence: William S. Kremen wkremen@ 123456ucsd.edu

                Specialty section: This article was submitted to Neurocognitive Aging and Behavior, a section of the journal Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience

                Article
                10.3389/fnagi.2022.834765
                9196190
                35711905
                3d674b29-5fde-4c57-93ea-589e20a2be96
                Copyright © 2022 Kremen, Elman, Panizzon, Eglit, Sanderson-Cimino, Williams, Lyons and Franz.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 13 December 2021
                : 03 May 2022
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 1, Equations: 0, References: 42, Pages: 10, Words: 9463
                Funding
                Funded by: National Institute on Aging, doi 10.13039/100000049;
                Award ID: AG050595
                Funded by: National Institute on Aging, doi 10.13039/100000049;
                Award ID: AG022381
                Funded by: National Institute on Aging, doi 10.13039/100000049;
                Award ID: AG06047., AG062483, AG055367
                Funded by: National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, doi 10.13039/100006108;
                Award ID: KL2TR001444
                Funded by: National Institute on Aging, doi 10.13039/100000049;
                Categories
                Aging Neuroscience
                Review

                Neurosciences
                cognitive resilience,brain resilience,cognitive reserve maintenance,peak reserve,current reserve,reverse causation

                Comments

                Comment on this article