Use of computer stimulating programs in patients with post-stroke cognitive impairment.

So you are saying you got brain training games to work when other research shows no effect? So write up a protocol on this and distribute to all the stroke hospitals in the world, OR figure out a way to distribute it to all 10 million yearly stroke survivors  from now  into perpetuity.

From here comes this:

Do “Brain-Training” Programs Work?

Summary In 2014, two groups of scientists published open letters on the efficacy of brain-training interventions, or “brain games,” for improving cognition. The first letter, a consensus statement from an international group of more than 70 scientists, claimed that brain games do not provide a scientifically grounded way to improve cognitive functioning or to stave off cognitive decline. Several months later, an international group of 133 scientists and practitioners countered that the literature is replete with demonstrations of the benefits of brain training for a wide variety of cognitive and everyday activities. How could two teams of scientists examine the same literature and come to conflicting “consensus” views about the effectiveness of brain training? 

Use of computer stimulating programs in patients with post-stroke cognitive impairment.

Использование компьютерных стимулирующих программ у пациентов с постинсультными когнитивными нарушениями.  Neurology, Neuropsychiatry, Psychosomatics , Volume 9(3) , Pgs. 48-53.

NARIC Accession Number: I245784.  What's this?
Author(s): Prokopenko S.V; Dyadyuk T.V; Mozheyko E.Yu; Bezdenezhnykh A.F; Koryagina T.D; Anay-Ool T.S.
Publication Year: 2017.
Abstract: The purpose of this study was to determine the efficiency of using computer stimulation programs (CSPs) for acute ischemic stroke (IS) in patients with cognitive impairment (CI). To this end, 81 patients aged 40 to 79 years with post-stroke CI (PSCI) were examined and randomized into two groups: a study group of 45 people, including 31 and 14 patients with predementia CI and mild dementia, respectively, and a median age of 61 [55; 68] years; and a comparison group of 36 patients, including 21 and 15 patients with predementia CI and mild dementia and a median age was 64 [57; 70] years. In addition to standard stroke therapy, the study group received a ten-day correction cycle for CI, by using CSPs. Cognitive functions (CF) were evaluated before and after classes, by applying a short mental status questionnaire (SMSQ), a battery of frontal lobe dysfunction tests (BFLDT), a clock drawing test, and a speech activity test. After 10 days of therapy (at 18–20 days of IS), the patients were observed to have statistically significant improvements of cognitive functions in all major neuropsychological scales: SMSQ, BFLDT, a clock drawing test, and a speech activity test (p>0.05). Assessing the total indicators of SMSQ subtests in both groups showed that the study group achieved statistically significant differences in memory, time and place orientation, and concentration. In the study group, the total values of BFTLD subtests were also statistically better in indicators such as speech fluency (by 33.0%), dynamic praxis (by 23.3%), a simple choice reaction (by 30.0%), and a complicated choice reaction (by 26.7%). At the same time, not only trained functions (attention, memory), but also other cognitive indicators improved. Re-examination demonstrated that the achieved results persisted 6-8 months later. In summary, CSPs are a promising area of neurorehabilitation. The method is effective, easy-to-use; the patients can do lessons at hospital and at home after discharge in the presence of relatives or by themselves. Further investigations will be able to evaluate the effectiveness of CSPs in patients with PSCI in the later periods of IS.
Descriptor Terms: Cognition, Computer applications, Cognitive rehabilitation, Stroke.
Language: Russian
Geographic Location(s): Europe, Russia.

Can this document be ordered through NARIC's document delivery service*?: Request Information.
Get this Document: https://nnp.ima-press.net/nnp/article/view/772/680.

Citation: Prokopenko S.V, Dyadyuk T.V, Mozheyko E.Yu, Bezdenezhnykh A.F, Koryagina T.D, Anay-Ool T.S. (2017). Use of computer stimulating programs in patients with post-stroke cognitive impairment.  Использование компьютерных стимулирующих программ у пациентов с постинсультными когнитивными нарушениями.  Neurology, Neuropsychiatry, Psychosomatics , 9(3), Pgs. 48-53. Retrieved 11/22/2019, from REHABDATA database.

Brain-training games don’t really train brains, a new study suggests

So what the hell is your doctors solution to prevent cognitive decline? DEMAND an answer.

Brain-training games don’t really train brains, a new study suggests

By Jenna Gallegos July 10

The first large study to rigorously examine brain-training games using cognitive tests and brain imaging adds to evidence that they are not particularly good at training brains and appear to have no more effect on healthy brains than video games. The study is another blow to companies such as Lumosity that have been accused of falsely claiming their programs can improve mental performance.
In a study published Monday in the Journal of Neuroscience, 128 young adults were tested for mental performance after playing either Lumosity brain-training games or regular video games for 10 weeks. Researchers saw no evidence that commercial brain-training leads to improvements in memory, decision-making, sustained attention or ability to switch between mental tasks.
In early 2016, Lumosity paid a $2 million fine to settle charges of misleading advertising. While its commercials boasted that Lumosity games are based on the science of neuroplasticity, the Federal Trade Commission and an open letter from 69 brain scientists insisted the research does not support claims that brain games make people smarter or stave off mental decline. While a study conducted by Lumosity in 2015 suggested that brain-training games improve performance on some mental tasks better than crossword puzzles do, other studies have shown no effect.
Caryn Lerman and Joseph Kable at the University of Pennsylvania were interested in whether brain-training games could help people control risky or impulsive behaviors. “You can predict using brain imaging data who will succeed and who will fail in an attempt to quit smoking,” Lerman explained. The “executive control network,” or ECN, is more active in those who will likely quit. The ECN is important for self-control, planning, and goal-setting. When we’re focused on a task and forming memories, the ECN is activated. When we begin to daydream, our “default mode network” takes over.
Other studies have suggested cognitive exercises such as brain games increase activity in the ECN, but few have shown translation of that increase into everyday activities.
“People who choose immediate rewards over long-term benefits are more likely to engage in risky behaviors,” said Lerman. To measure inclinations toward impulsive decisions in the study, researchers had volunteers rapidly make a series of hypothetical choices. For example, would they prefer to receive $20 now or $40 in a month? The answer seems like a no-brainer, but imagine if the question was instead: Should I eat a piece of cake now, or lose a pound this week? We make these kinds of decisions all the time, and our ECN is involved.

Brain-scan images showing areas of increased brain activity when people face decisions about immediate or delayed rewards. (Courtesy of Joseph Kable)

The researchers predicted that playing brain-training games that require memory and focus might activate the ECN of healthy young adults more than regular video games, leading to improved decision-making. Participants in the brain-training group played Lumosity computer games designed to improve mental skills like memory; for example, they would have to click on fish to feed them while making sure not to feed the same fish twice.

Brain training games don't actually train your brain, study says

If they don't work, what EXACTLY is your doctor having you do to keep your cognition excellent?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/07/11/brain-training-games-dont-actually-train-brain-study-says/

Researchers say brain training games don't make people more clever

• Telegraph Reporters

11 July 2017 • 9:57am

Brain training computer games do not make you cleverer, according to scientists. A new study suggests that commercial brain training computer games have no effect on cognitive function.
Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania found that they also have no effect on decision-making.

Dr Joseph Kable, the Baird Term associate professor in the department of Psychology in the School of Arts & Sciences, and Dr Caryn Lerman, the vice dean for Strategic Initiatives in the Perelman School of Medicine, led the study and their results were published in the Journal of Neuroscience.

 

They hoped commercial brain training regimes could reduce individuals' propensity to make risky or impulsive choices.
Dr Lerman's prior work had shown that engagement of brain circuits involved in self-control predicts whether people can refrain from smoking.
Dr Kable said: "Our motivation was that there are enough hints in the literature that cognitive training deserved a real, rigorous, full-scale test.
"Especially given the addiction angle, we're looking for things that will help people make the changes in their lives that they want to make, one of which is being more future-oriented."
The researchers knew that people with stronger cognitive abilities tend to make less impulsive decisions.
They also knew that this behaviour is likely mediated by a set of brain structures in the dorsolateral prefrontal area of the brain that have been associated with performance on the executive function tasks, like the ones in the Lumosity battery.

He said: "The logic would be that if you can train cognitive abilities and change activity in these brain structures then that may change your likelihood of impulsive behaviour."

The researchers recruited two groups, each with 64 healthy young adults.
One group was asked to follow a brain training regimen, performing the executive function games for 30 minutes a day, five days a week for ten weeks.
The other group followed the same schedule but played online video games instead.
Both groups were told that the study was investigating whether playing online video games improves cognition and changes one's decision-making.
The researchers had two assessments of decision-making that participants completed before and after the training regimen.
To assess impulsive decision-making, the participants were asked to choose between smaller rewards now and larger rewards later.
Totest risky decision-making, they were asked to choose between larger rewards at a lower probability versus smaller rewards at a higher probability.
The researchers found that the training didn't induce any changes in brain activity or decision-making during these tasks.
The participants were also asked to complete a series of cognitive tests that were not part of the training to see if the program had any effect on their general cognitive abilities.
While both groups showed improvement, the researchers found that commercial brain training didn't lead to any more improvement than online video games.
Dr Mary Falcone, study co-author, said: "Habitual behaviours such as tobacco use and overeating contribute to preventable deaths from cancer, cardiovascular disease and other public health problems."

Dr Lerman said: "As currently available behavioural and medical treatments for these habitual behaviours are ineffective for most people, there is a critical need to develop innovative approaches to behaviour change.
"Changing the brain to change behaviour is the approach that we are taking."