Cognitive AgingMixedWMNCT05672771
The Effects of Mixed Working Memory Training on Subsequent Training Gains Among Older Adults
A study testing Different Mixed Condition (DM) and Different Single Condition (DS) in people with Cognitive Aging, run by University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
While an intellectually active and socially integrated lifestyle shows promise for promoting cognitive resilience, the mechanisms underlying any such effects are not well understood. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 60 to 90 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Cognitive Aging
- What is being tested?
- Different Mixed Condition (DM) and Different Single Condition (DS)
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- Yes, some participants may receive a placebo
- How many people
- 90 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- 26 Aug 2020to 30 Jan 2022
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 60 to 90 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Native English speakers or acquisition of English before age 6 yrs old
- Self-report of hearing ability sufficient to engage with lab personnel
- No stroke in the last 3 years
- No current cancer treatment involving radiation or chemotherapy - No self-reported learning disability
- No self-reported psychiatric disorder
- Willingness to be randomly assigned to training conditions
Show all 9Show fewer
- No plans that would limit participation during the activity period
- No participation in a cognitive intervention program in the last year
- No additional Exclusion Criteria.
Who cannot join
None listed.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
While an intellectually active and socially integrated lifestyle shows promise for promoting cognitive resilience, the mechanisms underlying any such effects are not well understood. The aim of the current project is test the implications of the "mutualism" hypothesis, which suggests that intellectual function emerges out of the reciprocal influence of growth in abilities as they are exercised in the ecology of everyday life. Such a view implies that improvement in one component will enhance the modifiability of a related component. An additional aim was to test the idea that mutualistic effects will be enhanced by more diverse training in related skills, such as interleaved training of multiple skills, relative to single-component training.
A "successive-enrichment" paradigm was developed to test this with working memory (WM) as the target for training given its centrality in models of attention, intellectual function, and everyday capacities such as reasoning and language comprehension. All participants receive the same target training, but the nature of the training that precedes it is manipulated. Outcome measures include pre- to posttest gains in working memory and episodic memory, as well as the rate of gain in learning the target task. The principle of enhanced mutualism would predict that more diverse experiences related to the target skill will enhance efficiency in acquiring the target skill.
Read the detailed description
Within conventional assessments of transfer that examine the effects of training on measures of function at a single time point, these ideas has not been tested. In this project, a "successive-enrichment" paradigm was used to examine improvement in cognitive skills as a function of different conditions for earlier training. The target for training is working memory (WM) given its centrality in models of attention, intellectual function, and everyday capacities such as reasoning and language comprehension.
In the successive-enrichment paradigm, all participants receive the same target training, but the nature of the training that precedes it is manipulated. Thus, in Phase 2, all participants are trained for 10 days on the reading span task (RdgS), in which the task is to verify sensibility in a set of sentences and retain in memory an alphabetic character presented after each sentence. The set size adapts to the participant's skill (in both accuracy of sensibility decisions and memory for the letter set). In Phase 1, participants are randomly assigned to one of four groups designed to test the assumption that related and diverse experiences with the target skill differentially enhance the rate of learning the new skill. In the Same Task (ST) control, participants train on the RdgS, and were expected to be at ceiling in Phase 2. In the Different Single condition (DS), participants trained on a WM task different from that in Phase 1 (the lexical decision span). In the Different Mixed (DM) condition, participants trained on two different interleaved WM tasks, the lexical decision span and the category span. In the non-WM Placebo Control (PC), participants train on a speeded lexical decision task (matched in materials and verbal decision component to the lexical decision span the but requiring no simultaneous memory.
Outcome measures include pre- to posttest gains in working memory and episodic memory, as well as the rate of gain in learning the RdgS in Phase 2. The PC and ST controls define the lower and upper limits of performance, respectively. The principle of enhanced mutualism would predict that the DM group will show more efficient learning of the RdgS in Phase 2 than the DS group, which will both show more efficient learning than the PC group.
- Conditions
- Cognitive Aging
- Being tested
- Different Mixed Condition (DM), Different Single Condition (DS), Same Task (ST) Practice Control, Non-WM Placebo Control (PC)
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Different Mixed Condition (DM)Behavioural
Participants engage in home-based training on two working memory tasks, both different from those in the target task training. Goal is 10 days of training, with 4 8-min blocks of training each day.
Different Single Condition (DS)Behavioural
Participants engage in home-based training on a working memory task that is different from that in the target task training. Goal is 10 days of training, with 4 8-min blocks of training each day.
Same Task (ST) Practice ControlBehavioural
Participants engage in home-based training on the exact same working memory tasks as that in the target task training. Goal is 10 days of training, with 4 8-min blocks of training each day.
Non-WM Placebo Control (PC)Behavioural
Participants engage in home-based training on speeded verbal decision, which unlike the target task training, has no memory component. Goal is 10 days of training, with 4 8-min blocks of training each day.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Different Mixed Condition (DM) | Experimental | Training in both Lexical Decision Span and Category Span in Phase 1 (which are both different from the target task Reading Span in Phase 2). Receives: Behavioral: Different Mixed Condition (DM) |
| Different Single Condition (DS) | Experimental | Training in the Lexical Decision Span in Phase 1 (which is different from the target task Reading Span in Phase 2). Receives: Behavioral: Different Single Condition (DS) |
| Same Task (ST) Practice Control | Active comparator | Training in Reading Span task in Phase 1 (which is the same as target task in Phase 2). Receives: Behavioral: Same Task (ST) Practice Control |
| Non-WM Placebo Control (PC) | Placebo comparator | Training in a speeded Lexical Decision task only (which has no memory component) in Phase 1 prior to Phase 2 training in WM. Receives: Behavioral: Non-WM Placebo Control (PC) |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Change in Overall Working Memory
Average change in working memory from pre- to posttest in z-score units ("standard unit change"). For each working memory measure (Reading Span, Lexical Decision Span, Category Span, Operation Span, and Count Span), the change in z-score units was calculated [(posttest score - pretest score) / standard deviation of the scores at pretest)]. The score reported is the mean of these 5 values. A z-score of 0 represents no change from pretest to posttest; the unit is the standard deviations of the sample at pretest (e.g., a score 0.5 would indicate a half standard deviation improvement in overall working memory). There is no agreed upon standard of clinical significance for improvement in working memory
Measured: Change from baseline to 5-6 wks after pretest
Change in Reading Span
Change in Reading Span score from pre- to posttest in z-score units ("standard unit change"). The change in z-score units was calculated [(posttest score - pretest score) / standard deviation of the scores at pretest)]. A z-score of 0 represents no change from pretest to posttest; the unit is the standard deviations of the sample at pretest (e.g., a score 0.5 would indicate a half standard deviation improvement in overall working memory). There is no agreed upon standard of clinical significance for improvement in working memory
Measured: Change from Baseline to 5-6 weeks after pretest
Secondary outcomes (1)
Training Gains on the Reading Span Task in Phase 2
In Phase 2, training data on the target task (Reading Span) is collected over 10 days. Training gains are estimated by the coefficients for the condition contrast by training interaction in a linear mixed effects model, in which mean working memory score across training days was modeled as a function of the Phase 1 training condition. Using the lme4 and lmerTest packages for R version 4.2.2, a mixed-effects linear regression model was employed to model the mean daily span score with condition and training day as the fixed factors, and a by-subject random intercept, using the restricted maximum likelihood (REML) method of estimation.
Measured: 2 weeks
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted5 Jan 2023
- Study start26 Aug 2020
- Primary completion30 Jan 2022
- Study completion30 Jan 2022
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, outcome measures and adverse events reported by the sponsor.
- Publications (10)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Cognitive AgingStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Basic science
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Factorial
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Participant
- Enrolment
- 90 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- National Institute on Aging (NIA)
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Elizabeth A L Stine-Morrow, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
- Investigators
- Elizabeth A L Stine-Morrow, PhD, Principal investigator, University of Illinois Chicago
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05672771
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- Mixed Working Memory Training
- Other IDs
- R56AG058708
- Acronym
- MixedWM
- Status last verified
- Mar 2024
- First submitted
- 16 May 2022
- Last updated
- 28 Mar 2024
- Results posted
- Yes, on ClinicalTrials.gov
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Yes: Deidentified data and Analytic Code will be made available on OSF.
Publications
Stine-Morrow EAL, Payne BR, Roberts BW, Kramer AF, Morrow DG, Payne L, Hill PL, Jackson JJ, Gao X, Noh SR, Janke MC, Parisi JM. Training versus engagement as paths to cognitive enrichment with aging. Psychol Aging. 2014 Dec;29(4):891-906. doi: 10.1037/a0038244. Epub 2014 Nov 17.
PubMed 25402337Payne BR, Stine-Morrow EAL. The Effects of Home-Based Cognitive Training on Verbal Working Memory and Language Comprehension in Older Adulthood. Front Aging Neurosci. 2017 Aug 8;9:256. doi: 10.3389/fnagi.2017.00256. eCollection 2017.
PubMed 28848421Savi AO, Marsman M, van der Maas HLJ, Maris GKJ. The Wiring of Intelligence. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2019 Nov;14(6):1034-1061. doi: 10.1177/1745691619866447. Epub 2019 Oct 24.
PubMed 31647746van der Maas HL, Dolan CV, Grasman RP, Wicherts JM, Huizenga HM, Raijmakers ME. A dynamical model of general intelligence: the positive manifold of intelligence by mutualism. Psychol Rev. 2006 Oct;113(4):842-61. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.113.4.842.
PubMed 17014305Van Der Maas HLJ, Kan KJ, Marsman M, Stevenson CE. Network Models for Cognitive Development and Intelligence. J Intell. 2017 Apr 20;5(2):16. doi: 10.3390/jintelligence5020016.
PubMed 31162407Daneman M, Merikle PM. Working memory and language comprehension: A meta-analysis. Psychon Bull Rev. 1996 Dec;3(4):422-33. doi: 10.3758/BF03214546.
PubMed 24213976Stine-Morrow, E. A. L., & Manavbasi, I. (2022). Beyond "Use It or Lose It": The impact of engagement on cognitive aging. Annual Review of Developmental Psychology, 4, 319-352.
Brown, P. C., Roediger, H. L., & McDaniel, M. A. (2014). Make it stick: The science of successful learning. Harvard University Press.
Engle RW, Tuholski SW, Laughlin JE, Conway ARA. Working memory, short-term memory, and general fluid intelligence: a latent-variable approach. J Exp Psychol Gen. 1999 Sep;128(3):309-331. doi: 10.1037//0096-3445.128.3.309.
PubMed 10513398Conway AR, Kane MJ, Bunting MF, Hambrick DZ, Wilhelm O, Engle RW. Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user's guide. Psychon Bull Rev. 2005 Oct;12(5):769-86. doi: 10.3758/bf03196772.
PubMed 16523997
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 28 Mar 2024. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- The Effects of Mixed Working Memory Training on Subsequent Training Gains Among Older Adults
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05672771
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- MixedWM / Mixed Working Memory Training
- Conditions
- Cognitive Aging
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 90 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- National Institute on Aging (NIA)
- Study start
- 26 Aug 2020 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 30 Jan 2022 (actual)
- Study completion
- 30 Jan 2022 (actual)
- First posted
- 5 Jan 2023 (actual)
- Results
- Posted 28 Mar 2024
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
While an intellectually active and socially integrated lifestyle shows promise for promoting cognitive resilience, the mechanisms underlying any such effects are not well understood. The aim of the current project is test the implications of the "mutualism" hypothesis, which suggests that intellectual function emerges out of the reciprocal influence of growth in abilities as they are exercised in the ecology of everyday life. Such a view implies that improvement in one component will enhance the modifiability of a related component. An additional aim was to test the idea that mutualistic effects will be enhanced by more diverse training in related skills, such as interleaved training of multiple skills, relative to single-component training.
A "successive-enrichment" paradigm was developed to test this with working memory (WM) as the target for training given its centrality in models of attention, intellectual function, and everyday capacities such as reasoning and language comprehension. All participants receive the same target training, but the nature of the training that precedes it is manipulated. Outcome measures include pre- to posttest gains in working memory and episodic memory, as well as the rate of gain in learning the target task. The principle of enhanced mutualism would predict that more diverse experiences related to the target skill will enhance efficiency in acquiring the target skill.
Detailed description
Within conventional assessments of transfer that examine the effects of training on measures of function at a single time point, these ideas has not been tested. In this project, a "successive-enrichment" paradigm was used to examine improvement in cognitive skills as a function of different conditions for earlier training. The target for training is working memory (WM) given its centrality in models of attention, intellectual function, and everyday capacities such as reasoning and language comprehension.
In the successive-enrichment paradigm, all participants receive the same target training, but the nature of the training that precedes it is manipulated. Thus, in Phase 2, all participants are trained for 10 days on the reading span task (RdgS), in which the task is to verify sensibility in a set of sentences and retain in memory an alphabetic character presented after each sentence. The set size adapts to the participant's skill (in both accuracy of sensibility decisions and memory for the letter set). In Phase 1, participants are randomly assigned to one of four groups designed to test the assumption that related and diverse experiences with the target skill differentially enhance the rate of learning the new skill. In the Same Task (ST) control, participants train on the RdgS, and were expected to be at ceiling in Phase 2. In the Different Single condition (DS), participants trained on a WM task different from that in Phase 1 (the lexical decision span). In the Different Mixed (DM) condition, participants trained on two different interleaved WM tasks, the lexical decision span and the category span. In the non-WM Placebo Control (PC), participants train on a speeded lexical decision task (matched in materials and verbal decision component to the lexical decision span the but requiring no simultaneous memory.
Outcome measures include pre- to posttest gains in working memory and episodic memory, as well as the rate of gain in learning the RdgS in Phase 2. The PC and ST controls define the lower and upper limits of performance, respectively. The principle of enhanced mutualism would predict that the DM group will show more efficient learning of the RdgS in Phase 2 than the DS group, which will both show more efficient learning than the PC group.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Basic science
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Factorial
- Masking
- Single blind (participant)
- Number of arms
- 4
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Different Mixed Condition (DM) | Experimental | Behavioral: Different Mixed Condition (DM)Training in both Lexical Decision Span and Category Span in Phase 1 (which are both different from the target task Reading Span in Phase 2). |
| Different Single Condition (DS) | Experimental | Behavioral: Different Single Condition (DS)Training in the Lexical Decision Span in Phase 1 (which is different from the target task Reading Span in Phase 2). |
| Same Task (ST) Practice Control | Active comparator | Behavioral: Same Task (ST) Practice ControlTraining in Reading Span task in Phase 1 (which is the same as target task in Phase 2). |
| Non-WM Placebo Control (PC) | Placebo comparator | Behavioral: Non-WM Placebo Control (PC)Training in a speeded Lexical Decision task only (which has no memory component) in Phase 1 prior to Phase 2 training in WM. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 60 to 90 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (9 listed)
- Native English speakers or acquisition of English before age 6 yrs old
- Self-report of hearing ability sufficient to engage with lab personnel
- No stroke in the last 3 years
- No current cancer treatment involving radiation or chemotherapy - No self-reported learning disability
- No self-reported psychiatric disorder
Key exclusion criteria (0 listed)
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Different Mixed Condition (DM)Participants engage in home-based training on two working memory tasks, both different from those in the target task training. Goal is 10 days of training, with 4 8-min blocks of training each day. | Behavioural | Different Mixed Condition (DM) |
| Different Single Condition (DS)Participants engage in home-based training on a working memory task that is different from that in the target task training. Goal is 10 days of training, with 4 8-min blocks of training each day. | Behavioural | Different Single Condition (DS) |
| Same Task (ST) Practice ControlParticipants engage in home-based training on the exact same working memory tasks as that in the target task training. Goal is 10 days of training, with 4 8-min blocks of training each day. | Behavioural | Same Task (ST) Practice Control |
| Non-WM Placebo Control (PC)Participants engage in home-based training on speeded verbal decision, which unlike the target task training, has no memory component. Goal is 10 days of training, with 4 8-min blocks of training each day. | Behavioural | Non-WM Placebo Control (PC) |
Primary outcome
Change in Overall Working Memory
Time frame: Change from baseline to 5-6 wks after pretest
Average change in working memory from pre- to posttest in z-score units ("standard unit change"). For each working memory measure (Reading Span, Lexical Decision Span, Category Span, Operation Span, and Count Span), the change in z-score units was calculated [(posttest score - pretest score) / standard deviation of the scores at pretest)]. The score reported is the mean of these 5 values. A z-score of 0 represents no change from pretest to posttest; the unit is the standard deviations of the sample at pretest (e.g., a score 0.5 would indicate a half standard deviation improvement in overall working memory). There is no agreed upon standard of clinical significance for improvement in working memory
Change in Reading Span
Time frame: Change from Baseline to 5-6 weeks after pretest
Change in Reading Span score from pre- to posttest in z-score units ("standard unit change"). The change in z-score units was calculated [(posttest score - pretest score) / standard deviation of the scores at pretest)]. A z-score of 0 represents no change from pretest to posttest; the unit is the standard deviations of the sample at pretest (e.g., a score 0.5 would indicate a half standard deviation improvement in overall working memory). There is no agreed upon standard of clinical significance for improvement in working memory
1 secondary outcome
Training Gains on the Reading Span Task in Phase 2
Time frame: 2 weeks
Results and safety
Loading the posted results from ClinicalTrials.gov…
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 28 Mar 2024.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, baseline, all outcome measures and adverse events.
- Background: PubMed 25402337Stine-Morrow EAL, Payne BR, Roberts BW, Kramer AF, Morrow DG, Payne L, Hill PL, Jackson JJ, Gao X, Noh SR, Janke MC, Parisi JM. Training versus engagement as paths to cognitive enrichment with aging. Psychol Aging. 2014 Dec;29(4):891-906. doi: 10.1037/a0038244. Epub 2014 Nov 17.
- Background: PubMed 28848421Payne BR, Stine-Morrow EAL. The Effects of Home-Based Cognitive Training on Verbal Working Memory and Language Comprehension in Older Adulthood. Front Aging Neurosci. 2017 Aug 8;9:256. doi: 10.3389/fnagi.2017.00256. eCollection 2017.
- Background: PubMed 31647746Savi AO, Marsman M, van der Maas HLJ, Maris GKJ. The Wiring of Intelligence. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2019 Nov;14(6):1034-1061. doi: 10.1177/1745691619866447. Epub 2019 Oct 24.
- Background: PubMed 17014305van der Maas HL, Dolan CV, Grasman RP, Wicherts JM, Huizenga HM, Raijmakers ME. A dynamical model of general intelligence: the positive manifold of intelligence by mutualism. Psychol Rev. 2006 Oct;113(4):842-61. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.113.4.842.
- Background: PubMed 31162407Van Der Maas HLJ, Kan KJ, Marsman M, Stevenson CE. Network Models for Cognitive Development and Intelligence. J Intell. 2017 Apr 20;5(2):16. doi: 10.3390/jintelligence5020016.
- Background: PubMed 24213976Daneman M, Merikle PM. Working memory and language comprehension: A meta-analysis. Psychon Bull Rev. 1996 Dec;3(4):422-33. doi: 10.3758/BF03214546.
- BackgroundStine-Morrow, E. A. L., & Manavbasi, I. (2022). Beyond "Use It or Lose It": The impact of engagement on cognitive aging. Annual Review of Developmental Psychology, 4, 319-352.
- BackgroundBrown, P. C., Roediger, H. L., & McDaniel, M. A. (2014). Make it stick: The science of successful learning. Harvard University Press.
- Background: PubMed 10513398Engle RW, Tuholski SW, Laughlin JE, Conway ARA. Working memory, short-term memory, and general fluid intelligence: a latent-variable approach. J Exp Psychol Gen. 1999 Sep;128(3):309-331. doi: 10.1037//0096-3445.128.3.309.
- Results publication: PubMed 16523997Conway AR, Kane MJ, Bunting MF, Hambrick DZ, Wilhelm O, Engle RW. Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user's guide. Psychon Bull Rev. 2005 Oct;12(5):769-86. doi: 10.3758/bf03196772.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Yes. Deidentified data and Analytic Code will be made available on OSF.
Related trials for Cognitive Aging
RecruitingPhase 2
Neuroplasticity Enhancement From Cognitive Training Reinforced by Psilocybin
Alzheimer's Disease
RecruitingPhase 3
Vibegron for ENergy Thinking and Resilience in Aging
Obesity
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Biological Aging Following Full-Arch Implant-Supported Fixed Rehabilitation in Edentulous Patients
Edentulism, Biological Aging
RecruitingObservational study
Fuzhou Aging Brain Health Initiative
Dementia, Alzheimer Dementia (AD)
Not yet recruiting
Cognitive Enhancement in Recurrent Depression (The COG-D-R Study)
Aging, Depression
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Elizabeth A L Stine-Morrow, PhD principal investigator
University of Illinois Chicago
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Different Mixed Condition (DM) and Different Single Condition (DS) in people with Cognitive Aging, run by University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign at 1 site in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 9 inclusion and 0 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 28 Mar 2024. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. Some participants in this study may receive a placebo. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 28 Mar 2024). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Change in Overall Working Memory (time frame: Change from baseline to 5-6 wks after pretest). The study lists 2 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT05672771, which also lists 10 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 28 Mar 2024.