View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Everyday Forgetfulness and Memory Complaints: A Randomized Controlled Cognitive Intervention Study

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Everyday Forgetfulness and Memory Complaints: A Randomized Controlled Cognitive Intervention Study
Language: English
Authors: Mercedes Montenegro-Peña, Pedro Montejo Carrasco (ORCID 0000-0002-3028-0184), M. Emiliana De Andrés Montes, Antonio García Marín, Borja Montejo Rubio, David Prada Crespo
Source: Educational Gerontology. 2025 51(1):39-56.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 18
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Memory, Intervention, Program Effectiveness, Older Adults, Cognitive Ability, Cognitive Processes, Cognitive Tests, Neuropsychology, Executive Function, Training, Knowledge Level, Metacognition, Foreign Countries
Geographic Terms: Spain
Assessment and Survey Identifiers: Wechsler Memory Scale, Trail Making Test, Stroop Color Word Test
DOI: 10.1080/03601277.2024.2382542
ISSN: 0360-1277
1521-0472
Abstract: The results of Cognitive Intervention (CI) programs vary considerably; thus, it is helpful to assess the characteristics that enhance the effectiveness of these programs. Our objectives were to analyze the effectiveness of a multicomponent CI program called UMAM on cognitive performance, subjective memory, daily forgetfulness, and mood of individuals with memory complaints. Older adults with no cognitive impairment were separated into two groups by simple random assignment, a control (n = 111) and a parallel experimental (n = 115) group. They were assessed with an extended neuropsychological protocol and the Memory Failures of Everyday Questionnaire (MFE); evaluation pre and post intervention (at six months). We performed a multifactorial cognitive intervention (30 sessions) based on memory strategies, stimulation of cognitive processes, instruction in basic concepts about memory, interventions for everyday memory failures, and Metamemory. The Results showed improvements in objective measures, including logical memory (Cohen's d = 0.30); processing speed (d = 0.26); phonological (d = 0.33) and semantic verbal fluency (d = 0.27); and general cognitive performance (d = 0.82) (all, p < 0.05). In subjective measures, we found improvements in mood state (d = 0.25) and everyday memory failures (MFE: d = 0.29) (all, p < 0.05). Several everyday failures improve: 'Forgetting where you have put something,' "finding a word that is on the 'tip of the tongue,' and 'checking again if something has been done' (all, p < 0.05). We found positive results when a cognitive process was directly trained intensely using exercises that focus on real life, with adaptive activities that aim to resolve everyday memory failures. This program has proved effective in promoting health and well-being and preventing cognitive impairment.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1454943
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHBY3spK4WXFSBknYjIpgpNAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDKoCORjY3vZqEmmBogIBEICBmiJB9C0JCHFB_zjQH8DCM3z9RpgYnlgNIOQu5vZPSUiWm_N4_NtIz2P18qWawZ3AMb26h9DxJbhR8P8LaVCU2W7_O6gIJeOaHpkKgqrhF6RARhppEPlYxa6LKNsmL7OeRe07-08lVf8FeiqeMr6JKbEVUruHrfCBN1cAYaHG_0WobbDZk_mpua5dSx8R6txs2OoVAunZHHhegT4=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: &lt;anid&gt;AN0181835105;egr01jan.25;2024Dec26.05:15;v2.2.500&lt;/anid&gt; &lt;title id=&quot;AN0181835105-1&quot;&gt;Everyday forgetfulness and memory complaints: A randomized controlled cognitive intervention study&#160;&lt;/title&gt; &lt;sbt id=&quot;AN0181835105-2&quot;&gt;Introduction&lt;/sbt&gt; &lt;p&gt;The results of Cognitive Intervention (CI) programs vary considerably; thus, it is helpful to assess the characteristics that enhance the effectiveness of these programs. Our objectives were to analyze the effectiveness of a multicomponent CI program called UMAM on cognitive performance, subjective memory, daily forgetfulness, and mood of individuals with memory complaints. Older adults with no cognitive impairment were separated into two groups by simple random assignment, a control (n = 111) and a parallel experimental (n = 115) group. They were assessed with an extended neuropsychological protocol and the Memory Failures of Everyday Questionnaire (MFE); evaluation pre and post intervention (at six months). We performed a multifactorial cognitive intervention (30 sessions) based on memory strategies, stimulation of cognitive processes, instruction in basic concepts about memory, interventions for everyday memory failures, and Metamemory. The Results showed improvements in objective measures, including logical memory (Cohen&#39;s d =.30); processing speed (d =.26); phonological (d =.33) and semantic verbal fluency (d =.27); and general cognitive performance (d =.82) (all, p &amp;lt;.05). In subjective measures, we found improvements in mood state (d =.25) and everyday memory failures (MFE: d =.29) (all, p &amp;lt;.05). Several everyday failures improve: &#39;Forgetting where you have put something,&#39; &quot;finding a word that is on the &#39;tip of the tongue,&#39; and &#39;checking again if something has been done&#39; (all, p &amp;lt;.05). We found positive results when a cognitive process was directly trained intensely using exercises that focus on real life, with adaptive activities that aim to resolve everyday memory failures. This program has proved effective in promoting health and well-being and preventing cognitive impairment. Trial registration: Trial retrospectively registered on January 29, 2020; (ClinicalTrials.gov -NCT04245579).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Aging is associated with a decline in cognitive performance, especially a loss of memory. Indeed, it is not uncommon that older adults with alterations to memory and other cognitive functions progress to mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia, especially Alzheimer&#39;s type dementia. This progression can be considered a &#39;continuum,&#39; often beginning years before the first mild symptoms of memory disturbances develop. Although memory complaints may be associated with factors other than cognitive impairment (Montejo et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib37&quot; id=&quot;ref1&quot;&gt;37&lt;/reflink&gt;]), individuals with subjective memory complaints or subjective cognitive decline (Jessen et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib27&quot; id=&quot;ref2&quot;&gt;27&lt;/reflink&gt;]) are considered to be at increased risk of developing dementia.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Different activities and programs have been designed to improve memory and cognitive performance, and to reduce cognitive decline and its progression toward dementia (Pieramico et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib46&quot; id=&quot;ref3&quot;&gt;46&lt;/reflink&gt;]). These interventions are very heterogeneous and involve a wide range of activities. In conjunction, these programs and activities have been referred to as Cognitive Interventions (CIs). These programs may incorporate a variety of different tasks: &#39;paper and pencil&#39; tasks, techniques like modeling or &#39;role-playing,&#39; computer programs, and even virtual reality. This diversity of interventions and the fact that the results of some of these methods may differ from those of others make this a quite complex field. Indeed, different results have been reported following the implementation of CI programs, and, even when meta-analyses have been performed, they have failed to characterize the most effective characteristics of CIs (Mewborn et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib36&quot; id=&quot;ref4&quot;&gt;36&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Traut et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib68&quot; id=&quot;ref5&quot;&gt;68&lt;/reflink&gt;]).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;The best-documented domains for which improvements have been produced through CIs are immediate and delayed memory, attention, working memory, speed of processing and executive functions (EFs). However, fewer studies have focused on areas like language. The first meta-analysis of memory training programs for healthy older adults identified positive results with an effect size (Cohen&#39;s &#39;d&#39;) of.78 (&lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt; &amp;lt;.05) (Verhaeghen et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib71&quot; id=&quot;ref6&quot;&gt;71&lt;/reflink&gt;]). The variables that influenced this effect size were age (better results in younger subjects), the length of each session, group formats, and pre-intervention activities like teaching visualization and relaxation techniques. Since then, numerous interventions have been carried out, and several meta-analyses and reviews have been published (Sheng et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib58&quot; id=&quot;ref7&quot;&gt;58&lt;/reflink&gt;]), generally indicating that the results obtained may depend on the type of program employed. For example, a global measure of effect size was estimated to be.16 (&lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt; &amp;lt;.05) in a study by Papp et al. ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib44&quot; id=&quot;ref8&quot;&gt;44&lt;/reflink&gt;]), although they also found effect sizes higher than 1.00 and even negative values. More recently, a systematic overview of meta-analyses found a Hedges&#39; effect size of g =.32 (&lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt; &amp;lt;.05) (Gavelin et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib21&quot; id=&quot;ref9&quot;&gt;21&lt;/reflink&gt;]). It also appears that the cognitive area trained may condition the results (Willis et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib74&quot; id=&quot;ref10&quot;&gt;74&lt;/reflink&gt;]) and in essence, when training focuses on a specific cognitive area that area usually improves.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;If this happens with objective measures, regarding subjective evaluation, some studies found improvements, although this was not always the case. Overall effect sizes of subjective memory measures (memory complaints or memory failures assessed by self-evaluation) are frequently lower than those for objective measures, which could be because they usually fall outside the training programs&#39; main objectives. In the first meta-analysis of subjective memory (memory complaints) (Floyd &amp;amp; Scogin, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib18&quot; id=&quot;ref11&quot;&gt;18&lt;/reflink&gt;]), the effect size of subjective measures was.19 (&lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt; &amp;lt;.05), well below the objective measures outlined above, with neither age, group format or the duration of the sessions associated with subjective improvement. In a later review (K. Y. Wilson, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib76&quot; id=&quot;ref12&quot;&gt;76&lt;/reflink&gt;]), an average effect size of d =.39 was reported (&lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt; &amp;lt;.05), and a recent meta-analysis (Sheng et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib58&quot; id=&quot;ref13&quot;&gt;58&lt;/reflink&gt;]) found an effect size of.49 (Hedges&#39; g; &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt; =.0003). Another aspect of memory complaints that must be considered is their generalization to daily life, that is, their relationship to daily memory failures. Contradictory results have been obtained in this sense, with some studies describing effects on everyday memory (Belleville et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib5&quot; id=&quot;ref14&quot;&gt;5&lt;/reflink&gt;]) while others did not (Melby-Lerv&#229;g et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib35&quot; id=&quot;ref15&quot;&gt;35&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Memory failures and their perception, expressed as memory complaints, include an objective (being forgetful or not) and a subjective component (perceiving whether one is forgetful). CIs can lead people to perceive previously unnoticed forgetfulness due to the reflection on one&#39;s forgetfulness and the training exercises to resolve it. Therefore, due to the limited transfer to everyday memory (Hertzog et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib25&quot; id=&quot;ref16&quot;&gt;25&lt;/reflink&gt;]), memory enhancement must be robust to observe improvement in the objective component of memory failures. Improving the subjective component of memory could be achieved by working on strategy learning and metamemory (Cohen‐Mansfield et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib12&quot; id=&quot;ref17&quot;&gt;12&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Preiss et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib47&quot; id=&quot;ref18&quot;&gt;47&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Nevertheless, there have been few studies into CIs and specific daily failures with older adults and memory complaints, except those focusing on name recall, shopping list recall and prospective memory (Lee et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib30&quot; id=&quot;ref19&quot;&gt;30&lt;/reflink&gt;]; McDaniel &amp;amp; Bugg, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib34&quot; id=&quot;ref20&quot;&gt;34&lt;/reflink&gt;]).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Another important and controversial issue is the question of the &#39;dose&#39; effect and while it would seem reasonable to consider that longer interventions would achieve better results, some disagree (J. Reijnders et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib51&quot; id=&quot;ref21&quot;&gt;51&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Nevertheless, it has been proposed that at least 10 sessions are necessary to transfer and maintain the results of CIs (Kelly et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib28&quot; id=&quot;ref22&quot;&gt;28&lt;/reflink&gt;]), although there may be a &#39;critical threshold&#39; required to produce a positive effect of a given CI and several factors could modulate this dose effect (Smart et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib60&quot; id=&quot;ref23&quot;&gt;60&lt;/reflink&gt;]).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;CIs can also achieve additional effects, including improvements in mood, anxiety, quality of life, self-esteem or daily activities. Mood is one of the best analyzed of these and when different CIs were studied on subjects without clinical depression, an improvement in depressive symptomatology was found for a multifactorial memory group, a computer training group and a self-paced group with an audiotape program (Rasmusson et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib48&quot; id=&quot;ref24&quot;&gt;48&lt;/reflink&gt;]). This improvement was independent of the change in memory performance and it was considered to be due to participation in the CI. A recent meta-analysis of nine high-quality studies of cognitive training in adults with depressive disorder found an effect size of.57 (Hedges&#39; g, &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt; &amp;lt;.05) (Woolf et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib78&quot; id=&quot;ref25&quot;&gt;78&lt;/reflink&gt;]), even though the specific factors that contribute to this improvement remain unclear.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Thus, we conclude from these studies that some programs work better than others. Indeed, when different types of CI have been compared, achieving different and specific outcomes, some specific characteristics of the CIs appear to be necessary to achieve good results (Mewborn et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib36&quot; id=&quot;ref26&quot;&gt;36&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Rebok et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib49&quot; id=&quot;ref27&quot;&gt;49&lt;/reflink&gt;]). However, this issue remains to be fully resolved and greater consensus as to the types of CI that are more effective is required, an issue we intend to discuss based on our results.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Our objectives here were to first analyze the effectiveness of a multifactorial memory training program in older adults, the core effect of which focused on measuring cognitive functions and especially memory, language, EFs and general cognitive performance. We hypothesized that training these cognitive areas should improve each of them. The second aim was to examine the changes in daily memory failures and mood states due to training. We hypothesized that since this population experienced memory complaints without cognitive impairment, there should be an improvement in the most frequent symptoms, those of daily forgetfulness. We also expected an improvement in mood.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0181835105-3&quot;&gt;Method&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0181835105-4&quot;&gt;Participants and design&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;This study was carried out with the approval of the Local Ethics Committee, code No.15/382-E_BS, and after informing the subjects about the main aspects of the research, they all provided their signed written informed consent to participate in the study. In total, 226 older people participated in the study, with a mean age of 71.3 years (SD 4.7). They came to the Centre for Prevention of Cognitive Impairment (CPCI) for assessment due to memory complaints and they met the criteria for inclusion on the study: over 60 years of age and cognitive performance &amp;gt; 23 in the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) (Folstein et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib19&quot; id=&quot;ref28&quot;&gt;19&lt;/reflink&gt;]).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;We excluded individuals with a history of neurological or severe psychiatric disorders (stroke, Parkinson&#39;s, alcoholism, severe psycho-affective or other disorders). The exclusion criteria also included chronic use of neuroleptics, anxiolytics, sedative hypnotics, anticonvulsants, suffering from visual or hearing impairments that would hinder the testing, or Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) contraindications. We established two parallel groups: an experimental group assigned to a multidomain intervention and a control group. Participants were randomized into the experimental or the control group through a randomly generated sequence of numbers using the MATLAB package. This assignment was carried out by a neuropsychologist blind to the individual process and not working at the study center.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0181835105-5&quot;&gt;Procedure&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;The participants undertook an interview and a neuropsychological assessment in three sessions managed by psychiatrists, neurologists, or neuropsychologists. They also underwent genetic analysis, Magnetoencephalography (MEG), and MRI, although these data were not utilized or reported in this article. We trained the experimental group using the UMAM Method. The participants in the experimental and control groups followed the usual activities applied to all those who attended the CPCI: general health recommendations, planned interviews or conferences. However, only those in the experimental group participated in a specific cognitive training activity. Six months later, the complete evaluation was repeated, and the main outcome measures were changes in cognitive areas, mood state, and everyday memory failures.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0181835105-6&quot;&gt;Measures&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;According to our first objective we used mainly neuropsychological measures to assess general cognitive performance, memory, language and EFs. For our second objective we used a daily forgetfulness questionnaire and a depression scale. All these tests are among the most widely used in their respective areas.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;To evaluate each participant&#39;s &lt;bold&gt;general cognitive performance&lt;/bold&gt;, the MMSE (Folstein et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib19&quot; id=&quot;ref29&quot;&gt;19&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Lobo et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib31&quot; id=&quot;ref30&quot;&gt;31&lt;/reflink&gt;]) and the 7 Minute Screen Test (7MT: Solomon et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib63&quot; id=&quot;ref31&quot;&gt;63&lt;/reflink&gt;]) were used. The MMSE is probably the most widely used cognitive screening test in the world. We use it to assess whether or not there is cognitive impairment. The 7MT is composed of several subtests: Benton Temporary Orientation, Clock Test, Semantic Fluency and Visual Memory. It assesses in a general way some areas such as semantic fluency or visual memory that the MMSE does not assess. The Clock Test has been used in the 7MT (with the specific scoring mode characteristic of the 7MT) and as an independent test (Cacho et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib10&quot; id=&quot;ref32&quot;&gt;10&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Shulman, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib59&quot; id=&quot;ref33&quot;&gt;59&lt;/reflink&gt;]), it allows functions such as visuospatial and visoconstructive ability, semantic memory or planning ability to be assessed.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;bold&gt;Executive functions, attention and working memory&lt;/bold&gt; were assessed using the direct and inverse digit test of the Wechsler Memory Scale-III-R (Wechsler, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib73&quot; id=&quot;ref34&quot;&gt;73&lt;/reflink&gt;]). The Trail Making Test was included (TMT: Reitan, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib52&quot; id=&quot;ref35&quot;&gt;52&lt;/reflink&gt;]), using form A as a measure of attentional capacity and form B as an instrument to evaluate the ability to plan and alternate, related to the executive functions. Both these tests measure processing speed (Salthouse et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib56&quot; id=&quot;ref36&quot;&gt;56&lt;/reflink&gt;]). The test was administered according to the rules described by Reitan. The Stroop Test (Golden &amp;amp; Freshwater, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib22&quot; id=&quot;ref37&quot;&gt;22&lt;/reflink&gt;]) is a very brief test with three subtests and assesses cognitive interference and inhibition ability. All of these tests are among the most commonly used to evaluate executive functions, attention and working memory. Also, as a measure of executive functions, although less commonly used, we administered the Rule Change subtest of the Behavioural Assessment of the Executive Syndrome (BADS; B. A. Wilson et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib75&quot; id=&quot;ref38&quot;&gt;75&lt;/reflink&gt;]) which assesses inhibition and cognitive flexibility.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0181835105-7&quot;&gt;Measures of memory&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;In the assessment of episodic memory, we administered which is probably the most widely used test in this cognitive domain: Wechsler Memory Scale-III-R (Wechsler, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib73&quot; id=&quot;ref39&quot;&gt;73&lt;/reflink&gt;]). In the Logical Memory subtest, two short stories are presented and the participant is asked to repeat them immediately. Subsequently, a retelling of the stories is requested 30 minutes after the first reading. The Word List subtest consists of a list of 12 unrelated words, which are presented verbally; it is rated on immediate memory, total learning, delayed recall and recognition. Visuospatial capacity and visual memory were assessed using Rey&#180;s Complex Figure test (form B: Luzzi et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib33&quot; id=&quot;ref40&quot;&gt;33&lt;/reflink&gt;]). This form, along with form A is useful for adults and the elderly; it also allows us to assess the ability and execution strategies in the visuo-perceptual plane and visual episodic memory, hierarchical capacity and organization of visual information.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;To evaluate the &lt;bold&gt;area of language&lt;/bold&gt; we administer several well-known and frequently used tests: The Boston Naming Test (BNT: Goodglass et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib23&quot; id=&quot;ref41&quot;&gt;23&lt;/reflink&gt;]). It includes 60 items y explores word retrieval by visual confrontation naming. Language, with a component of executive function, was also evaluated through the Semantic Verbal Fluency Test (naming as many animals, fruits and people&#180;s names in 1 minute as possible) and the Phonological Fluency test (FAS) to generate as many words as possible that begin with F, A, S in 1 minute (Isaacs &amp;amp; Akhtar, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib26&quot; id=&quot;ref42&quot;&gt;26&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Tombaugh et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib67&quot; id=&quot;ref43&quot;&gt;67&lt;/reflink&gt;]).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;To assess &lt;bold&gt;subjective memory and everyday failures&lt;/bold&gt; we used the Memory Failures in Everyday Questionnaire (MFE: Sunderland et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib66&quot; id=&quot;ref44&quot;&gt;66&lt;/reflink&gt;]). This questionnaire includes 28 items about situations and activities that take place in everyday life: forgetting where you left something, losing things at home, forgetting when something happened, losing the thread of a conversation or getting lost or going in the wrong direction during a trip. It is a questionnaire frequently applied in this area and adapted to our country (Montejo et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib39&quot; id=&quot;ref45&quot;&gt;39&lt;/reflink&gt;], [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib40&quot; id=&quot;ref46&quot;&gt;40&lt;/reflink&gt;]).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;To assess &lt;bold&gt;mood state&lt;/bold&gt;: the Geriatric Depression Scale-15 (GDS: Sheikh &amp;amp; Yesavage, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib57&quot; id=&quot;ref47&quot;&gt;57&lt;/reflink&gt;]) is a self-report measure of current depressive symptomatology for elderly people and there are several versions of this instrument. It is probably the most commonly used to measure this symptomatology in older adults. We used the GDS-15 items with two response alternatives (Yes/No). This scale assesses satisfaction with life, feelings of helplessness, emptiness, lack of energy, hopelessness, loneliness or feelings of being alive.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;As a measure of &lt;bold&gt;functional activity of daily living&lt;/bold&gt;, which is necessary to rule out cognitive impairment, we have applied the Functional Activities Questionnaire (FAQ; Olazar&#225;n et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib43&quot; id=&quot;ref48&quot;&gt;43&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Pfeffer et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib45&quot; id=&quot;ref49&quot;&gt;45&lt;/reflink&gt;]). This questionnaire is one of the most widely used for this purpose.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0181835105-8&quot;&gt;Cognitive intervention: the UMAM method&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;The CI program was applied to the experimental group. The program, named UMAM, was initially designed in 1994 by the Memory Training Unit of the Madrid City Council, the original name of the Centre for Prevention of Cognitive Impairment. Since then, more than 20,000 participants have benefited from this cognitive program. UMAM aims to improve cognitive functions (memory, EFs, attention, language, and others) and decrease everyday memory failures in older adults with or without cognitive impairment. The &#39;Manual of Training Sessions&#39; includes detailed explanations about every session and every exercise, and there are books and materials that serve as training workbooks (Montejo et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib38&quot; id=&quot;ref50&quot;&gt;38&lt;/reflink&gt;]).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;The UMAM cognitive training program consists of 30 sessions that last 90 minutes each, three each week, plus 2 follow-up sessions. At the end of this process, which lasted four and a half months, the post-training evaluation was carried out. We established groups of 12–18 people, which required us to organize 6 sub-groups. Our experience with CT has taught us that this number, 12–18 participants, is a suitable number for the management of the group, ensuring an adequate interaction between the coordinator and the participants, while permitting individual attention. It must be borne in mind that the participants are healthy individuals. The chronology of the different activities was pre-evaluation, MRI, MEG, and genetic analysis; these activities lasted one and a half months. Subsequently, training was carried out for three and a half months. The last month was dedicated to the post evaluation. Thus, each patient was evaluated post training about four and a half months after their pre-evaluation. The whole process was completed within six months (See Figure 1). In terms of waves of recruitment and participation, two training experimental groups were active at the same time. As such, three waves were carried out, and as the two groups were finishing, the evaluations for the following groups began, and so on.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Graph: Figure 1. Overview of the UMAM Program.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Every group was trained by qualified professionals (psychologists, nurses, and general practitioners) trained in specific courses, both theoretical and practical, on seniors and on the UMAM method. We structured each session in line with its specific objectives, materials, and activities. Every session began with 10 minutes of relaxation, followed by a review of the homework assigned the day before and cognitive activation that lasted 10 minutes. After this introduction, the activities of cognitive intervention were carried out over approximately 50 minutes. These activities are followed by a section on &#39;application to everyday life&#39; and homework about 20 minutes. The activation activities consist of group calculation exercises, counting numbers forwards and backwards, saying words containing certain letters, describing objects, stringing words together, naming objects in a room, clapping when a certain number is heard, etc. Everyone participates in each exercise. The development of any session can be (2nd session): 1&#186;. Relaxation, 2&#186;. Review of homework from the previous day. 3&#186;. Activation: attention exercises. 4&#186;. Review of instructions: attention, effort and exercise. 5&#186;. Five minutes of memory theory in dialogue. 6&#186;. Visualization exercises: recall of figures from the first session, visualization of abstract figures, pictures, city monuments, recall of lists of objects through visualization, visualization of two texts, and applications to daily life. 7&#186; Perception. Its importance. Perception exercises with pictures, perception of sounds. 8&#186;. Homework: listening to a news program, looking at the data, and writing a summary on the homework sheet. 9&#186;. Farewell, recommendations on how to interact with colleagues while waiting for the next day.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;The program followed a multifactorial organization divided into four different modules: 1. Stimulation of cognitive processes like language (making words with several letters, describing actions or figures, or chained words) or attention (attentive listening exercises, searching for differences between images, cancellation tasks...), learning and practicing of internal memory strategies like association, visualization, and categorization. These strategies are applied to recall different materials (numbers, names, written and oral texts, landscapes, or images) and the resolution of specific everyday forgetfulness. 2. Interventions in daily living and forgetting experiences address internal (mainly association and visualization) and external (taking notes or agendas) strategies to resolve everyday memory failures. These cognitive difficulties in daily living were treated through role-playing techniques and cognitive exercises that employ prospective and retrospective memory, automatic actions (closing the door, taking medications, or remembering names, among others), and through external aids, etc. In addition, we instructed the subjects to practice at home with similar exercises to generalize their training to real-life situations. 3. Instruction through dialogue in basic concepts about memory and memory decline in older adults. This module is transversal. This teaching takes place throughout the training in numerous five-minute periods. 4. Metacognition or metamemory, whereby the subjects reflect on their cognitive failures, analyzing the causes and the different aspects of those failures and the maladaptive beliefs. One of the essential aims regarding metamemory is that people become aware of and take active control of memory functions. This module, which is transversal, reflects on the effect of fatigue, anxiety, mood and other individual factors on their memory functioning and forgetfulness. The first part of the CI is based on memory strategies and the second part on solving everyday problems.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;We included new technologies like tablets or smartphones to perform exercises in cognitive stimulation, and in some cases, these activities serve as an initiation to using these devices. The participants were asked to perform exercises in their homes (homework) to enhance the generalization of the trained strategies. Families attended two sessions, and professionals answered their questions regarding the forgetfulness of their relatives. For control and experimental groups, we also included several activities related to healthy habits, such as eating healthy, engaging in physical exercise, participating in social and leisure activities, and others.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0181835105-9&quot;&gt;Data analysis pre and post-intervention&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;We analyzed the data using the IBM SPSS Statistics package for Windows (Version 20.0, released 2011: IBM Corp., Armonk, NY). The dependent measures were the results of the neuropsychological tests and questionnaires and their pre-post intervention differences. We used the Student t-test for quantitative variables and the Chi-squared test for the categorical variables to analyze the basal differences between the experimental and control groups. We applied the Generalized Linear Model (GLM) procedure with repeated measures to study the treatment effect, with two groups (&#39;intervention/non-intervention&#39;) x two times (&#39;pre/post intervention&#39;) used to assess the main effect of &#39;time&#39; as the practice effect and the &#39;group x time&#39; as the treatment effect. We applied the same procedure to study the change in each of the memory failures. The effect size was analyzed with Cohen&#180;s d (Cohen, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib13&quot; id=&quot;ref51&quot;&gt;13&lt;/reflink&gt;]) and with Eta&lt;sups&gt;2&lt;/sups&gt;, defining a small effect as d =.20 or Eta&lt;sups&gt;2&lt;/sups&gt; =.01, a moderate effect as d =.50 or Eta&lt;sups&gt;2&lt;/sups&gt; =.06, and a strong effect as d =.80 or Eta&lt;sups&gt;2&lt;/sups&gt; =.13. For Cohen&#180;s d, we computed a version of the standardized difference proposed by Morris ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib41&quot; id=&quot;ref52&quot;&gt;41&lt;/reflink&gt;]) for the interaction effect of the pre-post design with a control group. We described memory failures using the frequency of each in the total sample and the mean differences between the pre-and post-intervention evaluation for the experimental group, such that when the difference is positive for any failure, there is a decrease in the frequency post-intervention. To examine the data of the subjects who dropped out of the study compared to those who remained, we carried out attrition studies. We performed this attrition analysis with the Student t-test for independent samples. Some variables had missing data corresponding to subjects who did not perform any test. When a particular data point was missing for any subject, we removed that subject from the specific analysis.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0181835105-10&quot;&gt;Results&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;A total of 226 people aged over 60 years without a diagnosis of dementia were initially recruited onto the study (see the Flow diagram Figure 2). From this cohort, the final study sample at pre-evaluation was 108 experimental and 91 control participants, and at the follow-up after six months, 9 experimental and 13 controls had been lost due to a lack of motivation to complete the study. Hence, the post-intervention evaluation was performed on 99 experimental and 78 control participants.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;DIAGRAM: Figure 2. Flow diagram and the drop-out criteria.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;The final study sample (&lt;emph&gt;n&lt;/emph&gt; = 108 + 91) had a mean age of 71.2 (&#177;4.7, range = 60–81 years), caucasian; 30.2% males; level of education: university 41.2%, secondary 21.6% (more than 9 years), primary 25.6% (6–9 years), basic (less than 6 years) 11.6%. The data for the experimental and control groups are shown in Table 1.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Table 1. Sociodemographic data for experimental and control groups.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;ephtml&gt; &amp;lt;table&amp;gt;&amp;lt;thead&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Variable (Range)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Experimental group (&amp;lt;italic&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/italic&amp;gt; = 108) M (SD)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Control group (&amp;lt;italic&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/italic&amp;gt; = 91) M (SD)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;&amp;amp;#967;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;t&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;italic&amp;gt;p&amp;lt;/italic&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/thead&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tbody&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Age&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;71.52 (4.58)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;71.05 (4.85)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.691&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.49&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Gender (male)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;31.5%&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;28.6%&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.199&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.66&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Education years&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;12.82 (5.83)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;12.74 (5.43)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.097&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.92&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Cognitive Reserve (0&amp;amp;#8211;25)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;13.26 (4.56)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;13.91 (4.77)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.912&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.36&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;MMSE (0&amp;amp;#8211;30) 7 M (0&amp;amp;#8211;89)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;28.34 (1.52) 64.65 (12.32)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;28.36 (1.61) 65.80 (12.77)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;&amp;amp;#8722;.09 &amp;amp;#8722;.64&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.93.52&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;MFE (0&amp;amp;#8211;56)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;13.45 (8.39)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;13.13 (6.52)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.286&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.77&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;GDS (0&amp;amp;#8211;15)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;2.79 (3.02)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;2.28 (2.42)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;1.28&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.20&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tbody&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt; &lt;/ephtml&gt; &lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;1 M: Mean; SD: Standard Deviation; MMSE: Mini Mental State Examination; 7 M: 7 Minute Screen Test; MFE: Memory Failures of Everyday Questionnaire; GDS: Geriatric Depression Scale.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups for any of the sociodemographic, or neuropsychological variables assessed or for the GDS, MFE, or FAQ, although in the delayed Wechsler texts, the control group registered better performance: control 21.58 (&#177;10.17), experimental 18.20 (&#177;9.74, &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt; &amp;lt;.05). We performed an attrition analysis with the 22 participants who dropped out during the follow-up for age, MMSE, level of education, MFE, 7MT, GDS and Cognitive Reserve. There were no significant differences between this group and those (&lt;emph&gt;n&lt;/emph&gt; = 177) who remained in the study (&lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt; &amp;gt;.05) for all the variables studied.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;The means and standard deviations of the neuropsychological variables were calculated for the experimental and control groups, as well as the F statistics for the group, time and the time x group interaction (along with the p-values). The effect sizes were measured using Cohen&#39;s standardized difference &#39;d.&#39; While no effects were evident for the group, there were main effects for time and the time x group interaction (Table 2).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Table 2. Means, standard deviations, single effects, interaction effect (group X time) and effect size.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;ephtml&gt; &amp;lt;table&amp;gt;&amp;lt;thead&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Experimental group&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Control group&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Time&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Interaction&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Variable (range)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Pre-training M (SD)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Post-training M (SD)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Pre-training M (SD)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Post-training M (SD)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;F&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;italic&amp;gt;p&amp;lt;/italic&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;F&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;italic&amp;gt;p&amp;lt;/italic&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Cohen&amp;amp;#180;s d&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/thead&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tbody&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;MMSE (0&amp;amp;#8211;30)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;28.41 (1.50)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;28.74 (1.30)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;28.47 (1.57)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;28.60 (1.75)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;5.43&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.021&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.03&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.297&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.131&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;7 M Test total score (0&amp;amp;#8211;89) 7 M Orientation 7 M Free Memory&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;64.69 (12.24) 111.76 (6.51) 8.18 (1.81)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;68.66 (12.21) 112.61 (1.54) 8.98 (2.28)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;67.00 (12.37) 112.47 (2.41) 8.64 (2.59)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;66.80 (14.51) 112.06 (3.70) 8.85 (2.91)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;5.15.032 7.02&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.024.052.009&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.02.03.028&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.013.112.118&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.339.246.269&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Clock Drawing test (0&amp;amp;#8211;7)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;6.36 (.88)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;6.66 (.61)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;6.70 (.69)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;6.35 (1.14)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.10&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.749&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.02&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.000&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.810&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;WMS Word List Total (0&amp;amp;#8211;48)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;28.07 (6.83)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;30.62 (6.87)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;28.14 (7.52)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;30.99 (8.20)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;58.24&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.000&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.04&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.679&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.042&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;WMS Verbal Immediate Units (0&amp;amp;#8211;75)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;33.64 (12.32)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;37.88 (12.36)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;36.57 (13.28)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;36.97 (13.48)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;19.66&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.000&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.29&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.000&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.301&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;WMS Verbal Delayed Units (0&amp;amp;#8211;75)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;18.87 (9.62)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;22.84 (9.59)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;22.18 (10.13)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;23.20 (10.06)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;33.19&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.000&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;1.63&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.001&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.300&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Phonological Verbal fluency-FAS&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;37.06 (13.02)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;41.51 (11.93)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;37.42 (14.24)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;37.42 (14.28)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;16.13&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.000&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.93&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.000&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.328&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Semantic Verbal fluency&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;48.96 (11.08)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;51.57 (11.67)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;50.78 (11.18)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;50.41 (11.99)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;3.88&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.051&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.04&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.010&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.268&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;TMT A Time&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;57.38 (23.49)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;50.82 (14.16)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;59.12 (25.90)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;58.99 (35.95)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;4.35&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.039&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;1.95&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.047&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.261&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;TMT B Time BADS: Rule Shift Cards 1 BADS: Rule Shift Cards 2 Stroop Colour and Word&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;138.30 (79.43) 11.51 (9.75) 11.88 (8.61) 45.71 (8.61)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;122.11 (64.43) 11.42 (9.78) 12.08 (8.95) 45.43 (8.80)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;134.77 (81.50) 11.97 (9.82) 12.41 (8.23) 45.11 (10.43)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;138.57 (98.67) 11.97 (9.79) 12.53 (8.37) 45.73 (10.61)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;2.14 3.86.341.111&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.146.536.560.739&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.30.93.118.011&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.020.536.90.392&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.249.009.009.005&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Rey-Osterrieth Simple Figure (0&amp;amp;#8211;22)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;14.01 (4.68)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;15.64 (4.53)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;15.03 (5.24)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;15.78 (5.41)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;15.02&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.000&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.71&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.160&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.178&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Boston Naming Test (0&amp;amp;#8211;60)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;50.60 (7.60)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;52.42 (5.86)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;50.55 (8.12)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;52.09 (6.91)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;15.35&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.000&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.03&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.752&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.036&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;WMS Digits forwards&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;8.39 (2.06)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;8.86 (2.26)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;8.33 (1.84)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;8.47 (1.93)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;6.17&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.014&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.60&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.177&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.168&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;WMS Digits backwards&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;5.46 (1.88)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;5.57 (1.92)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;5.53 (2.11)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;5.62 (1.97)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.69&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.408&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.04&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.920&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.010&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;GDS (0&amp;amp;#8211;15)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;2.68 (3.03)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;1.69 (2.35)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;2.08 (2.29)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;178 (2.04)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;18.72&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.000&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.520&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.022&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.254&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;MFE (0&amp;amp;#8211;56) FAQ (0&amp;amp;#8211;33)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;13.51 (8.47).17 (.56)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;12.09 (6.41).08 (.31)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;13.53 (6.77) 63 (2.18)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;14.40 (7.17).47 (1.95)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;0.301 2.422&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.584.121&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;1.398 4.486&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.022.695&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.295.046&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tbody&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt; &lt;/ephtml&gt; &lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;2 M: Mean; SD: Standard Deviation; MMSE: Mini Mental State Examination; 7 M: 7 Minute Screen Test; WMS: Wechsler Memory Scale; TMT: Trail Making Test; BADS: Behavioural Assessment of the Dysexecutive Syndrome; GDS: Geriatric Depression Scale; MFE: Memory Failures of Everyday questionnaire; FAQ: Functional Activities Questionnaire.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;There were significant differences between the pre-and post-scores for some measures in the intervention group relative to the controls, including improvements in the Clock Test (with an effect size d =.810) and the total 7MT score (d =.339). In terms of tests that measure verbal memory, there was no improvement in Wechsler&#39;s list of words, but improvements were seen in immediate and delayed memory of texts. There was no significant change in visual memory (Rey Memory Test) and the language variables. However, a significant change was observed in semantic and phonological fluency, although there was no change in the BNT. Regarding the TMT, we found an improvement in the scores of both the A and B forms. Conversely, there were no significant changes in the BADS test, and the subject&#39;s scores were almost at the maximum levels from the beginning. Likewise, there were no significant pre-post differences in FAQ scores, although it should be noted that functional activity is not generally significantly altered in subjects without dementia.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;In the intervention group, we observed a significant improvement in mood state (GDS) and daily Memory Failures (MFE). The most frequent forgetfulness were: finding a word that is on the &#39;tip of the tongue&#39; (mean = 1.17, SD =.64, some/many times 86.9%); forgetting where something was left (mean = 1.13, SD =.61, some/many times 86.9%); having to go back to check whether something was done (mean =.83, SD =.61, some/many times 70.8%); forgetting you were told something yesterday (mean =.59, SD =.67, some/many times 63.1%); and forgetting things when leaving home, e.g., keys (mean =.58, SD =.60, some/many times 60.8%). In 24 failures out of 28, there was a decrease in the pre-post scores, reflecting a possible improvement (see Table 3), although in only 3 was this difference significant. The specific areas of daily forgetfulness where there was improvement were: &#39;forgetting where you have put something&#39; (F = 4.57, &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt; =.03, Eta&lt;sups&gt;2&lt;/sups&gt; =.03); &#39;finding a word that is on the tip of the tongue&#39; (F = 4.53, &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt; =.035, Eta&lt;sups&gt;2&lt;/sups&gt; =.03); and &#39;having to go back to check whether you have done something&#39; (F = 4.24, &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt; =.041, Eta&lt;sups&gt;2&lt;/sups&gt; =.02).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Table 3. Frequency of failures of everyday memory for all sample, and mean differences pre-post for experimental group.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;ephtml&gt; &amp;lt;table&amp;gt;&amp;lt;thead&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;MFE Memory Failures of Everyday (range 0-2)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Frequency (%) All sample (&amp;lt;italic&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/italic&amp;gt; = 177) &amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Mean Pre -Mean post (&amp;lt;italic&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/italic&amp;gt; = 91) (SD)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/thead&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tbody&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;13* Finding a word that is &#39;on the tip of the tongue&#39;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;86.9&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.01 (.07)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;1 Forgetting where you have put something&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;86.9&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.13 (.07)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;5 Having to go back to check whether you have done something&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;70.8&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.20 (.08)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;8 Forgetting that you were told something yesterday&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;63.1&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.05 (.07)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;7 Forgetting, leaving things (keys...)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;59.5&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;&amp;amp;#8722;.05 (.07)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;4 Forgetting a change in your daily routine&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;60.8&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.05 (.06)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;6 Forgetting when it was that something happened&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;55.4&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.07 (.07)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;12 Having difficulty picking up a new skill&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;54.1&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.05 (.08)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;21 Telling someone a story or joke that you have told them once already&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;53.0&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.05 (.08)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;18 Forgetting to tell somebody something&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;47.1&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.09 (.06)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;14 Forgetting to do things&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;41.7&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.08 (.06)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;16 Forgetting what you have just said&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;40.5&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.04 (.06)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;24 Forgetting where things are normally kept&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;41.7&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.09 (.07)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;10 Letting yourself ramble on to speak about irrelevant things&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;37.5&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.05 (.07)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;22 Forgetting details of things you do regularly&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;36.9&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.05 (.07)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;23 Finding that the faces of famous people look unfamiliar&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;35.7&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.13 (.07)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;28 Repeating to someone what you have just told them&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;35.7&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.05 (.54)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;20 Getting mixed up and confused what someone has told you&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;31.6&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.22 (.05)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;3 Finding a television story difficult to follow&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;31.6&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.03 (.07)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;17 Being unable to follow the thread of a story&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;31.0&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;&amp;amp;#8722;.01 (.07)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;15 Forgetting important details of what happened to you the day before&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;26.4&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.11 (.06)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;2 Failing to recognize places&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;25.8&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;&amp;amp;#8722;.01 (.06)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;9 Starting to read something without realizing you have already read it before&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;23.8&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;&amp;amp;#8722;.22 (.06)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;26 Getting lost on a place where you have only been once or twice before&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;54.2&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.00 (.07)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;25 Getting lost on a place where you have often been before&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;18.5&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.01 (.07)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;11 Failing to recognize close relatives or friends&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;18.5&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.01 (.05)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;27 Doing some routine thing twice by mistake&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;10.1&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.00 (.05)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;19 Forgetting important details about yourself (where you live...)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;3.0&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.04 (.03)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tbody&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt; &lt;/ephtml&gt; &lt;/p&gt; &lt;ulist&gt; &lt;item&gt;3 Rank 0–2; 0: Never or rarely; 1: Sometimes; 2: Many times. All sample: % = sometimes + many times.&lt;/item&gt; &lt;item&gt;4 Experimental group: Mean Pre-Mean Post= Mean pre training minus Mean post training. SD: Standard Deviation.&lt;/item&gt; &lt;item&gt;5 *Item number in the questionnaire.&lt;/item&gt; &lt;/ulist&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0181835105-11&quot;&gt;Discussion&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;We have studied the benefits of a multifactorial CI, the UMAM method, in older individuals without dementia, comparing them to a control group that participated in the usual activities at the center along with the experimental group. Our results show that the CI significantly improved some variables, partially confirming our hypotheses. The experimental group improved in global cognitive performance (7MT), as well as in immediate and delayed episodic logical memory. Likewise, participants improved in the area of language, both in semantic and phonological fluency. There was also an improvement in executive functions, processing speed, attention, mental flexibility, and motor skills (TMT A and B and the Clock Test). The significant effect sizes (&#39;d&#39;) ranged from.25 to.34, except for the Clock Test (&#39;d&#39; =.81). Mood state was measured with the GDS and improved in the experimental group. Our hypothesis was also partially validated in terms of memory failures, with an overall improvement and a decrease in the total MFE score, as well as a significant change in three very frequent everyday failures. No gains were evident in naming, visual episodic memory, attention span (measured by direct and inverse digits), or episodic word list recall.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0181835105-12&quot;&gt;Memory change&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;Regarding episodic memory, as measured with the logical memory test, both immediate and delayed recall of texts improved. The effect size was.30, close to that reported previously for general memory improvement (Gross et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib24&quot; id=&quot;ref53&quot;&gt;24&lt;/reflink&gt;]). The best documented effect in CI studies has been an improvement in both immediate and delayed episodic memory, and there has been less interest in visual memory. However, different results have been obtained depending on the type of test used: word list, logical memory, or visual recall tasks (Kelly et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib28&quot; id=&quot;ref54&quot;&gt;28&lt;/reflink&gt;]). From these studies, certain aspects should be highlighted, such as the improvement in both the word list and the verbal memory of texts when the word list was trained directly using specific exercises and different strategies (Vranić et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib72&quot; id=&quot;ref55&quot;&gt;72&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Previously, an improvement in the word list task but not in the text memory task was shown (Belleville et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib5&quot; id=&quot;ref56&quot;&gt;5&lt;/reflink&gt;]), although the authors considered that this difference was due to the method used for the memory of texts (the PQRST method, a complex method to apply) and/or the incongruence between the training method and the outcome measure.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;These non-concordant data raise the question of why differences emerge in the episodic memory training results. Probably, one of the most important factors is the type of intervention. If we train a cognitive function with an appropriate technique and for long enough, significant improvements can be achieved. By contrast, if a cognitive function is trained with a complicated technique or for a short time, it may not be possible to achieve any improvement (Derwinger et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib15&quot; id=&quot;ref57&quot;&gt;15&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Our program focuses the training of logical memory on several everyday activities, such as recalling stories, reading, messages, and conversations. However, we did not focus on training in word list recall. Instead, we train verbal memory through association and visualization strategies, which are more closely related to tasks of text memory than word lists. As a result, one skill improved (remembering texts), while the other (remembering word lists) did not. For patients, verbal memory is an ecological task since remembering a text that was read or something told them is helpful in daily life.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0181835105-13&quot;&gt;Everyday memory failures&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;Regarding the subjective variables measured, we found that the CI intervention produced a significant decrease in memory complaints (MFE), although the effect size was medium-low. Subjective improvement may, in part, be independent of performance in objective memory tests (Verhaeghen et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib71&quot; id=&quot;ref58&quot;&gt;71&lt;/reflink&gt;]). In terms of specific, everyday memory forgetfulness, changes were produced in three elements: &#39;forgetting where you put something,&#39; &#39;finding a word that is on the tip of the tongue,&#39; and &#39;having to go back and check whether you have done something.&#39; We attribute this improvement to the fact that these three failures are particularly common, and therefore, they were trained intensively in the sessions through specific exercises and techniques. Significant pre-post test differences were not evident for other memory failures. The strongest predictor of improvement in subjective memory was proposed to be the greater use of strategies (Frankenmolen et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib20&quot; id=&quot;ref59&quot;&gt;20&lt;/reflink&gt;]). In a recent systematic review, the best strategic approaches to improve prospective memory were considered to be imagery and the use of external aids (Tsang et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib69&quot; id=&quot;ref60&quot;&gt;69&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Indeed, three principles for improving everyday memory cognition have been proposed (Hertzog et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib25&quot; id=&quot;ref61&quot;&gt;25&lt;/reflink&gt;]): individual assessment, memory training strategies to resolve them, and guidance and feedback on the efforts to employ those strategies. Our program follows these three principles almost strictly. Among the characteristics of the UMAM method that could improve this subjective variable, we highlight the intense focus on metamemory, the use of strategies directed to daily life, motivational aspects, the use of a multifactorial program and the instruction to use external aids.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0181835105-14&quot;&gt;Changes in executive functions, attention and language&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;Several studies have identified differences in training outcomes on EFs, and different groups have trained EFs and attention in specific ways, for example focusing on training selective attention and processing speed (Smith et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib61&quot; id=&quot;ref62&quot;&gt;61&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Both these approaches produced positive results that were attributed to the specificity of training. In the ACTIVE study, processing speed was specifically trained with positive results, indicating that more training sessions produced more significant benefits (Rebok et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib49&quot; id=&quot;ref63&quot;&gt;49&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Any failure to achieve results considered could be due to shorter training times. However, elsewhere cognitive training over two years and 180 sessions did not improve TMT A or EFs, although there was no focus on any specific domain in that study (Buiza et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib8&quot; id=&quot;ref64&quot;&gt;8&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Our intervention improved some EFs, including processing speed, mental flexibility, and motor skills. An improvement was evident in some attention dependent tasks (measured by TMT A and B) but not in attentional span (measured by digits). The UMAM method focuses on various daily exercises related to attention, such as changing attentional focus, as well as other daily life exercises related to divided attention and automatisms. To achieve improvement, EFs and attention should be trained with sufficient doses of specific exercises, even in a multimodal intervention.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Regarding language, we improved semantic and phonological fluency but not visual confrontation naming. A significant improvement in phonological fluency was observed previously when several language functions were trained (Buiza et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib8&quot; id=&quot;ref65&quot;&gt;8&lt;/reflink&gt;]). In contrast, when this function was not trained, no improvement in post-intervention performance was evident in adults without dementia (Belleville et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib5&quot; id=&quot;ref66&quot;&gt;5&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Similarly, no improvement was found in another study where the language was not trained directly (Noice &amp;amp; Noice, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib42&quot; id=&quot;ref67&quot;&gt;42&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Our intervention includes various modalities of language exercises (composing words with letters, naming objects, associating words, creating sentences, and others), avoiding exercises more closely related to the neuropsychological post-intervention evaluation. Therefore, we conclude that our specific language training effectively improves verbal fluency, although there was no significant improvement in the object-naming task. While verbal fluency, both phonological and semantic, has been linked to EFs, other complex functions involved in the denomination of a visualized object are less directly linked to executive ones (Cotelli et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib14&quot; id=&quot;ref68&quot;&gt;14&lt;/reflink&gt;]). The difficulty in naming objects correlates positively with age and is associated with atrophy in linguistic areas (Stamatakis et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib64&quot; id=&quot;ref69&quot;&gt;64&lt;/reflink&gt;]). It is probable that in the continuum from healthy aging to cognitive impairment, the more complex a task is and the greater the anatomical alteration, the lower the probability of improvement. In addition, some language comprehension and production functions, including naming, may be less suited to training because they are more closely related to implicit functions (Ettlinger et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib17&quot; id=&quot;ref70&quot;&gt;17&lt;/reflink&gt;]) and incidental learning.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0181835105-15&quot;&gt;Changes in mood&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;The assessment and improvement of mood is not usually a goal of CIs, so measuring depression is infrequent. In our intervention, there was an improvement in the participants&#39; mood, with medium-low effect size, although it should be borne in mind that the participants did not have clinical depression. A CI has been used to treat depression and some symptoms (Becker et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib4&quot; id=&quot;ref71&quot;&gt;4&lt;/reflink&gt;]). There appears to be an association between depression, daily forgetting, and objective memory (Montejo et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib37&quot; id=&quot;ref72&quot;&gt;37&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Some aspects of the UMAM method could be related to mood improvement, such as the paired and group exercises that stimulate relationships and collaborations among the participants. Indeed, this interaction can produce feelings of increased effectiveness and self-esteem and serve as a social stimulus that leads to well-being (Valentijn et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib70&quot; id=&quot;ref73&quot;&gt;70&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Hence, this feature of the UMAM might provide an overall boost to mood, stimulating cognitive functions and the effort made by participants in these groups, which are facets that could improve their mood.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0181835105-16&quot;&gt;Theoretical considerations&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;Our study shows that CI improves some cognitive variables and does not improve others. Moreover, the improvement is of the medium effect size. Is this what we would expect? And what factors are involved in the improvement or change? Several factors condition the change produced by the CI&#39;s: The anatomical and physiological basis changing with age, the training method, and the potential for change in the areas trained (Baltes &amp;amp; Kliegl, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib3&quot; id=&quot;ref74&quot;&gt;3&lt;/reflink&gt;]). In regard to this last point, it should be noted that different areas have different learning potential. Several authors have studied the learning potential or cognitive plasticity and how to measure it, and have differentiated it by cognitive areas, analyzing which domains are more able to be improved by CI&#39;s (Boosman et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib6&quot; id=&quot;ref75&quot;&gt;6&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Furthermore, the type of task to be improved can also influence the results. According to the compensation/magnification theory (Smoleń et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib62&quot; id=&quot;ref76&quot;&gt;62&lt;/reflink&gt;]), lower pretest performers have a wider range of improvement, so they are more likely to improve and can compensate more easily. Higher performers, with higher pretest results, have more cognitive resources and are more prepared to improve. They seem to be opposing views. However, the magnification effect is likely to be involved in more demanding tasks, and the compensation effect is expected to be involved in less demanding tasks (Borella et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib7&quot; id=&quot;ref77&quot;&gt;7&lt;/reflink&gt;]; L&#246;vd&#233;n et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib32&quot; id=&quot;ref78&quot;&gt;32&lt;/reflink&gt;]). One challenge is to enhance all cognitive functions to the limit of learning potential and to increase effect size. In our paper, we have sought to outline some ways to achieve these goals.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;By improving cognition, we are preventing cognitive decline (Butler et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib9&quot; id=&quot;ref79&quot;&gt;9&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Rebok et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib49&quot; id=&quot;ref80&quot;&gt;49&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Therefore, we must continue to improve memory, EFs, attention, and language. This task is crucial, but is it enough? To what extent do older people perceive it? They perceive it only to the extent that they experience an improvement in their daily memory, which helps them to solve everyday forgetfulness. If cognitive functions measured by tests, usually not ecological, improve, shouldn&#39;t memory in everyday life also improve and forgetfulness in everyday life decrease? The idea that training some memory tasks or strategies will improve overall memory and memory skills has been called by some authors the &#39;generalist&#39; theory (McDaniel &amp;amp; Bugg, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib34&quot; id=&quot;ref81&quot;&gt;34&lt;/reflink&gt;]). We are talking about the transfer to everyday life. However, the transfer is scarce. This issue has been extensively studied, and most authors agree that training is specific and transfer to both untrained tasks and everyday life is scarce (Derwinger et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib15&quot; id=&quot;ref82&quot;&gt;15&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Ripp et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib53&quot; id=&quot;ref83&quot;&gt;53&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Sala et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib54&quot; id=&quot;ref84&quot;&gt;54&lt;/reflink&gt;]). One of the fundamental challenges today is to improve memory for everyday life and to solve everyday forgetfulness. It should be noted that many everyday forgetfulness do not reflect the intervention of a single cognitive domain. For example, executive functioning tests accounted for only 18–20% of the variance in everyday executive ability (Chaytor et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib11&quot; id=&quot;ref85&quot;&gt;11&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Often, memory, attention, executive functions, behavioral-cognitive habits such as difficulty correcting errors, environmental cues, and emotional aspects are all involved simultaneously (McDaniel &amp;amp; Bugg, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib34&quot; id=&quot;ref86&quot;&gt;34&lt;/reflink&gt;]). All this makes generalizations about everyday life difficult.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;There are a few published programs of CI that are specifically aimed, albeit with very different actions, at this improvement of daily life and have proven successful. These include EMMI (the Everyday Memory and Metacognitive Intervention approach (Hertzog et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib25&quot; id=&quot;ref87&quot;&gt;25&lt;/reflink&gt;]) and UFOV (Useful Field of View), which focuses on attention and speed of processing (Ball et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib2&quot; id=&quot;ref88&quot;&gt;2&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Rebok et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib49&quot; id=&quot;ref89&quot;&gt;49&lt;/reflink&gt;]). The EMMI is a multimodal intervention based on metacognitive self-regulatory strategies; it trains memory strategies, seeks to correct new errors and behavioral-cognitive habits, and gives coaching and feedback to older adults to improve everyday cognition. UFOV is a perceptual-cognitive computerized technique that aims to improve attention and processing speed; it involves divided attention and distractors; the exercises are adaptive in difficulty. Most authors point out that UFOV improves real-world functional outcomes, though it does not transfer to other cognitive functions (Edwards et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib16&quot; id=&quot;ref90&quot;&gt;16&lt;/reflink&gt;]). UFOV improves the processing speed that underlies age-related cognitive impairment (Salthouse, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib55&quot; id=&quot;ref91&quot;&gt;55&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Indeed, different pathways can lead to improvement of cognitive impairments in everyday life. Our method also improves cognitive functions and forgetfulness in everyday life. Like EMMI, it focuses on applied cognitive strategies and metacognition. Furthermore, it aims to enhance both the objective and subjective aspects of daily failures.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0181835105-17&quot;&gt;Limitations and future studies&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;One significant limitation of this study is that, until now, there have been no longitudinal studies to test the maintenance of the gains. In addition, 11% of the subjects did not complete the study, although this attrition rate did not affect the performance or results of the CI. Indeed, we did not find significant differences between the scores of the group of participants that completed or dropped out of the study. Another limitation derives from the UMAM method, as we have not explicitly trained some cognitive functions like working memory. Moreover, we did not measure user satisfaction, a feature that was only collected qualitatively in the last session. These subjective aspects and daily life changes should have been studied with other scales or questionnaires (J. S. Reijnders et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib50&quot; id=&quot;ref92&quot;&gt;50&lt;/reflink&gt;]), together with those used, and maybe by considering reports from the participants&#39; relatives. The number and length of sessions (30 sessions over three months) could be a conditioning factor, although many kinds of interventions range from a few hours up to one year, all producing good results. Despite the controversial outcomes of some studies (Kelly et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib28&quot; id=&quot;ref93&quot;&gt;28&lt;/reflink&gt;]; J. Reijnders et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib51&quot; id=&quot;ref94&quot;&gt;51&lt;/reflink&gt;]), under the same conditions, we believe more time leads to better results. Suppose we try to establish cognitive habits that can be generalized to daily life. In that case, we need time and repetition (Kleim &amp;amp; Jones, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib29&quot; id=&quot;ref95&quot;&gt;29&lt;/reflink&gt;]), and it has been proposed that sustained action and corrective feedback are needed to change habits (Wood &amp;amp; R&#252;nger, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib77&quot; id=&quot;ref96&quot;&gt;77&lt;/reflink&gt;]). However, this idea may not apply to CIs planned as &#39;laboratory&#39; trials but rather to those that aim to achieve changes in daily life.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;We have noted that several cognitive functions are involved in each daily forgetfulness (Chaytor et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib11&quot; id=&quot;ref97&quot;&gt;11&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Future research should focus on the various cognitive areas involved in each daily forgetfulness; these studies should be translational so that their results can be applied to daily life. Research on the specific solution of the most frequent and life-distorting forgetfulness in healthy people may be a promising field that requires further research.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;There are current studies on CI and connectivity (Su&#225;rez-M&#233;ndez et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib65&quot; id=&quot;ref98&quot;&gt;65&lt;/reflink&gt;]); more work on connectivity with MEG and other techniques aimed at everyday forgetting and its modification by CI would be desirable. Similarly, the use of digital media for CI has grown significantly; particularly positive results have been observed for programs focused on processing speed and attention, such as the UFOV method; more research studies of this type should be promoted; they are helpful not only for the improvement of cognitive functions but also for everyday life. The UMAM program is carrying out studies in this area. With the same intervention principles as the UMAM program, an online cognitive assessment and intervention platform called &#39;Improve memory&#39; has been created with free and open access. The exercises focus, among other areas, on processing speed and attention. It can be performed from different devices.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;CI for healthy older people is widespread; they are often simply a collection of unsystematized activities with unclear objectives and dubious results. Using already tested methods, such as some of those mentioned in this paper, is desirable. These programs, preferably multifactorial, should be coordinated and directed by expert professionals whose training in the subject is a clear priority in this field. Including physical exercise in these programs has already produced good results (Babaei and Azari ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib1&quot; id=&quot;ref99&quot;&gt;1&lt;/reflink&gt;]).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Some future multimodal programs could incorporate CI aimed at improving cognitive functions, especially memory, attention, executive functions, and language, focusing mainly on daily life. In addition, these programs could include controlled physical exercise, healthy eating, cultural sessions, meetings, and socialization promotion.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0181835105-18&quot;&gt;Conclusions&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;To improve a specific cognitive function, we argue that this should be trained directly with targeted exercises. Multifactorial programs could help achieve this goal in older individuals. Furthermore, it is helpful to train general strategies and use exercises related to daily life so that they can be readily transferred to other untrained functions and generalized to daily life activities. The CI programs used in the promotion and prevention of health have particular demands that differ from those used for cognitive rehabilitation and non-ecological laboratory studies. Based on the studies reviewed and the results obtained here, several characteristics of the UMAM method might be applied to other intervention methods: its multifactorial nature, training several cognitive areas; the high &#39;dose&#39; of sessions; its adaptation to real life; and its targeting of everyday memory failures. Follow-up studies could make it possible to determine if CI programs can improve older adults&#39; daily memory problems and achieve another critical objective, delay the onset of dementia due to AD.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0181835105-19&quot;&gt;Disclosure statement&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;ref id=&quot;AN0181835105-20&quot;&gt; &lt;title&gt; Footnotes &lt;/title&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibl id=&quot;bib1&quot; idref=&quot;ref99&quot; type=&quot;bt&quot;&gt;1&lt;/bibl&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Mercedes Montenegro-Pe&#241;a and Pedro Montejo Carrasco equally contributed to this word.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;/ref&gt; &lt;ref id=&quot;AN0181835105-21&quot;&gt; &lt;title&gt; References &lt;/title&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Babaei, P., &amp;amp; Azari, H. B. (2022). Exercise training improves memory performance in older adults: A narrative review of evidence and possible mechanisms. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 15, 771553. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2021.771553&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibl id=&quot;bib2&quot; idref=&quot;ref88&quot; type=&quot;bt&quot;&gt;2&lt;/bibl&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Ball, K. K., Beard, B. L., Roenker, D. L., Miller, R. L., &amp;amp; Griggs, D. S. (1988). Age and visual search: Expanding the useful field of view. Journal Optical Society of America, A, 5 (12), 2210 – 2219. https://doi.org/10.1364/josaa.5.002210&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibl id=&quot;bib3&quot; idref=&quot;ref74&quot; type=&quot;bt&quot;&gt;3&lt;/bibl&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Baltes, P. B., &amp;amp; Kliegl, R. (1992). Further testing of limits of cognitive plasticity: Negative age differences in a mnemonic skill are robust. Developmental Psychology, 28 (1), 121 – 125. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.28.1.121&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibl id=&quot;bib4&quot; idref=&quot;ref71&quot; type=&quot;bt&quot;&gt;4&lt;/bibl&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Becker, E. S., Vanderhasselt, M. A., &amp;amp; Vrijsen, J. N. (2015). Memory training in depression. Current Opinion in Psychology, 4, 48 – 52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.02.004&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibl id=&quot;bib5&quot; idref=&quot;ref14&quot; type=&quot;bt&quot;&gt;5&lt;/bibl&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Belleville, S., Gilbert, B., Fontaine, F., Gagnon, L., M&#233;nard, &#201;., &amp;amp; Gauthier, S. (2006). Improvement of episodic memory in persons with mild cognitive impairment and healthy older adults: Evidence from a cognitive intervention program. Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders, 22 (5–6), 486 – 499. https://doi.org/10.1159/000096316&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibl id=&quot;bib6&quot; idref=&quot;ref75&quot; type=&quot;bt&quot;&gt;6&lt;/bibl&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Boosman, H., Bovend&#39;eerdt, T. J., Visser‐Meily, J., Nijboer, T. C., &amp;amp; Heugten, C. M. (2016). Dynamic testing of learning potential in adults with cognitive impairments: A systematic review of methodology and predictive value. Journal of Neuropsychology, 10 (2), 186 – 210. https://doi.org/10.1111/jnp.12063&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibl id=&quot;bib7&quot; idref=&quot;ref77&quot; type=&quot;bt&quot;&gt;7&lt;/bibl&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Borella, E., Carbone, E., Pastore, M., De Beni, R., &amp;amp; Carretti, B. (2017). Working memory training for healthy older adults: The role of individual characteristics in explaining short and long-term gains. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 11, 99. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00099&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibl id=&quot;bib8&quot; idref=&quot;ref64&quot; type=&quot;bt&quot;&gt;8&lt;/bibl&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Buiza, C., Etxeberria, I., Galdona, N., Gonz&#225;lez, M. F., Arriola, E., de Munain, A. L., Urdaneta, E., &amp;amp; Yanguas, J. J. (2008). A randomized, two‐year study of the efficacy of cognitive intervention on elderly people: The Donostia Longitudinal Study. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 23 (1), 85 – 94. https://doi.org/10.1002/gps.1846&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibl id=&quot;bib9&quot; idref=&quot;ref79&quot; type=&quot;bt&quot;&gt;9&lt;/bibl&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Butler, M., McCreedy, E., Nelson, V. A., Desai, P., Ratner, E., Fink, H. A., Hemmy, L. S., McCarten, J. R., Barclay, T. R., Brasure, M., Davila, H., &amp;amp; Kane, R. L. (2018). Does cognitive training prevent cognitive decline? A systematic review. Annals of Internal Medicine, 168 (1), 63 – 68. https://doi.org/10.7326/M17-1531&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Cacho, J., Garc&#237;a-Garc&#237;a, R., Arcaya, J., Vicente, J. L. &amp;amp; Lantada, N. (1999). A proposal for the application and scoring of the Clock Drawing test in Alzheimer&#39;s Disease. Revista de Neurologia, 28 (7), 648 – 655.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Chaytor, N., Schmitter-Edgecombe, M., &amp;amp; Burr, R. (2006). Improving the ecological validity of executive functioning assessment. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 21 (3), 217 – 227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acn.2005.12.002&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Cohen‐Mansfield, J., Cohen, R., Buettner, L., Eyal, N., Jakobovits, H., Rebok, G., Rotenberg‐Shpigelman, S., &amp;amp; Sternberg, S. (2015). Interventions for older persons reporting memory difficulties: A randomized controlled pilot study. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 30 (5), 478 – 486. https://doi.org/10.1002/gps.4164&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Cotelli, M., Manenti, R., Brambilla, M., Zanetti, O., &amp;amp; Miniussi, C. (2012). Naming ability changes in physiological and pathological aging. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 6, 120. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2012.00120&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Derwinger, A., Neely, A. S., MacDonald, S., &amp;amp; B&#228;ckman, L. (2005). Forgetting numbers in old age: Strategy and learning speed matter. Gerontology, 51 (4), 277 – 284. https://doi.org/10.1159/000085124&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Edwards, J. D., Fausto, B. A., Tetlow, A. M., Corona, R. T., &amp;amp; Vald&#233;s, E. G. (2018). Systematic review and meta-analyses of useful field of view cognitive training. Neuroscience &amp;amp; Biobehavioral Reviews, 84, 72 – 91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.11.004&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Ettlinger, M., Margulis, E. H., &amp;amp; Wong, P. (2011). Implicit memory in music and language. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 211. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00211&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Floyd, M., &amp;amp; Scogin, F. (1997). Effects of memory training on the subjective memory functioning and mental health of older adults: A meta-analysis. Psychology and Aging, 12 (1), 150 – 161. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.12.1.150&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E., &amp;amp; McHugh, P. R. (1975). Mini-mental state: A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12 (3), 189 – 198. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3956(75)90026-6&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Frankenmolen, N. L., Overdorp, E. J., Fasotti, L., Claassen, J. A., Kessels, R. P., &amp;amp; Oosterman, J. M. (2018). Memory strategy training in older adults with subjective memory complaints: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 24 (10), 1110 – 1120. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617718000619&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Gavelin, H. M., Lampit, A., Hallock, H., Sabat&#233;s, J., &amp;amp; Bahar-Fuchs, A. (2020). Cognition-oriented treatments for older adults: A systematic overview of systematic reviews. Neuropsychology review, 30 (2), 167 – 193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-020-09434-8&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Golden, C., &amp;amp; Freshwater, S. M. (1978). Stroop color and word test: A manual for clinical and experimental uses (IL: Wood Dale). Stoelting Company.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Goodglass, H., Kaplan, E., &amp;amp; Barresi, B. (2005). Test de Boston para el diagn&#243;stico de la afasia. Editorial Panamericana.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Gross, A. L., Parisi, J. M., Spira, A. P., Kueider, A. M., Ko, J. Y., Saczynski, J. S., Samus, Q. M., &amp;amp; Rebok, G. W. (2012). Memory training interventions for older adults: A meta-analysis. Aging &amp;amp; Mental Health, 16 (6), 722 – 734. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2012.667783&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Hertzog, C., Pearman, A., Lustig, E., &amp;amp; Hughes, M. (2020). Fostering self-management of everyday memory in older adults: A new intervention approach. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.560056&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Isaacs, B., &amp;amp; Akhtar, A. J. (1972). The set test: A rapid test of mental function in old people. Age &amp;amp; Ageing, 1 (4), 222 – 226. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/1.4.222&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Jessen, F., Amariglio, R. E., Van Boxtel, M., Breteler, M., Ceccaldi, M., Ch&#233;telat, G. Dubois, B., Dufouil, C., Ellis, K. A., Van Der Flier, W. M., &amp;amp; Glodzik, L. (2014). A conceptual framework for research on subjective cognitive decline in preclinical Alzheimer&#39;s disease. Alzheimer&#39;s &amp;amp; Dementia, 10 (6), 844 – 852. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2014.01.001&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Kelly, M. E., Loughrey, D., Lawlor, B. A., Robertson, I. H., Walsh, C., &amp;amp; Brennan, S. (2014). The impact of cognitive training and mental stimulation on cognitive and everyday functioning of healthy older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ageing Research Reviews, 15, 28 – 43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arr.2014.02.004&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Kleim, J. A., &amp;amp; Jones, T. A. (2008). Principles of experience-dependent neural plasticity: Implications for rehabilitation after brain damage. Journal of Speech, Language, &amp;amp; Hearing Research, 51 (1), S225 – S239. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Lee, P. L., Chang, H. H., Huang, C. K., Cheng, W. C., Lee, P. Y., &amp;amp; Chao, H. C. (2018). Memory training program for older adults. Educational Gerontology, 44 (10), 614 – 626. https://doi.org/10.1080/03601277.2018.1511099&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Lobo, A., Saz, P., Marcos, G., &amp;amp; Working group ZARADEMP. (2002). MMSE: Examen Cognoscitivo Mini Mental. TEA Ediciones.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; L&#246;vd&#233;n, M., Brehmer, Y., Li, S. C., &amp;amp; Lindenberger, U. (2012). Training-induced compensation versus magnification of individual differences in memory performance. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 141. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00141&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Luzzi, S., Pesallaccia, M., Fabi, K., Muti, M., Viticchi, G., Provinciali, L., &amp;amp; Piccirilli, M. (2011). Non-verbal memory measured by rey–osterrieth complex figure B: Normative data. Neurological Sciences, 32 (6), 1081 – 1089. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10072-011-0641-1&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; McDaniel, M. A., &amp;amp; Bugg, J. M. (2012). Memory training interventions: What has been forgotten? Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 1 (1), 45 – 50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2011.11.002&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Melby-Lerv&#229;g, M., Redick, T. S., &amp;amp; Hulme, C. (2016). Working memory training does not improve performance on measures of intelligence or other measures of &quot;far transfer&quot;. Evidence from a meta-analytic review. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11 (4), 512 – 534. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616635612&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Mewborn, C. M., Lindbergh, C. A., &amp;amp; Miller, L. S. (2017). Cognitive interventions for cognitively healthy, mildly impaired, and mixed samples of older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials. Neuropsychology Review, 27 (4), 403 – 439. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-017-9350-8&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Montejo, P., Montenegro, M., Fern&#225;ndez, M. A., &amp;amp; Maest&#250;, F. (2011). Subjective memory complaints in the elderly: Prevalence and influence of temporal orientation, depression and quality of life in a population-based study in the city of Madrid. Aging &amp;amp; Mental Health, 15 (1), 85 – 96. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2010.501062&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Montejo, P., Montenegro, M., Reinoso, A. I., De Andr&#233;s, M. E., &amp;amp; Claver, M. D. (2003). Manual pr&#225;ctico de Evaluaci&#243;n y Entrenamiento de Memoria (D&#237;az de Santos Ed.). Madrid.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Montejo, P., Montenegro-Pe&#241;a, M., &amp;amp; Sueiro, M. J. (2012a). The memory failures of everyday (MFE) test: Normative data in adults. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 15 (3), 1424 – 1431. https://doi.org/10.5209/rev_SJOP.2012.v15.n3.39426&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Montejo, P., Montenegro-Pe&#241;a, M., &amp;amp; Sueiro, M. J. (2012b). The memory failures of everyday questionnaire (MFE): Internal consistency and reliability. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 15 (2), 768 – 776. https://doi.org/10.5209/rev_SJOP.2012.v15.n2.38888&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Morris, S. B. (2008). Estimating effect sizes from pretest-posttest-control group designs. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 364 – 386. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106291059&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Noice, H., &amp;amp; Noice, T. (2008). An arts intervention for older adults living in subsidized retirement homes. Aging, Neuropsychology &amp;amp; Cognition, 16 (1), 56 – 79. https://doi.org/10.1080/13825580802233400&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Olazar&#225;n, J., Bermejo, F., &amp;amp; Mouronte, P. (2005). Clinical validity of two scales of instrumental activities in Alzheimer&#39;s disease. Neurolog&#237;a, 20 (8), 395 – 401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nrleng.2010.12.001&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Papp, K. V., Walsh, S. J., &amp;amp; Snyder, P. J. (2009). Immediate and delayed effects of cognitive interventions in healthy elderly: A review of current literature and future directions. Alzheimer&#39;s &amp;amp; Dementia, 5 (1), 50 – 60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2008.10.008&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Pfeffer, R. I., Kurosaki, T. T., Harrah, C. H., Chance, J. M., &amp;amp; Filos, S. (1982). Measurement of functional activities in older adults in the community. Journal of Gerontology, 37 (3), 323 – 329. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronj/37.3.323&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Pieramico, V., Esposito, R., Cesinaro, S., Frazzini, V., &amp;amp; Sensi, S. L. (2014). Effects of non-pharmacological or pharmacological interventions on cognition and brain plasticity of aging individuals. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 8, 153. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.2014.00153&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Preiss, M., Lukavsk&#253;, J., &amp;amp; Steinova, D. (2010). Decreased self-reported cognitive failures after memory training. Educational Gerontology, 36 (9), 798 – 808. https://doi.org/10.1080/03601270903534655&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Rasmusson, D. X., Rebok, G. W., Bylsma, F. W., &amp;amp; Brandt, J. (1999). Effects of three types of memory training in normal elderly. Aging, Neuropsychology &amp;amp; Cognition, 6 (1), 56 – 66. https://doi.org/10.1076/anec.6.1.56.790&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Rebok, G. W., Ball, K., Guey, L. T., Jones, R. N., Kim, H. Y., King, J. W., Marsiske, M., Morris, J. N., Tennstedt, S. L., Unverzagt, F. W., &amp;amp; Willis, S. L. (2014). Ten-year effects of the advanced cognitive training for independent and vital elderly cognitive training trial on cognition and everyday functioning in older adults. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 62 (1), 16 – 24. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.12607&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Reijnders, J. S., Geusgens, C. A., Ponds, R. W., &amp;amp; van Boxtel, M. P. (2018). &quot;Keep your brain fit!&quot; Effectiveness of a psychoeducational intervention on cognitive functioning in healthy adults: A randomised controlled trial. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 27 (4), 455 – 471. https://doi.org/10.1080/09602011.2015.1090458&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Reijnders, J., van Heugten, C., &amp;amp; van Boxtel, M. (2013). Cognitive interventions in healthy older adults and people with mild cognitive impairment: A systematic review. Ageing Research Reviews, 12 (1), 263 – 275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arr.2012.07.003&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Reitan, R. M. (1958). Validity of the trail making test as an indicator of organic brain damage. Perceptual and motor skills, 8 (3), 271 – 276. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1958.8.3.271&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Ripp, I., Emch, M., Wu, Q., Lizarraga, A., Udale, R., von Bastian, C. C., Koch, K., &amp;amp; Yakushev, I. (2022). Adaptive working memory training does not produce transfer effects in cognition and neuroimaging. Translational Psychiatry, 12 (1), 512. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-022-02272-7&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Sala, G., Aksayli, N. D., Tatlidil, K. S., Tatsumi, T., Gondo, Y., Gobet, F., Zwaan, R., &amp;amp; Verkoeijen, P. (2019). Near and far transfer in cognitive training: A second-order meta-analysis. Collabra: Psychology, 5 (1), 18. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.203&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Salthouse, T. A. (1993). Speed and knowledge as determinants of adult age differences in verbal tasks. Journal of Gerontology, 48 (1), 29 – P36. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronj/48.1.p29&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Salthouse, T. A., Fristoe, N. M., Lineweaver, T. T., &amp;amp; Coon, V. E. (1995). Aging of attention: Does the ability to divide decline? Memory &amp;amp; Cognition, 23 (1), 59 – 71. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03210557&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Sheikh, J. I., &amp;amp; Yesavage, J. A. (1986). Geriatric depression scale (GDS) recent evidence and development of a shorter version. Clinical Gerontologist, 5 (1–2), 165 – 173. https://doi.org/10.1300/J018v05n01_09&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Sheng, C., Yang, K., Wang, X., Li, H., Li, T., Lin, L. Liu, Y., Yang, Q., Wang, X., &amp;amp; Han, Y. (2020). Advances in non-pharmacological interventions for subjective cognitive decline: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Alzheimer&#39;s Disease, 77 (2), 903 – 920. https://doi.org/10.3233/JAD-191295&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Shulman, K. I. (2000). Clock-drawing: Is it the ideal cognitive screening test? International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 15, 548 – 561. https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-1166(200006)15:6&amp;lt;548:AID-GPS242&amp;gt;3.0.CO;2-U&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Smart, C. M., Karr, J. E., Areshenkoff, C. N., Rabin, L. A., Hudon, C., Gates, N., Ali, J. I., Arenaza-Urquijo, E. M., Buckley, R. F., Chetelat, G., Hampel, H., Jessen, F., Marchant, N. L., Sikkes, S. A. M., Tales, A., van der Flier, W. M., &amp;amp; Wesselman, L. (2017). Non-pharmacologic interventions for older adults with subjective cognitive decline: Systematic review, meta-analysis, and preliminary recommendations. Neuropsychology Review, 27 (3), 245 – 257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-017-9342-8&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Smith, G. E., Housen, P., Yaffe, K., Ruff, R., Kennison, R. F., Mahncke, H. W., &amp;amp; Zelinski, E. M. (2009). A cognitive training program based on principles of brain plasticity: Results from the improvement in memory with plasticity‐based adaptive cognitive training (IMPACT) study. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 57 (4), 594 – 603. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2008.02167.x&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Smoleń, T., Jastrzebski, J., Estrada, E., &amp;amp; Chuderski, A. (2018). Most evidence for the compensation account of cognitive training is unreliable. Memory &amp;amp; Cognition, 46 (8), 1315 – 1330. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-018-0839-z&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Solomon, P. R., Hirschoff, A., Kelly, B., Relin, M., Brush, M., DeVeaux, R. D., &amp;amp; Pendlebury, W. W. (1998). A 7 minute neurocognitive screening battery highly sensitive to Alzheimer&#39;s disease. Archives of Neurology, 55 (3), 349 – 355. https://doi.org/10.1001/archneur.55.3.349&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Stamatakis, E. A., Shafto, M. A., Williams, G., Tam, P., Tyler, L. K., &amp;amp; Garc&#237;a, A. V. (2011). White matter changes and word finding failures with increasing age. PLOS ONE, 6 (1), e14496. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0014496&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Su&#225;rez-M&#233;ndez, I., Bru&#241;a, R., L&#243;pez-Sanz, D., Montejo, P., Montenegro-Pe&#241;a, M., Delgado-Losada, M. L. Marcos Dolado, A., L&#243;pez-Higes, R., &amp;amp; Maest&#250;, F. (2022). Cognitive training modulates brain hypersynchrony in a population at risk for Alzheimer&#39;s disease. Journal of Alzheimer&#39;s Disease, 86 (3), 1185 – 1199. https://doi.org/10.3233/JAD-215406&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Sunderland, A., Harris, J. E., &amp;amp; Gleave, J. (1984). Memory failures in everyday life following severe head injury. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 6 (2), 127 – 142. https://doi.org/10.1080/01688638408401204&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Tombaugh, T. N., Kozak, J., &amp;amp; Rees, L. (1999). Normative data stratified by age and education for two measures of verbal fluency: FAS and animal naming. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 14 (2), 167 – 177. https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/14.2.167&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Traut, H. J., Guild, R. M., &amp;amp; Munakata, Y. (2021). Why does cognitive training yield inconsistent benefits? A meta-analysis of individual differences in baseline cognitive abilities and training outcomes. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 662139. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.662139&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Tsang, A. P. L., Au, A., &amp;amp; Lo, H. H. M. (2021). Prospective memory training for healthy older adults: A systematic review. Clinical Gerontologist, 45 (3), 486 – 502. https://doi.org/10.1080/07317115.2021.1950253&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Valentijn, S. A., van Hooren, S. A., Bosma, H., Touh, D. M., Jolles, J., van Boxtel, M. P., &amp;amp; Ponds, R. W. (2005). The effect of two types of memory training on subjective and objective memory performance in healthy individuals aged 55 years and older: A randomized controlled trial. Patient Education &amp;amp; Counseling, 57 (1), 106 – 114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2004.05.002&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Verhaeghen, P., Marcoen, A., &amp;amp; Goosens, L. (1992). Improving memory performance in the aged through mnemonic training: A meta-analytic study. Psychology and Aging, 7 (2), 242 – 251. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.7.2.242&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Vranić, A., Španić, A. M., Carretti, B., &amp;amp; Borella, E. (2013). The efficacy of a multifactorial memory training in older adults living in residential care settings. International Psychogeriatrics, 25 (11), 1885 – 1897. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1041610213001154&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Wechsler, D. (1997). Wechsler memory scale-third edition. The Psychological Corporation. (Spanish adaptation, 2004, TEA Ediciones).&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Willis, S. L., Tennstedt, S. L., Marsiske, M., Ball, K., Elias, J., Koepke, K. M., Rebok, G. W., Unverzagt, F. W., Stoddard, A. M., Wright, E., Active Study Group, F. T., &amp;amp; Morris, J. N. (2006). Long-term effects of cognitive training on everyday functional outcomes in older adults. JAMA, 296 (23), 2805 – 2814. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.296.23.2805&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Wilson, B. A., Alderman, N., Burgess, P. W., Emslie, H., &amp;amp; Evans, J. J. (1996). The behavioural assessment of the dysexecutive syndrome. Thames Valley Test Company.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Wilson, K. Y. (2005). The effectiveness of memory training programs in improving the subjective memory characteristics of healthy older adults with memory complaints: A meta-analysis [ Theses, Dissertations and Capstones, Paper 165 ]. https://mds.marshall.edu/etd/165&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Wood, W., &amp;amp; R&#252;nger, D. (2016). Psychology of habit. Annual Review of Psychology, 67 (1), 289 – 314. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033417&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Woolf, C., Lampit, A., Shahnawaz, Z., Sabates, J., Norrie, L. M., Burke, D., Naismith, S. L., &amp;amp; Mowszowski, L. (2022). A systematic review and meta-analysis of cognitive training in adults with major depressive disorder. Neuropsychology Review, 32 (2), 419 – 437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-021-09487-3&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;/ref&gt; &lt;aug&gt; &lt;p&gt;By Mercedes Montenegro-Pe&#241;a; Pedro Montejo Carrasco; M. Emiliana De Andr&#233;s Montes; Antonio Garc&#237;a Mar&#237;n; Borja Montejo Rubio and David Prada Crespo&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author&lt;/p&gt; &lt;/aug&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl1&quot; bibid=&quot;bib37&quot; firstref=&quot;ref1&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl2&quot; bibid=&quot;bib27&quot; firstref=&quot;ref2&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl3&quot; bibid=&quot;bib46&quot; firstref=&quot;ref3&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl4&quot; bibid=&quot;bib36&quot; firstref=&quot;ref4&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl5&quot; bibid=&quot;bib68&quot; firstref=&quot;ref5&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl6&quot; bibid=&quot;bib71&quot; firstref=&quot;ref6&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl7&quot; bibid=&quot;bib58&quot; firstref=&quot;ref7&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl8&quot; bibid=&quot;bib44&quot; firstref=&quot;ref8&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl9&quot; bibid=&quot;bib21&quot; firstref=&quot;ref9&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl10&quot; bibid=&quot;bib74&quot; firstref=&quot;ref10&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl11&quot; bibid=&quot;bib18&quot; firstref=&quot;ref11&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl12&quot; bibid=&quot;bib76&quot; firstref=&quot;ref12&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl13&quot; bibid=&quot;bib35&quot; firstref=&quot;ref15&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl14&quot; bibid=&quot;bib25&quot; firstref=&quot;ref16&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl15&quot; bibid=&quot;bib12&quot; firstref=&quot;ref17&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl16&quot; bibid=&quot;bib47&quot; firstref=&quot;ref18&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl17&quot; bibid=&quot;bib30&quot; firstref=&quot;ref19&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl18&quot; bibid=&quot;bib34&quot; firstref=&quot;ref20&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl19&quot; bibid=&quot;bib51&quot; firstref=&quot;ref21&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl20&quot; bibid=&quot;bib28&quot; firstref=&quot;ref22&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl21&quot; bibid=&quot;bib60&quot; firstref=&quot;ref23&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl22&quot; bibid=&quot;bib48&quot; firstref=&quot;ref24&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl23&quot; bibid=&quot;bib78&quot; firstref=&quot;ref25&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl24&quot; bibid=&quot;bib49&quot; firstref=&quot;ref27&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl25&quot; bibid=&quot;bib19&quot; firstref=&quot;ref28&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl26&quot; bibid=&quot;bib31&quot; firstref=&quot;ref30&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl27&quot; bibid=&quot;bib63&quot; firstref=&quot;ref31&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl28&quot; bibid=&quot;bib10&quot; firstref=&quot;ref32&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl29&quot; bibid=&quot;bib59&quot; firstref=&quot;ref33&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl30&quot; bibid=&quot;bib73&quot; firstref=&quot;ref34&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl31&quot; bibid=&quot;bib52&quot; firstref=&quot;ref35&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl32&quot; bibid=&quot;bib56&quot; firstref=&quot;ref36&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl33&quot; bibid=&quot;bib22&quot; firstref=&quot;ref37&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl34&quot; bibid=&quot;bib75&quot; firstref=&quot;ref38&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl35&quot; bibid=&quot;bib33&quot; firstref=&quot;ref40&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl36&quot; bibid=&quot;bib23&quot; firstref=&quot;ref41&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl37&quot; bibid=&quot;bib26&quot; firstref=&quot;ref42&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl38&quot; bibid=&quot;bib67&quot; firstref=&quot;ref43&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl39&quot; bibid=&quot;bib66&quot; firstref=&quot;ref44&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl40&quot; bibid=&quot;bib39&quot; firstref=&quot;ref45&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl41&quot; bibid=&quot;bib40&quot; firstref=&quot;ref46&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl42&quot; bibid=&quot;bib57&quot; firstref=&quot;ref47&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl43&quot; bibid=&quot;bib43&quot; firstref=&quot;ref48&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl44&quot; bibid=&quot;bib45&quot; firstref=&quot;ref49&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl45&quot; bibid=&quot;bib38&quot; firstref=&quot;ref50&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl46&quot; bibid=&quot;bib13&quot; firstref=&quot;ref51&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl47&quot; bibid=&quot;bib41&quot; firstref=&quot;ref52&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl48&quot; bibid=&quot;bib24&quot; firstref=&quot;ref53&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl49&quot; bibid=&quot;bib72&quot; firstref=&quot;ref55&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl50&quot; bibid=&quot;bib15&quot; firstref=&quot;ref57&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl51&quot; bibid=&quot;bib20&quot; firstref=&quot;ref59&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl52&quot; bibid=&quot;bib69&quot; firstref=&quot;ref60&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl53&quot; bibid=&quot;bib61&quot; firstref=&quot;ref62&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl54&quot; bibid=&quot;bib42&quot; firstref=&quot;ref67&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl55&quot; bibid=&quot;bib14&quot; firstref=&quot;ref68&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl56&quot; bibid=&quot;bib64&quot; firstref=&quot;ref69&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl57&quot; bibid=&quot;bib17&quot; firstref=&quot;ref70&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl58&quot; bibid=&quot;bib70&quot; firstref=&quot;ref73&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl59&quot; bibid=&quot;bib62&quot; firstref=&quot;ref76&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl60&quot; bibid=&quot;bib32&quot; firstref=&quot;ref78&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl61&quot; bibid=&quot;bib53&quot; firstref=&quot;ref83&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl62&quot; bibid=&quot;bib54&quot; firstref=&quot;ref84&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl63&quot; bibid=&quot;bib11&quot; firstref=&quot;ref85&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl64&quot; bibid=&quot;bib16&quot; firstref=&quot;ref90&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl65&quot; bibid=&quot;bib55&quot; firstref=&quot;ref91&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl66&quot; bibid=&quot;bib50&quot; firstref=&quot;ref92&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl67&quot; bibid=&quot;bib29&quot; firstref=&quot;ref95&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl68&quot; bibid=&quot;bib77&quot; firstref=&quot;ref96&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl69&quot; bibid=&quot;bib65&quot; firstref=&quot;ref98&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt;
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1454943
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Everyday Forgetfulness and Memory Complaints: A Randomized Controlled Cognitive Intervention Study
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: &lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;AR&quot; term=&quot;%22Mercedes+Montenegro-Pe&#241;a%22&quot;&gt;Mercedes Montenegro-Pe&#241;a&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;AR&quot; term=&quot;%22Pedro+Montejo+Carrasco%22&quot;&gt;Pedro Montejo Carrasco&lt;/searchLink&gt; (ORCID &lt;externalLink term=&quot;https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3028-0184&quot;&gt;0000-0002-3028-0184&lt;/externalLink&gt;)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;AR&quot; term=&quot;%22M%2E+Emiliana+De+Andr&#233;s+Montes%22&quot;&gt;M. Emiliana De Andr&#233;s Montes&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;AR&quot; term=&quot;%22Antonio+Garc&#237;a+Mar&#237;n%22&quot;&gt;Antonio Garc&#237;a Mar&#237;n&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;AR&quot; term=&quot;%22Borja+Montejo+Rubio%22&quot;&gt;Borja Montejo Rubio&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;AR&quot; term=&quot;%22David+Prada+Crespo%22&quot;&gt;David Prada Crespo&lt;/searchLink&gt;
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: &lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;SO&quot; term=&quot;%22Educational+Gerontology%22&quot;&gt;&lt;i&gt;Educational Gerontology&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/searchLink&gt;. 2025 51(1):39-56.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor &amp; Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 18
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles&lt;br /&gt;Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: &lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Memory%22&quot;&gt;Memory&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Intervention%22&quot;&gt;Intervention&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Program+Effectiveness%22&quot;&gt;Program Effectiveness&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Older+Adults%22&quot;&gt;Older Adults&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Cognitive+Ability%22&quot;&gt;Cognitive Ability&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Cognitive+Processes%22&quot;&gt;Cognitive Processes&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Cognitive+Tests%22&quot;&gt;Cognitive Tests&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Neuropsychology%22&quot;&gt;Neuropsychology&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Executive+Function%22&quot;&gt;Executive Function&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Training%22&quot;&gt;Training&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Knowledge+Level%22&quot;&gt;Knowledge Level&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Metacognition%22&quot;&gt;Metacognition&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Foreign+Countries%22&quot;&gt;Foreign Countries&lt;/searchLink&gt;
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: &lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Spain%22&quot;&gt;Spain&lt;/searchLink&gt;
– Name: SubjectThesaurus
  Label: Assessment and Survey Identifiers
  Group: Su
  Data: &lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;SU&quot; term=&quot;%22Wechsler+Memory+Scale%22&quot;&gt;Wechsler Memory Scale&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;SU&quot; term=&quot;%22Trail+Making+Test%22&quot;&gt;Trail Making Test&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;SU&quot; term=&quot;%22Stroop+Color+Word+Test%22&quot;&gt;Stroop Color Word Test&lt;/searchLink&gt;
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/03601277.2024.2382542
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0360-1277&lt;br /&gt;1521-0472
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The results of Cognitive Intervention (CI) programs vary considerably; thus, it is helpful to assess the characteristics that enhance the effectiveness of these programs. Our objectives were to analyze the effectiveness of a multicomponent CI program called UMAM on cognitive performance, subjective memory, daily forgetfulness, and mood of individuals with memory complaints. Older adults with no cognitive impairment were separated into two groups by simple random assignment, a control (n = 111) and a parallel experimental (n = 115) group. They were assessed with an extended neuropsychological protocol and the Memory Failures of Everyday Questionnaire (MFE); evaluation pre and post intervention (at six months). We performed a multifactorial cognitive intervention (30 sessions) based on memory strategies, stimulation of cognitive processes, instruction in basic concepts about memory, interventions for everyday memory failures, and Metamemory. The Results showed improvements in objective measures, including logical memory (Cohen&#39;s d = 0.30); processing speed (d = 0.26); phonological (d = 0.33) and semantic verbal fluency (d = 0.27); and general cognitive performance (d = 0.82) (all, p &lt; 0.05). In subjective measures, we found improvements in mood state (d = 0.25) and everyday memory failures (MFE: d = 0.29) (all, p &lt; 0.05). Several everyday failures improve: &#39;Forgetting where you have put something,&#39; &quot;finding a word that is on the &#39;tip of the tongue,&#39; and &#39;checking again if something has been done&#39; (all, p &lt; 0.05). We found positive results when a cognitive process was directly trained intensely using exercises that focus on real life, with adaptive activities that aim to resolve everyday memory failures. This program has proved effective in promoting health and well-being and preventing cognitive impairment.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1454943
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1454943
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/03601277.2024.2382542
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 18
        StartPage: 39
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Memory
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intervention
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Program Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Older Adults
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cognitive Ability
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cognitive Processes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cognitive Tests
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Neuropsychology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Executive Function
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Training
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Knowledge Level
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Metacognition
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Spain
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Wechsler Memory Scale
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Trail Making Test
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Stroop Color Word Test
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Everyday Forgetfulness and Memory Complaints: A Randomized Controlled Cognitive Intervention Study
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Mercedes Montenegro-Peña
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Pedro Montejo Carrasco
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: M. Emiliana De Andrés Montes
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Antonio García Marín
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Borja Montejo Rubio
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: David Prada Crespo
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0360-1277
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1521-0472
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 51
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Educational Gerontology
              Type: main
ResultId 1