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

      Efficacy of Mobile-Based Cognitive Training Program DoBrain in Preschool Children With or Without Developmental Disabilities: A Randomized, Single-Blind, Active-Controlled Trial

      research-article

      Read this article at

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

          Abstract

          Objective

          Mobile-based cognitive training programs can be a viable alternative to in-person interventions, but their efficacies have not been established yet. In this study, we examined the efficacy of DoBrain, a mobile-based cognitive training program designed for children with developmental disabilities (DDs), in comparison with general educational apps named Junior Naver and Kakao Kids.

          Methods

          Children aged 34 to 77 months were recruited and randomized at a 1:1 ratio to use DoBrain or general educational apps. Each group used the assigned app on a daily basis at home for 30 minutes for 24 weeks. Parents were instructed to help the children with the app usage. A total of 166 children completed the post-test visit (DoBrain group, n=85, 55.4±8.7 months old; general educational app group, n=81, 53.7±9.9 months old). The primary outcome was cognitive development measured by Psychoeducational Profile-Revised (PEP-R), administered at baseline and at post-test.

          Results

          DoBrain had no superior effect over general educational apps on the PEP-R Developmental Quotient. When the changes before and after app usage were compared, the DoBrain group and the general educational app group both showed declines in imitation (adjusted p=0.049 and 0.022), perception (adjusted p=0.004 and <0.001), and gross motor (adjusted p=0.003 and 0.002) domains of the PEP-R. Among the DoBrain group, children with DD showed a significantly greater gain in the eye-hand coordination domain of PEP-R compared with those without DD (adjusted p=0.047).

          Conclusion

          DoBrain did not show a superior effect over general educational apps on overall cognitive development in preschool children, regardless of the presence of DD. Careful monitoring of the negative effect of mobile-based cognitive training programs is necessary.

          Related collections

          Most cited references40

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

          Early behavioral intervention, brain plasticity, and the prevention of autism spectrum disorder.

          Advances in the fields of cognitive and affective developmental neuroscience, developmental psychopathology, neurobiology, genetics, and applied behavior analysis have contributed to a more optimistic outcome for individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). These advances have led to new methods for early detection and more effective treatments. For the first time, prevention of ASD is plausible. Prevention will entail detecting infants at risk before the full syndrome is present and implementing treatments designed to alter the course of early behavioral and brain development. This article describes a developmental model of risk, risk processes, symptom emergence, and adaptation in ASD that offers a framework for understanding early brain plasticity in ASD and its role in prevention of the disorder.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The aberrant behavior checklist: a behavior rating scale for the assessment of treatment effects.

            The development of a scale to assess drug and other treatment effects on severely mentally retarded individuals was described. In the first stage of the project, an initial scale encompassing a large number of behavior problems was used to rate 418 residents. The scale was then reduced to an intermediate version, and in the second stage, 509 moderately to profoundly retarded individuals were rated. Separate factor analyses of the data from the two samples resulted in a five-factor scale comprising 58 items. The factors of the Aberrant Behavior Checklist have been labeled as follows: (I) Irritability, Agitation, Crying; (II) Lethargy, Social Withdrawal; (III) Stereotypic Behavior; (IV) Hyperactivity, Noncompliance; and (V) Inappropriate Speech. Average subscale scores were presented for the instrument, and the results were compared with empirically derived rating scales of childhood psychopathology and with factor analytic work in the field of mental retardation.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Do "Brain-Training" Programs Work?

              In 2014, two groups of scientists published open letters on the efficacy of brain-training interventions, or "brain games," for improving cognition. The first letter, a consensus statement from an international group of more than 70 scientists, claimed that brain games do not provide a scientifically grounded way to improve cognitive functioning or to stave off cognitive decline. Several months later, an international group of 133 scientists and practitioners countered that the literature is replete with demonstrations of the benefits of brain training for a wide variety of cognitive and everyday activities. How could two teams of scientists examine the same literature and come to conflicting "consensus" views about the effectiveness of brain training?In part, the disagreement might result from different standards used when evaluating the evidence. To date, the field has lacked a comprehensive review of the brain-training literature, one that examines both the quantity and the quality of the evidence according to a well-defined set of best practices. This article provides such a review, focusing exclusively on the use of cognitive tasks or games as a means to enhance performance on other tasks. We specify and justify a set of best practices for such brain-training interventions and then use those standards to evaluate all of the published peer-reviewed intervention studies cited on the websites of leading brain-training companies listed on Cognitive Training Data (www.cognitivetrainingdata.org), the site hosting the open letter from brain-training proponents. These citations presumably represent the evidence that best supports the claims of effectiveness.Based on this examination, we find extensive evidence that brain-training interventions improve performance on the trained tasks, less evidence that such interventions improve performance on closely related tasks, and little evidence that training enhances performance on distantly related tasks or that training improves everyday cognitive performance. We also find that many of the published intervention studies had major shortcomings in design or analysis that preclude definitive conclusions about the efficacy of training, and that none of the cited studies conformed to all of the best practices we identify as essential to drawing clear conclusions about the benefits of brain training for everyday activities. We conclude with detailed recommendations for scientists, funding agencies, and policymakers that, if adopted, would lead to better evidence regarding the efficacy of brain-training interventions.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Psychiatry Investig
                Psychiatry Investig
                PI
                Psychiatry Investigation
                Korean Neuropsychiatric Association
                1738-3684
                1976-3026
                December 2022
                22 December 2022
                : 19
                : 12
                : 1000-1011
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Psychiatry, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
                [2 ]Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Hyo-Won Kim, MD, PhD Department of Psychiatry, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul 05505, Republic of Korea Tel: +82-2-3010-3414, Fax: +82-2-485-8381, E-mail: shingubi@ 123456amc.seoul.kr
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0350-084X
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9010-5460
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7660-4252
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9709-8723
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8744-5138
                Article
                pi-2022-0136
                10.30773/pi.2022.0136
                9806509
                36588434
                338db0a1-4fdf-4e1d-9854-4939a61e41ba
                Copyright © 2022 Korean Neuropsychiatric Association

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 17 May 2022
                : 24 August 2022
                : 29 September 2022
                Categories
                Original Article

                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                cognitive training,developmental disabilities,randomized controlled trial,cognition

                Comments

                Comment on this article