Mnemonic Strategy Versus Spaced Retrieval Training in Those With Mild Cognitive Impairment

Overview

This study compared two active cognitive interventions to evaluate whether one improved memory more than the other in patients with mild cognitive impairment. Participants were randomized to either memory strategy training or spaced retrieval training and completed memory tests before and after 3 training sessions. Participants returned 1 month after treatment to see how well they remembered the learned information. Brain scans (functional MRI) were collected before and after the interventions to see if training changed the way brain regions were functioning.

Full Title of Study: “Comparing Mnemonic Strategy With Spaced Retrieval Training in Patients With Mild Cognitive Impairment (B6366-W)”

Study Type

  • Study Type: Interventional
  • Study Design
    • Allocation: Randomized
    • Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment
    • Primary Purpose: Treatment
    • Masking: Single (Participant)
  • Study Primary Completion Date: June 30, 2014

Detailed Description

Individuals with MCI were randomized to 3 sessions of mnemonic strategy or spaced retrieval training that focused on object location associations. Across these training sessions, each group received 9 training trials for each of the 45 trained stimuli. Task-fMRI was acquired before and after training. Memory was again evaluated 1 month after the last training session. The primary outcome measure was memory for the "trained" stimuli while secondary outcome was accuracy for novel stimuli acquired outside of the MRI environment.

Interventions

  • Behavioral: mnemonic strategy training
    • training using mnemonic strategies
  • Behavioral: spaced retrieval training
    • training using spaced retrieval

Arms, Groups and Cohorts

  • Experimental: Mnemonic strategy training
    • Training using mnemonic strategies
  • Active Comparator: Spaced retrieval training
    • Training using spaced retrieval

Clinical Trial Outcome Measures

Primary Measures

  • Percent of Correct Object Location Associations Assessed up to 1 Month Post-treatment
    • Time Frame: up to 1 month after last training session
    • Change in memory for 45 trained object location associations

Secondary Measures

  • Change in Accuracy (vs. Baseline) on Novel Object Location Associations
    • Time Frame: up to 1 month after last training session
    • Change in accuracy for novel object location associations using a touchscreen task; distance measured in cm from actual location

Participating in This Clinical Trial

Inclusion Criteria

-Diagnosis of MCI according to Petersen (2004) criteria, right handed Exclusion Criteria:

  • Diagnosis of other neurological condition, – active drug/alcohol abuse/dependence, – moderate-severe depression or other Axis I diagnoses.

Gender Eligibility: All

Minimum Age: N/A

Maximum Age: N/A

Are Healthy Volunteers Accepted: No

Investigator Details

  • Lead Sponsor
    • VA Office of Research and Development
  • Provider of Information About this Clinical Study
    • Sponsor
  • Overall Official(s)
    • Benjamin M. Hampstead, PhD, Principal Investigator, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, MI

Clinical trials entries are delivered from the US National Institutes of Health and are not reviewed separately by this site. Please see the identifier information above for retrieving further details from the government database.

At TrialBulletin.com, we keep tabs on over 200,000 clinical trials in the US and abroad, using medical data supplied directly by the US National Institutes of Health. Please see the About and Contact page for details.