The Effects of Unilateral Upper Limb Motor Control Training on Cognitive Function in Older Adults

Abstract ID
3659
Authors' names
Hatice S Ekici1,2, Mehmet C Yildirim1,2, Jemima Collins1,3,5, Mathew Piasecki1,2,3, *Bethan E Phillips1,2,3, *Adam L Gordon1,3,4,5
Author's provenances
1 School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Derby, UK , 2 Department of Medicine of the Elderly, University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust, Royal Derby Hospital, Derby 3 Academic Centre for Healthy Ageing, Queen Mary University
Abstract category
Abstract sub-category
Conditions

Abstract

THE EFFECT OF UNILATERAL, LOW-INTENSITY, UPPER LIMB MOTOR CONTROL TRAINING ON COGNITIVE FUNCTION IN HEALTHY OLDER ADULTS:

A PILOT STUDY

Introduction
Age-related cognitive decline, particularly in executive function and processing speed, is a major concern. Physical exercise is recognised as a strategy to support cognitive health (1), however not all older adults are physically able to perform the ‘traditional’ forms of exercise (i.e., resistance and endurance exercise), which have been shown to elicit this benefit. Motor control training (MCT) is emerging as a potential alternative exercise modality, however, to date the effect of unilateral, upper-limb MCT on the cognitive abilities of older adults has not been investigated.

Methods
Twenty disease-free older adults aged ≥65 years (10 male, 10 female; 73.0 ± 2.1 years) completed a 4-week unilateral MCT programme by the self-determined dominant upper limb. MCT was performed three times each week, with assessments of cognition (Trail Making Test (TMT), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and Stroop Colour-Word Test (SCWT)) before and after the MCT, and 4 weeks after cessation of the MCT. IL-2 and brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) were also evaluated at these timepoints as potential biomarkers of cognition. Data was analysed via one-way ANOVA with significance accepted as p<0.05.

Results
TMT (28.49 ± 6.54 vs. 24.37 ± 7.83 sec; p = 0.01), MoCA (25.8 ± 1.82 vs. 28.2 ± 1.24 point; p < 0.0001), and SCWT interference scores (raw, p<0.0001)  significantly improved after MCT and remained improved at follow-up (TMT: 24.22±6.23 sec, p; MoCA: 28.6±1.31point, p=<0.0001; SCWT: 4.53 ± 7.43 vs.11.74 ± 9.90 point, p<0.0001).  In contrast, IL-2 and BDNF were not altered by MCT (p=0.21 and p=0.29, respectively), nor did they change in the post-MCT period (p=0.54 and p=0.65, respectively).

Conclusion

Unilateral, upper-limb MCT may provide cognitive benefits in older adults, including in executive function and attention. As these improvements were attainable in just 4 weeks, it may be applicable to clinical situations such as surgical prehabilitation. The lack of biomarker changes suggests that longer interventions may be needed to produce measurable neurobiological effects.

 

Reference:

1.            Erickson KI, Voss MW, Prakash RS, Basak C, Szabo A, Chaddock L, et al. Exercise training increases size of hippocampus and improves memory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2011 Feb 15;108(7):3017–22. 

Comments

Really well-designed pilot, and it’s great to see a novel approach to improving cognition in older adults using an accessible intervention. I wonder how you controlled for possible practice effects/bias on the cognitive tests across repeated assessments? Thanks for sharing! 

Submitted by d.ghanem@nhs.net on

Permalink

Thank you for your insightful comment! We used the same set of cognitive tests at all three assessment points, which may have introduced some practice effects. However, the interval between assessments was sufficient to minimise immediate recall, and all participants followed the same testing schedule. We also acknowledge this as a limitation of the study.

Thank you for your insightful comment. We haven’t yet established a sham version of this intervention, and it would indeed be challenging to design one for motor control training. However, we agree that including a sham or minimal movement control group would strengthen future studies.

Submitted by HATICE.EKICI_31491 on

Permalink

This is very interesting study! Just wanted to know why the duration of the intervention was only 4 weeks? It is impressive to see significant improvements in just 4 weeks. I was wondering if it would be possible to implement this programme in an unsupervised manner.

Submitted by p.s.mathur@bha… on

Permalink