A meta-analysis of technology use and cognitive aging

IF 21.4 1区 心理学 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
Jared F. Benge, Michael K. Scullin
{"title":"A meta-analysis of technology use and cognitive aging","authors":"Jared F. Benge, Michael K. Scullin","doi":"10.1038/s41562-025-02159-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The first generation who engaged with digital technologies has reached the age where risks of dementia emerge. Has technological exposure helped or harmed cognition in digital pioneers? The digital dementia hypothesis predicts that a lifetime of technology exposure worsens cognitive abilities. An alternative hypothesis is that such exposures lead to technological reserve, wherein digital technologies promote behaviours that preserve cognition. We tested these hypotheses in a meta-analysis and systematic review of studies published in Medline, PsycInfo, CINAHL, Science Direct, Scopus, Cochrane Library, ProQuest and Web of Science. Studies were included if they were observational or cohort studies focused on general digital technology use in older adults (over age 50) and included either a cognitive or dementia diagnosis outcome. We identified 136 papers that met inclusion criteria, of which 57 were compatible with odds ratio or hazard ratio meta-analysis. These studies included 411,430 adults (baseline age M = 68.7 years; 53.5% female) from cross-sectional and longitudinal observational studies (range: 1–18 years, M = 6.2 years). Use of digital technologies was associated with reduced risk of cognitive impairment (OR = 0.42, 95% CI 0.35–0.52) and reduced time-dependent rates of cognitive decline (HR = 0.74, 95% CI 0.66–0.84). Effects remained significant when accounting for demographic, socioeconomic, health and cognitive reserve proxies. All studies were evaluated for quality on the basis of a standardized checklist; the primary outcomes replicated when limiting analyses to the highest-quality studies. Additional work is needed to test bidirectional causal interpretations, understand mechanisms that underpin technological reserve, and identify how types and timings of technology exposures influence cognitive health.</p>","PeriodicalId":19074,"journal":{"name":"Nature Human Behaviour","volume":"183 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":21.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nature Human Behaviour","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-025-02159-9","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The first generation who engaged with digital technologies has reached the age where risks of dementia emerge. Has technological exposure helped or harmed cognition in digital pioneers? The digital dementia hypothesis predicts that a lifetime of technology exposure worsens cognitive abilities. An alternative hypothesis is that such exposures lead to technological reserve, wherein digital technologies promote behaviours that preserve cognition. We tested these hypotheses in a meta-analysis and systematic review of studies published in Medline, PsycInfo, CINAHL, Science Direct, Scopus, Cochrane Library, ProQuest and Web of Science. Studies were included if they were observational or cohort studies focused on general digital technology use in older adults (over age 50) and included either a cognitive or dementia diagnosis outcome. We identified 136 papers that met inclusion criteria, of which 57 were compatible with odds ratio or hazard ratio meta-analysis. These studies included 411,430 adults (baseline age M = 68.7 years; 53.5% female) from cross-sectional and longitudinal observational studies (range: 1–18 years, M = 6.2 years). Use of digital technologies was associated with reduced risk of cognitive impairment (OR = 0.42, 95% CI 0.35–0.52) and reduced time-dependent rates of cognitive decline (HR = 0.74, 95% CI 0.66–0.84). Effects remained significant when accounting for demographic, socioeconomic, health and cognitive reserve proxies. All studies were evaluated for quality on the basis of a standardized checklist; the primary outcomes replicated when limiting analyses to the highest-quality studies. Additional work is needed to test bidirectional causal interpretations, understand mechanisms that underpin technological reserve, and identify how types and timings of technology exposures influence cognitive health.

Abstract Image

科技使用与认知老化的元分析
第一代接触数字技术的人已经到了痴呆症风险出现的年龄。技术接触对数字先驱者的认知有帮助还是有害?数字痴呆假说预测,终生接触科技产品会使认知能力恶化。另一种假设是,这种暴露导致了技术储备,其中数字技术促进了保持认知的行为。我们对发表在Medline、PsycInfo、CINAHL、Science Direct、Scopus、Cochrane Library、ProQuest和Web of Science上的研究进行了荟萃分析和系统综述,对这些假设进行了检验。如果研究是观察性或队列研究,重点关注老年人(50岁以上)的一般数字技术使用情况,并包括认知或痴呆诊断结果,则纳入研究。我们确定了136篇符合纳入标准的论文,其中57篇符合优势比或风险比荟萃分析。这些研究纳入了411,430名成年人(基线年龄M = 68.7岁;53.5%女性),来自横断面和纵向观察性研究(范围:1-18岁,M = 6.2岁)。数字技术的使用与认知障碍风险降低(OR = 0.42, 95% CI 0.35-0.52)和认知衰退时间依赖性降低(HR = 0.74, 95% CI 0.66-0.84)相关。当考虑到人口、社会经济、健康和认知储备代理时,效果仍然显著。所有的研究都是在标准化检查表的基础上进行质量评估的;当将分析限制在最高质量的研究中时,主要结果是重复的。需要进一步的工作来测试双向因果解释,理解支撑技术储备的机制,并确定技术暴露的类型和时间如何影响认知健康。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Nature Human Behaviour
Nature Human Behaviour Psychology-Social Psychology
CiteScore
36.80
自引率
1.00%
发文量
227
期刊介绍: Nature Human Behaviour is a journal that focuses on publishing research of outstanding significance into any aspect of human behavior.The research can cover various areas such as psychological, biological, and social bases of human behavior.It also includes the study of origins, development, and disorders related to human behavior.The primary aim of the journal is to increase the visibility of research in the field and enhance its societal reach and impact.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信