A systematic review and meta-analysis of social cognition training success across the healthy lifespan

Mandy Roheger,Andrew K Martin,Kseniya Hranovska,Marcus Meinzer

doi:10.1038/s41598-022-07420-z

Mandy Roheger, Andrew K Martin + Show 2 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-07420-z

Copy DOI

Abstract

Socio-cognitive abilities and challenges change across the healthy lifespan and are essential for successful human interaction. Identifying effective socio-cognitive training approaches for healthy individuals may prevent development of mental or physical disease and reduced quality of life. A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE Ovid, Web of Science Core Collection, CENTRAL, and PsycInfo databases. Studies that investigated different socio-cognitive trainings for healthy individuals across the human lifespan assessing effects on theory of mind, emotion recognition, perspective taking, and social decision making were included. A random-effects pairwise meta-analysis was conducted. Risk-of-Bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias-2-Tool. Twenty-three intervention studies with N = 1835 participants were included in the systematic review; twelve randomized controlled trials in the meta-analysis (N = 875). Socio-cognitive trainings differed regarding duration and content in different age groups, with theory of mind being the domain most frequently trained. Results of the meta-analysis showed that trainings were highly effective for improving theory of mind in children aged 3–5 years (SMD = 2.51 (95%CI: 0.48–4.53)), children aged 7–9 years (SMD = 2.71 (95%CI: − 0.28 to 5.71)), and older adults (SMD = 5.90 (95%CI: 2.77–9.02). Theory of mind training was highly effective in all investigated age-groups for improving theory of mind, yet, more research on transfer effects to other socio-cognitive processes and further investigation of training effects in other socio-cognitive domains (e.g., emotion recognition, visual perspective taking, social decision making) is needed. Identified characteristics of successful socio-cognitive trainings in different age groups may help designing future training studies for other populations.Registration:www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/ (ID: CRD42020193297).

Highlights

Socio-cognitive abilities and challenges change across the healthy lifespan and are essential for successful human interaction
Two studies[28,48] were rated as high risk of bias because they were not properly randomized, but quasi-experimental studies. This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis of socio-cognitive training approaches that are currently used in healthy individuals across the human lifespan
Results of the 23 studies included in the systematic review showed that socio-cognitive trainings differed across age groups with regard to their settings, methods, frequency, duration, and training elements

Summary

Introduction

Socio-cognitive abilities and challenges change across the healthy lifespan and are essential for successful human interaction. Studies that investigated different socio-cognitive trainings for healthy individuals across the human lifespan assessing effects on theory of mind, emotion recognition, perspective taking, and social decision making were included. While development of socio-cognitive capacity starts in the first year of life[2], significant changes in the ability to attribute mental states to other people (Theory of Mind, ToM) occur around the age of four, when children begin to more accurately interpret emotions and intentions of o thers[3]. There is a need to extend the contexts in which ToM and other socio-cognitive skills are investigated to include settings such as kindergarten and preand middle s chools[13] to properly account for social factors and interactions in children’s d evelopment[14] This is important as ToM abilities continue to develop into adulthood (e.g.15). Decline of ToM in older age can occur due to changes in brain structure and function: For example, a recent study showed that older adults exhibit weaker intrinsic connectivity between the right temporoparietal junction and right temporal pole that explained their poorer ToM behavioral p erformance[18]

Methods

Results

Conclusion