Author
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.
Suggested Citation
Jared F. Benge & Michael K. Scullin, 2025.
"A meta-analysis of technology use and cognitive aging,"
Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 9(7), pages 1405-1419, July.
Handle:
RePEc:nat:nathum:v:9:y:2025:i:7:d:10.1038_s41562-025-02159-9
DOI: 10.1038/s41562-025-02159-9
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to
for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nat:nathum:v:9:y:2025:i:7:d:10.1038_s41562-025-02159-9. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.nature.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.