Table 4.

Effect of Cognitive Training on Grip Strength- Treatment-Received Results

	Speed of processing training vs. no-contact control		Reasoning training vs. no-contact control		Memory training vs. no-contact control
	Est. (SE)	95% CI	Est. (SE)	95% CI	Est. (SE)	95% CI
Fixed effects
Intercept	.962 (.041)***	[.881, 1.042]	1.048 (.040)***	[.970, 1.125]	.957 (.040)***	[.877, 1.036]
Training Sessions	.004 (.002)	[<−.001, .008]	.005 (.002)*	[.001, .009]	.004 (.002)	[<.001, .008]
Age	−.036 (.004)***	[−.042, −.029]	−.034 (.003)***	[−.040, −.027]	−.030 (.003)***	[−.037, −.023]
Female	−1.427 (.046)***	[−1.518, −1.336]	−1.516 (.045)***	[−1.604, −1.427]	−1.423 (.046)***	[−1.513, −1.332]
Non-White	.369 (.041)***	[.288, .451]	.352 (.041)***	[.272, .431]	.394 (.042)***	[.312, .476]
Physical functioning	.005 (.001)***	[.004, .007]	.004 (.001)***	[.003, .006]	.006 (.001)***	[.005, .008]
Time	<−.000 (.001)	[−.002, .002]	−.001 (.001)	[−.002, .001]	−.001 (.001)	[−.002, .001]
Age*Time	<−.001 (<.001)**	[<−.001, <−.000]	<−.001 (.001)**	[<−.001, <−.001]	<−.001 (<.001)**	[<−.001, <−.001]
Female*Time	−.002 (.001)*	[−.004, <−.000]	−.002 (.001)	[−.003, <.001]	−.001 (.001)	[−.003, .001]
Random effects
Residual	.148 (.006)***	[.137, .160]	.153 (.006)***	[.142, .165]	.147 (.006)***	[.136, .159]
Intercept	.375 (.021)***	[.337, .419]	.344 (.020)***	[.307, .385]	.366 (.020)***	[.328, .409]
Time	<.001 (<.001)***	[<.001, <.001]	<.001 (<.001)***	[<.001, <.001]	<.001 (<.001)***	[<.001, <.001]
Covariance (intercept, time)	−.002 (<.001)***	[−.002, −.001]	−.001 (<.001)**	[−.001, <−.001]	−.001 (<.001)**	[−.002, <−.

Note. Higher grip strength scores indicate better performance. Final analytic samples with complete baseline outcome and covariate data were speed of processing training (n=592), reasoning training (n=581), memory training (n=595), and control (n=609). Est. = Unstandardized Estimate, CI = Confidence Interval, SE = Standard Error.

^*p < .05

^**p < .01

^***p < .001.