The purpose of the present study was to explore whether Computer-Based Cognitive Training (C-BCT) versus Paper-Pencil Cognitive Training (P-PCT) is more beneficial in improving cognitive and language deficits in Greek patients living with Alzheimer’s disease (pwAD). Twenty pwAD were assigned to two groups: (a) the C-BCT group, receiving a computer-based cognitive training program using the RehaCom software, and (b) the P-PCT group, which received cognitive training using paper and pencil. The cognitive training programs lasted 15 weeks and were administered twice a week for approximately one hour per session. The analyses of each group’s baseline versus endpoint performance demonstrated that the P-PCT group improved on delayed memory, verbal fluency, attention, processing speed, executive function, general cognitive ability, and activities of daily living. In contrast, the C-BCT group improved on memory (delayed and working), naming, and processing speed. Comparisons between the two groups (C-BCT vs. P-PCT) revealed that both methods had significant effects on patients’ cognition, with the P-PCT method transferring the primary cognitive benefits to real-life activities. Our findings indicate that both methods are beneficial in attenuating cognitive and language deficits in pwAD. The need for large-scale neurobehavioral interventions to further clarify this issue, however, remains a priority.

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a non-invasive brain stimulation method that has been suggested as a possible treatment method for cognitive impairment in patients with Alzheimer’s Disease (pwAD), similar to multidomain cognitive training (CT). The effectiveness, however, of combining these techniques for pwAD remains controversial due to the variability in rTMS parameters, differences in CT protocol designs—many of which neglect the language domain—and the inclusion of patients at various stages of Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) and with different types of dementia. The current review aims to evaluate the cognitive benefits of combining rTMS with CT, including language training, for individuals with mild to moderate AD. An extensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library with relevant terms, resulting in nine studies with a total of 290 participants [190 in the Active Group (AG) and 100 in the Control Group (CG)]. The comprehensive review of the articles revealed that the combined treatment improved global cognitive function, as well as neurocognitive, neuropsychiatric, and quality of life in the AG. Nevertheless, these results should be interpreted cautiously, given the relatively small number of existing studies on this specific combination.

Although language impairment is frequently observed in patients with Alzheimer’s disease (pwAD), targeted language rehabilitation is often overlooked. The present study reviews published evidence on the impact of language training, either alone or in combination with cognitive training, on cognitive outcomes in pwAD. A systematic search of PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane was carried out, including studies published from inception to November 2023. A total of eight research articles (four randomized controlled trials and four observational studies) met the inclusion criteria: six assessed language training combined with cognitive training and two evaluated language rehabilitation alone. Regarding language and non-language (mainly memory, attention, and executive functions) outcomes, there was a consensus among studies that language rehabilitation (alone or in combination with cognitive training) yields positive results. Some of the articles also explored the impact on patients’ and their caregivers’ quality of life, with all but one showing improvement. Consequently, the combination of language and cognitive training leads to improvements across various cognitive domains. However, limited evidence supports the value of sole language rehabilitation. This conclusion is influenced by heterogeneity among studies (different types and duration of interventions, small participant sets, various assessment tools), and, thus, further research is warranted.