Are working memory training effects paradigm-specific?

Abstract

A randomized controlled trial compared complex span and n-back training regimes to investigate the generality of training benefits across materials and paradigms. The memory items and training intensities were equated across programs, providing the first like-with-like comparison of transfer in these two widely-used training paradigms. The stimuli in transfer tests of verbal and visuo-spatial n-back and complex span differed from the trained tasks, but were matched across the untrained paradigms. Pre-to-post changes were observed for untrained n-back tasks following n-back training. Following complex span training there was equivocal evidence for improvements on a verbal complex span task, but no evidence for changes on an untrained visuo-spatial complex span activity. Relative to a no intervention group, the evidence supported no change on an untrained verbal complex span task following either n-back or complex span training. Equivocal evidence was found for improvements on visuo-spatial complex span and verbal and visuo-spatial n-back tasks following both training regimes. Evidence for selective transfer (comparing the two active training groups) was only found for an untrained visuo-spatial n-back task following n-back training. There was no evidence for cross-paradigm transfer. Thus transfer is constrained by working memory paradigm and the nature of individual processes executed within complex span tasks. However, within-paradigm transfer can occur when the change is limited to stimulus category, at least for n-back.

Attention Networks in ADHD Adults after Working Memory Training with a Dual n-Back Task

“…In general, these studies report that RTs of ADHD patients tend to be longer than controls, but accuracy and variability characterized at several degrees those patients with inattentive symptoms and suggested dysfunctions in the coupling between alerting, orienting, and conflict (executive) networks. Several studies exist aiming at the improvement of executive functions in ADHD patients with a focus either on stimulant medication or cognitive working memory training [ 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 ], however the present study is the first one including medicated and non-medicated ADHD patients performing ANT before and after working memory training.…”

Training-dependent transfer within a set of nested tasks

“…stimulus type, spatial properties, timings, and goals) and there are multiple ways to calculate and conceptualise task similarity. To explain the limited scope of transfer and better understand its boundary conditions, researchers have called for a more systematic approach to cognitive training research (Katz et al, 2017;Redick, 2019;Sala & Gobet, 2019;Von Bastian & Oberauer, 2014;Gathercole et al, 2019;Holmes et al, 2019;Norris et al, 2019;Taatgen, 2013). This current study examines how feature overlap informs transfer within a set of hierarchically nested visual-discrimination tasks.…”

“…The initial optimism of cognitive training research reflected the prospect that training might improve task-general processes that are shared across many tasks, within and even between cognitive domains (Klingberg, 2010). However, more recent investigations have demonstrated the feature-specificity of transfer (Gathercole et al, 2019;Holmes et al, 2019;Norris et al, 2019;Sala & Gobet, 2019;Soveri et al, 2017). For example, while transfer has been observed between n-back variants using different stimulus types (Holmes et al, 2019;Minear et al, 2016;Soveri et al, 2017;Waris et al, 2015), complex span training effects appear tied to the specific stimulus type (Holmes et al, 2019;Minear et al, 2016).…”

“…However, more recent investigations have demonstrated the feature-specificity of transfer (Gathercole et al, 2019;Holmes et al, 2019;Norris et al, 2019;Sala & Gobet, 2019;Soveri et al, 2017). For example, while transfer has been observed between n-back variants using different stimulus types (Holmes et al, 2019;Minear et al, 2016;Soveri et al, 2017;Waris et al, 2015), complex span training effects appear tied to the specific stimulus type (Holmes et al, 2019;Minear et al, 2016). Furthermore, digit span training does not readily transfer to other simple span tasks that differ by only a single stimulus feature, such as modality (visual vs auditory presentation of digits) or stimulus type (e.g.…”

“…However, the specificity of transfer varies between taskparadigms and as a function of task complexity (Assihar & Hochstien, 2004;Dosher & Lu, 2017;Gathercole et al, 2019;Jeter et al, 2009;Taatgen, 2013). To compliment theoretical progress and better understand the precise nature of transfer and its boundary conditions, further experimental studies are required that identify and systematically manipulate the overlap in task features between training and assessment tasks (Gathercole et al, 2019;Holmes et al, 2019;Minear et al, 2016;Norris et al, 2019;Von Bastian & Oberauer, 2014). Visual discrimination and task-switching paradigms both show potential for transfer (Assihar & Hochstien, 2004;Dorrenbacher et al, 2014;Dosher & Lu, 2017;Fahle, 2005;Karbach & Kray, 2009).…”