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. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three training groups: complex span training, n-back training, or no training. Pre- to- post training 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.

The effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on within- and cross-paradigm transfer following multi-session backward recall training

“…Paradigm appears to represent a boundary condition transfer, consistent with many previous studies investigating transfer across different categories of WM task (e.g. Dunning & Holmes, 2014;Gathercole et al, 2019;Holmes et al, 2019;Li et al, 2008;Minear et al, 2016;Sprenger et al, 2013;. While there was evidence favouring transfer to untrained backward recall tasks, there was no evidence for transfer to n-back following BDR training, even when it contained the same materials as the training activity (digits).…”

“…Previous studies investigating within-paradigm transfer to untrained tasks containing memory items from a different domain (e.g. verbal digits to spatial locations) have produced mixed results (Anguera et al, 2012;Blacker, Negoita, Ewen, & Courtney, 2017;Bürki, Ludwig, Chicherio, & de Ribaupierre, 2014;Buschkuehl, Hernandez-Garcia, Jaeggi, Bernard, & Jonides, 2014;Holmes et al, 2019;Jaeggi, Buschkuehl, Perrig, & Meier, 2010;Küper & Karbach, 2016;Li et al, 2008;Minear et al, 2016;Soveri, Karlsson, Waris, Grönholm-Nyman, & Laine, 2017). Evidence points to a high degree of domain specificity in the mechanisms involved in encoding and maintaining verbal and visuo-spatial short-term memory (Alloway, Gathercole, & Pickering, 2006;Baddeley, Papagno, & Vallar, 1988;Della Sala, Gray, Baddeley, Allamano, & Wilson, 1999;Pearson, Ball, & Smith, 2014), but whether stimulus domain is a barrier to transfer was an open question.…”

Evidence for separate backward recall and n-back working memory factors: A large-scale latent variable analysis

“…This has sparked interest in understanding the task features that must overlap for transfer to occur (e.g. Byrne, Ewbank, Gathercole, & Holmes, 2019;Gathercole, Dunning, Holmes, & Norris, 2019;Holmes, Woolgar, Hampshire, & Gathercole, 2018;Minear et al, 2016;von Bastian, Langer, Jäncke, & Oberauer, 2013). The aim of this study is to conduct a large-scale latent variable analysis using variant forms of WM tasks to investigate their underlying factor structure.…”

“…Patterns of transfer following WM training indicate that WM tasks might group based on paradigm-specific processes. WM paradigm is a boundary condition to transfer following trainingtransfer is rarely observed across paradigms (Byrne et al, 2019;Dunning & Holmes, 2014;Gathercole et al, 2019;Holmes et al, 2018;Li et al, 2008;Minear et al, 2016;Sprenger et al, 2013;Thompson et al, 2013).…”

A classroom intervention targeting working memory, attention and language skills: a cluster randomised feasibility trial

“…Overall, the evidence indicates that existing computer-based training programmes consistently produce gains on the trained tasks and closely related memory tasks [17][18]. It has been suggested that to improve the therapeutic value of WM training, it may be necessary to embed it within typical classroom activities that are ecologically valid [19].…”