Computerised working memory training in healthy adults: A comparison of two different training schedules

Abstract

This study compared a high intensity working memory training (45 minutes, 4 times per week for 4 weeks) with a distributed training (45 minutes, 2 times per week for 8 weeks) in middle-aged, healthy adults. The aim was to clarify whether a computerised working memory training is effective and whether intensity of training influences training outcome. To evaluate the efficacy and possible transfer effects, a neuropsychological test battery assessing short- and long-term memory, working memory, executive functions and mental speed was applied at baseline and at retest. Our results indicate that the distributed training led to increased performance in all cognitive domains when compared to the high intensity training and the control group without training. The most significant differences revealed by interaction contrasts were found for verbal and visual working memory, verbal short-term memory and mental speed. These results support the hypothesis that cognitive enhancement by cognitive intervention is effective in healthy individuals, and that a distributed training schedule is superior to a high intensity intervention.

Computerized Cognitive Rehabilitation of Attention and Executive Function in Acquired Brain Injury: A Systematic Review

“…25,31,32,36 Only 1 treatment program, CogMed QM, was tested by multiple studies, 18,23,25,32,36 while other studies utilized their own individualized programs, using different treatment doses (number and length of treatment sessions) and frequencies. The intensity of training programs (eg, massed vs distributed training) has been shown to influence the extent of improvement in cognitive performance among healthy participants 50 but has not been evaluated in clinical populations. Finally, age of participants and familiarity with computers and computer games may impact rate of improvement.…”

On the validity and generality of transfer effects in cognitive training research

“…Jackson, Hill, Payne, Roberts, & Stine-Morrow, 2012;Owen et al, 2010;Richmond, Morrison, Chein, & Olson, 2011;Söderquist et al, 2012;Thorell et al, 2009) or that spanned a broad set of different cognitive abilities (e.g. Penner et al, 2012;Schmiedek et al, 2010;Simpson, Camfield, Pipingas, Macpherson, & Stough, 2012). To train episodic memory, Schmiedek and colleagues (2010), for example, used three different training tasks pertaining to three different content domains: verbal, spatial, and numerical.…”

Does Working Memory Training Transfer? A Meta-Analysis Including Training Conditions as Moderators

“…We hypothesize that the more training sessions per week, the larger the effect size (Hypothesis 2.4). Based on research about the benefits of distributed learning (e.g., Bloom & Shuell, 1981) and distributed WM training (Penner et al, 2012), we expected that the training interval is a moderator of transfer effects following WM training. The training interval was 1 or 2 days in most of the training studies.…”