N-Back Task Training Helps to Improve Post-error Performance

Li, Qing; Long, Quanshan; Hu, Na; Tang, Yancheng; Chen, Antao

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00370

Cited by 11 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Prior neurocognitive studies have not included data from Brazil, South Africa, or India on planning ability tasks, and so mechanisms explaining these differences are speculative. For example, since cognitive functions can be trained, particularly those related to fluid intelligence (Ang et al, 2015; Gathercole et al, 2019; Li et al, 2020), it is possible that local factors affecting the Brazil sample contribute to lower maintenance of planning and working memory capacities as a person ages, as continuous exposure to cognitively demanding tasks or technologies in everyday life. Alternatively, secular changes in Brazil may drive this result, affecting diverse age groups differently as a result of birth cohort effects in experience.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cross-national harmonization of neurocognitive assessment across five sites in a global study.

Batistuzzo¹,

Shunmugavelu

Alschuler³

et al. 2023

Neuropsychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Cross-national work on neurocognitive testing has been characterized by inconsistent findings, suggesting the need for improved harmonization. Here, we describe a prospective harmonization approach in an ongoing global collaborative study. Method: Visuospatial N-Back, Tower of London (ToL), Stop Signal task (SST), Risk Aversion (RA), and Intertemporal Choice (ITC) tasks were administered to 221 individuals from Brazil, India, the Netherlands, South Africa, and the USA. Prospective harmonization methods were employed to ensure procedural similarity of task implementation and processing of derived task measures across sites. Generalized linear models tested for between-site differences controlling for sex, age, education, and socioeconomic status (SES). Associations with these covariates were also examined and tested for differences by site with site-by-covariate interactions. Results: The Netherlands site performed more accurately on N-Back and ToL than the other sites, except for the USA site on the N-Back. The Netherlands and the USA sites performed faster than the other three sites during the go events in the SST. Finally, the Netherlands site also exhibited a higher tolerance for delay discounting than other sites on the ITC, and the India site showed more risk aversion than other sites on the RA task. However, effect size differences across sites on the five tasks were generally small (i.e., partial eta-squared < 0.05) after dropping the Netherlands (on ToL, N-Back, ITC, and SST tasks) and India (on the RA task). Across tasks, regardless of site, the N-Back (sex, age, education, and SES), ToL (sex, age, and SES), SST (age), and ITC (SES) showed associations with covariates. Conclusions: Four out of the five sites showed only small between-site differences for each task. Nevertheless, despite our extensive prospective harmonization steps, task score performance deviated from the other sites in the Netherlands site (on four tasks) and the India site (on one task). Because the procedural methods were standardized across sites, and our analyses were adjusted for covariates, the differences found in cognitive performance may indicate selection sampling bias due to unmeasured confounders. Future studies should follow similar cross-site prospective harmonization procedures when assessing neurocognition and consider measuring other possible confounding variables for additional statistical control.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cross-national harmonization of neurocognitive assessment across five sites in a global study.

Batistuzzo¹,

Shunmugavelu

Alschuler³

et al. 2023

Neuropsychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This programme has been reported to result in improvements that transfer to a range of other measures. This includes significant improvements in tasks similar to those used during training (i.e., near transfer; Blacker et al, 2017; Soveri et al, 2017); in other tasks that also assess WM or are closely related to the n-back task (i.e., intermediate transfer), such as WM updating (Küper & Karbach, 2016) or post-error performance (Li et al, 2020); and in tasks assessing cognitive processes that are only partially dependent on WM (i.e., far transfer), such as Gf (Jaeggi et al, 2008), verbal fluency, or implicit learning (Heinzel et al, 2014). The number of studies testing this particular training programme has allowed researchers to perform several meta-analyses reviewing its transferable effects, however, the results have been mixed; for significant transferable effects see Au et al (2015, 2016); for lack of transferable effects see Melby-Lervåg and Hulme (2016).…”

Section: N-back Trainingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Working memory training does not improve executive functioning or fluid intelligence

Rodas

Greene

2021

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several studies have reported that cognitive training can lead to improvements of complex mental skills such as intelligence. However, attempts to replicate these findings have not been very successful with many studies reporting lack of transferable effects on cognitive processes unrelated to the training task. On the other hand, transfer effects on cognitive processes closely related to the training task have been more commonly reported. In this study, we investigated the effects of a frequently used working-memory training programme on fluid intelligence and specific executive functions (updating, inhibition, switching, the focus of attention, and sustained attention). We remedied common issues with previous training studies by using an active control group, using more than one instrument to assess each function, and including a larger sample size. The experimental group showed significant improvement in the training task, indicating strong practice effects. However, no evidence of training-specific transfer was found in any of the variables investigated, and we could not find any of the previous improvements reported. Participants in both the training and control group showed post-training improvements in most of the outcome variables, suggesting that practice effects can be found even when a task is only performed twice. We conclude by discussing possible explanations for the differences between our results and those reported in prior studies, and recommend that any claims of improvement should be supported by studies capable of replicating them.

show abstract

“…In this situation, errors are clearly expected and slowing down after them has a positive effect on choice accuracy (Hajcak et al, 2003 ; Siegert et al, 2014 ; Dyson et al, 2018 ; Wessel, 2018 ; Damaso et al, 2020 ). By contrast, studies reporting a maladaptive PES rather use reaction time tasks that are quite simple such that the overall level of choice accuracy is usually much higher (i.e., more between 80% and 100% of correct choices; Notebaert et al, 2009 ; Nunez Castellar et al, 2010 ; Houtman et al, 2012 ; Eben et al, 2020a ; Li et al, 2020 ; Kirschner et al, 2021 ; Compton et al, 2021 ). In such settings, errors represent infrequent and unexpected events that may catch attention, resulting in a maladaptive PES that deteriorates (rather than enhances) choice accuracy in the consecutive trial (Sokolov, 1963 ; Nunez Castellar et al, 2010 ; Houtman et al, 2012 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Post-error Slowing Reflects the Joint Impact of Adaptive and Maladaptive Processes During Decision Making

Fievez

Derosière

Verbruggen

et al. 2022

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Errors and their consequences are typically studied by investigating changes in decision speed and accuracy in trials that follow an error, commonly referred to as “post-error adjustments”. Many studies have reported that subjects slow down following an error, a phenomenon called “post-error slowing” (PES). However, the functional significance of PES is still a matter of debate as it is not always adaptive. That is, it is not always associated with a gain in performance and can even occur with a decline in accuracy. Here, we hypothesized that the nature of PES is influenced by one’s speed-accuracy tradeoff policy, which determines the overall level of choice accuracy in the task at hand. To test this hypothesis, we had subjects performing a task in two distinct contexts (separate days), which either promoted speed (hasty context) or cautiousness (cautious context), allowing us to consider post-error adjustments according to whether subjects performed choices with a low or high accuracy level, respectively. Accordingly, our data indicate that post-error adjustments varied according to the context in which subjects performed the task, with PES being solely significant in the hasty context (low accuracy). In addition, we only observed a gain in performance after errors in a specific trial type, suggesting that post-error adjustments depend on a complex combination of processes that affect the speed of ensuing actions as well as the degree to which such PES comes with a gain in performance.

show abstract

N-Back Task Training Helps to Improve Post-error Performance

Cited by 11 publications

References 39 publications

Cross-national harmonization of neurocognitive assessment across five sites in a global study.

Cross-national harmonization of neurocognitive assessment across five sites in a global study.

Working memory training does not improve executive functioning or fluid intelligence

Post-error Slowing Reflects the Joint Impact of Adaptive and Maladaptive Processes During Decision Making

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About