Working memory updating and binding training: Bayesian evidence supporting the absence of transfer.

Abstract

As working memory (WM) predicts a wide range of other abilities, it has become a popular target for training interventions. However, its effectiveness to elicit generalized cognitive benefits is still under debate. Previous research yielded inconsistent findings and focused only little on the mechanisms underlying transfer effects. To disentangle training effects on WM capacity and efficiency, we evaluated near transfer to untrained, structurally different WM tasks and far transfer to closely related abilities (i.e., reasoning, processing speed, task switching, and inhibitory control) in addition to process-specific effects on 3 WM mechanisms (i.e., focus switching, removal of WM contents, and interference resolution). We randomly assigned 197 young adults to 1 of 2 experimental groups (updating or item-to-context binding) or to an active control group practicing visual search tasks. Before and after 5 weeks of adaptive training, performance was assessed measuring each of the cognitive processes and abilities of interest with 4 tasks covering verbal-numerical and visual-spatial materials. Despite the relatively large sample size, large practice effects in the trained tasks, and at least moderate correlations between WM training tasks and transfer measures, we found consistent evidence for the absence of any training-induced improvements across all ranges of transfer and mechanisms. Instead, additional analyses of error patterns and self-reported strategy use indicated that WM training encouraged the development of stimulus-specific expertise and use of paradigm-specific strategies. Thus, the results suggest that the WM training interventions examined here enhanced neither WM capacity nor the WM mechanisms assumed to underlie transfer. (PsycINFO Database Record

A Novel Framework to Measure Executive Function in Down Syndrome With Applications for Early Clinical Diagnosis of Dementia

“…The accuracy cut off was used to exclude blocks in which we assumed that participants were not attending to the task, and were guessing (i.e., responding randomly); guessing would be indicated by scores close to chance. It is common practice in cognitive control studies to apply an accuracy cut off for this reason (e.g., De Simoni & von Bastian, 2018;Kane, Poole, Tuholski & Engle, 2006;Rey-Mermet, Gade & Oberauer, 2018;Zwaan et al, 2017). The 60% accuracy cut off in the current study resulted in four participants in the group with DS and two participants in the TD group missing data from either the low or high memory load conditions.…”

From Evaluation to Prediction: Behavioral Effects and Biological Markers of Cognitive Control Intervention

“…Metaanalyses of transfer effects on cognitive control among children, young and older adults suggested a significant near-transfer effect and no convincing evidence of fartransfer [24,29,32]. The evidence from young adults indicates that working memory training did not elicit any improvements across all ranges of transfer [33], but produced short-term, specific training effects that do not generalize to measures of "real-world," such as intelligence, life ability, or academic performance [27,32]. These arguments suggested that there may be limitations in training only for certain components or tasks in cognitive control interventions.…”

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

“…BFs are therefore increasingly popular in both cognitive training research and tES studies (e.g. Biel & Friedrich, 2018;De Simoni & von Bastian, 2018;Morgan, were not stated in the pre-registered report) and were computed in JASP (The JASP Team., 2017) with default prior scales. Inverse BF (BF10) are reported to express the odds in favour of the alternative hypothesis (BDR training and/or stimulation has an effect) compared to the null (no effect of BDR training and/or tDCS).…”