Working Memory Training: Mechanisms and Transfer Effects

What is the rationale behind working memory training?

Working memory (WM) is linked to reasoning, learning, and attention, and training WM could improve task-specific skills and broader cognitive functions.

What are the two types of transfer associated with working memory training?

Near Transfer: Improvement in similar WM tasks;

Far Transfer: Improvement in dissimilar, higher-level abilities.

What significant finding did Ericsson et al. (1980) report regarding digit span training?

Practice increased digit span from 7 to 79, but there was no transfer when switching to letters, indicating strategy-based improvements rather than general WM gains.

What improvements were found in Klingberg et al.'s studies on computerized WM training in children with ADHD?

Improvements were noted in trained tasks (visuospatial WM) and some untrained tasks (inhibition, reasoning), but the studies had small sample sizes.

What was the outcome of Jaeggi et al.'s (2008) dual n-back training study?

It found far transfer to fluid intelligence, specifically in Raven's matrices, and received significant media attention.

What did Redick et al. (2013) conclude from their large-scale randomized controlled trial on WM training?

They found no significant transfer effects (neither near nor far), which undermined earlier claims of WM training effectiveness.

What are the two mechanisms of transfer in working memory training?

Enhanced Capacity: Increases the number of items held in WM; Enhanced Efficiency: Improves use of existing capacity through better strategies or faster processing.

What prediction is associated with Enhanced Capacity in working memory training?

It predicts broad transfer across cognitive domains, although few studies show true broad improvements.

What prediction is associated with Enhanced Efficiency in working memory training?

It predicts selective transfer, with benefits limited to tasks sharing processes with the trained task.

What did De Simoni & von Bastian (2018) find regarding WM binding and updating training?

They observed large improvements in trained tasks but no transfer (near or far), suggesting a lack of evidence for enhanced capacity or efficiency.

What methodological issues did Shipstead et al. (2012) identify in WM training studies?

Issues included lack of active controls, small sample sizes, task impurity, and exaggerated effects from pre-post designs.

What theoretical issues did von Bastian & Oberauer (2014) highlight in WM training research?

Many studies lack a clear theory explaining why and how transfer should occur, making it difficult to predict when WM training will be effective.

What intervention-specific factor did Melby-Lervåg et al. (2016) identify regarding task type in WM training?

Cogmed is better for verbal near transfer, while N-back is slightly better for far transfer.

How does training dose affect transfer in working memory training?

More training does not consistently lead to more transfer, with effects often being small and non-significant.

What individual differences can affect training outcomes in working memory training?

Personality, motivation, beliefs, age, and baseline ability may moderate outcomes, though predictive power is limited.

What are the three hypotheses regarding individual variation in training progress?

Magnification: Higher-ability individuals benefit more; Compensation: Lower-ability individuals benefit more; No difference: Equal gains across ability levels.

What evidence supports the magnification hypothesis in working memory training?

Younger adults show more evidence for magnification, indicating that higher-ability individuals may benefit more from training.

What was the main conclusion of the critical comparison between seminal studies and recent research?

Recent research, such as Redick et al. (2013), challenges earlier claims of significant transfer from WM training, highlighting the need for more rigorous designs.

What is the significance of understanding the mechanisms of transfer in working memory training?

Understanding these mechanisms helps predict the outcomes of training and informs the design of effective interventions.

What role does individual differences play in the effectiveness of working memory training?

Individual differences can lead to substantial variation in training progress and outcomes, influencing the overall effectiveness of the training.

What are the implications of the findings from seminal studies for future research on working memory training?

Future research should address methodological and theoretical issues, explore intervention-specific factors, and consider individual differences to better understand training effects.

What is the importance of task impurity in working memory training studies?

Task impurity can lead to unclear results, making it difficult to determine the true effects of training on transfer outcomes.

Why is it challenging to predict when working memory training will be effective?

The lack of a clear theoretical framework in many studies complicates predictions about the conditions under which WM training will succeed.