working memory 3 - training

Question 1

Ericcson et al (1980) - training to increase memory span

Answer 1

230 hours of practice in a lab - someone was able to increase span from 7 to 79 digits

seemed like with a good mnemonic system there was no limit to memory performance

brain training ideas

Question 2

define transfer

Answer 2

improvements in a practiced tasks lead to improvements in unpractised tasks

Question 3

Ericcson et al (190) - training and transfer

Answer 3

switched from digits to letters after practicing for 3 months

showed no transfer from training

memory span reduced back down to 6 consonants

Question 4

strategy-based training

Answer 4

introduction and acquisition of strategies

e.g. mnemonic to remember the order of planets

can be material or task specific

difficult to transfer to other contexts - e.g. a mnemonic only helps you remember that one specific thing

Question 5

process-based training

Answer 5

repeated practice of specific tasks targeting cognitive processes

e.g. daily practice of complex span tasks

assumed to transfer to other contexts

Question 6

functional overlap

Answer 6

transfer is expected if practiced and non-practiced tasks share underlying processes

Question 7

WM as a core ability

Answer 7

variation in working memory is correlated with variation in many other abilities

WM:

• reasoning
• attention
• reading
• vocab learning
• storytelling

therefore by enhancing WM - could be able to improve wide range of related abilities

Question 8

near and far transfer

Answer 8

marker of successful training

example:
practice = WM training task (n-back)
near transfer = untrained WM task (complex-span task)
far transfer = different but related cognitive ability (reasoning)

Question 9

how to measure training effects

Answer 9

methodological rationale

compare pre-test (baseline) to post-test performance after training

pre-test –> training –> post-test

pre and post = all tasks (n-back, complex span, reasoning)
training = n-back only

Question 10

use of control group in training and transfer studies ( 2 types + eval)

Answer 10

evaluate change relative to control group

passive group:

• no intervention
• good - test-retest effects ( performance improves with familiarity )
• bad - other factors that affected the period between test and retest
• bad - placebo effect

active group:

• alternative intervention
• good - other factors that affected the period between test and retest (e.g. motivation)
• good - reduces placebo effect

Question 11

seminal training study - attention and ADHD - methodology

Answer 11

Klinberg et al (2002)

Can intensive working memory training help children with attention deficits such as in ADHD?

method:

• computerised training program with WM tasks
• test improvements relative to active control group in trained/untrained tasks

training task:
e.g. visuospatial WM task

transfer task:
e.g. raven’s progressive matrices (like non-verbal reasoning where you have to say which symbol comes next)

5 week training in conditions:

• intensive = 5x day WM training
• low-dose = 1x day WM training ( active control group )

post-test: look at change in training and transfer task

Question 11

seminal training study - attention and ADHD - results

Answer 11

Klinberg et al (2002)

improved ability in intensive condition for both training and transfer task - some individuals by very large amounts

transfer task had a bigger spread of data - some improved by 12 points and some by 2

training task improved by 3-5 points - less spread of data

in low-dose - basically stayed the same, some got worse and some better (from -2 to 4 points)

Question 12

seminal training study - attention and ADHD - evaluation

Answer 12

Klinberg et al (2002)

only sample of 7

first evidence for training and transfer effects

therefore unknown if its replicable

Question 13

seminal training study - Klinberg (2005) - second study - method and results - adaptive vs non-adaptive training

Answer 13

multicentre, randomised controlled trial - 53 participants

5 weeks of training

• adaptive WM training group = change in difficulty of tasks as they improve
• non-adaptive WM training group = control = same difficulty level of training throughout

then 3 month gap before a follow up

results:

training tasks:

• span-board
• digit-span

larger benefits in adaptive group relative to nonadaptive in the practiced (training) tasks

transfer tasks:

• stroop task ( quicker = better )
• raven

larger benefits in adaptive relative to nonadaptive group in unpracticed inhibition and reasoning tasks

both groups improve but control not so much

Question 14

seminal training study - Klinberg (2005) - second study - evaluation

Answer 14

the values in the results are corrected for differences in baseline score

uncorrected scores (raw data) shows control group stays same and experimental improves in both training tasks

uncorrected scores shows experimental group started at baseline with better scores in the raven transfer task

• they still improved but they were better to begin with
• both groups improved by basically the same amount

there is evidence for training and transfer effects

corrected differences are significant but uncorrected group differences are only small

Question 15

seminal training study - Jaeggi et al (2008) - dual n-back training

Answer 15

8-19 training sessions

2 groups:

• WM training
• passive control ( no intervention )

measured change in training and transfer tasks at post-test

training:
dual n-back tasks

2 types of stimuli at the same time - visual and auditory targets (look at slides if confused)

transfer:

found improvement in Raven’s task (progressive matrices - non-verbal reasoning)

shows transfer effects

Question 16

the hype of WM training - Redick et al (2013) method

Answer 16

pre-test
10 training sessions
mid-test
10 more training sessions
post-test

training:

• WM training
• active control (visual search)
• passive control ( no intervention)

results:

no significant near or far transfer effects in spatial or verbal working memory

Question 17

hype of WM training - 2002-2015 WM training studies

Answer 17

hype and inconsistencies lead to this being a very active field of research in early 2010s

inconsistent evidence across large number of studies

need to find how these inconsistencies can be explained

Question 18

reasons for inconsistencies with WM training studies - methodological (3)

Answer 18

• lack of active control - placebo
• task impurity problem - single tasks used for measuring cognitive abilities
• small samples - low statistical power and imprecise measurement

still not known why training works better in some studies than others

Question 19

reasons for inconsistencies with WM training studies - theoretical (2)

Answer 19

many studies lack theoretical framework of training and transfer

without theory explaining mechanisms of transfer (i.e. why we expect effects), we can’t predict when we should observe effects

Question 20

mechanisms of transfer - sources of variation frameworks (2)

Answer 20

von Bastian & Oberauer, 2014

multiple sources of variance framework:

• intervention-specific factors
• individual differences

these two impact training and transfer and therefore the observed effects

Question 21

2 proposed mechanisms of transfer

Answer 21

enhanced capacity
enhanced efficiency

Question 22

enhanced capacity (transfer)

Answer 22

training increases the number of information elements held in WM

i.e. larger broad focus of attention

prediction: training leads to broad transfer effects

Question 23

enhanced efficiency

Answer 23

training supports a more efficient use of the existing capacity of WM

through strategies or faster processing

prediction: training leads to selective transfer effects

Question 24

mechanisms of transfer study - methodology

Answer 24

De Simoni & von Bastian’s (2018)

pre-test –> 20 sessions training –> post-test

training:

• WM binding training
• WM updating training
• active control (visual search)

tested near and far transfer and trained abilities

binding task:

• show a symbol and number - bound together
• then recognise whether new presented pair was shown before (watch lecture if unsure here)

updating task:

• shown memoranda (2 numbers)
• then have 9 updating steps - either add or minus from original numbers
• then say what the answer is

visual task:

• e.g. find a 3 in an array of 8s

Question 25

mechanisms of transfer study - results

Answer 25

large improvements in the trained tasks
no evidence for near or far transfer
training improved neither WM capacity nor efficiency

but: might be different for other WM tasks or measures of specific types of efficiency

Question 26

maximising training benefits - individual differences

Answer 26

large individual differences are seen in training progress

often younger adults do better than older throughout sessions of training

Question 27

3 hypotheses of who benefits most from training

Answer 27

magnification:
higher ability = gain more (rich get richer)

compensation:
lower ability = gain more

no difference

Question 28

training - individual differences study

Answer 28

Guye et al.’s (2017)

how are initial training performance and slope in training progress related?

results:

• younger adults showed magnification of initial task performance
• little effect in older adults

Question 29

intervention-specific factors - 2

Answer 29

study whether training and transfer effects depend on:

type of training task
dose of intervention

Question 30

intervention-specific factors - Melby-Lervåg et al.’s (2016) meta-analysis

Answer 30

type of training task:

• cogmed = computerised training program
• compared cogmed, n-back, and complex span
• Cogmed (bran training) induces relatively larger verbal near transfer, but n-back yields relatively larger far transfer

training dose:

• dose has little effect
• only significant difference occurs for far transfer – but in the opposite direction (small dose shows larger improvement in far transfer)

Question 31

possible indvidual differences in brain training (5)

Answer 31

age
gender
personality
motivation
beliefs

Question 32

individual differences - Guye et al (2017) study

Answer 32

study of how demographics, personality, motivation, and beliefs are related to the slope in training progress

limited evidence for individual differences predicting slope in training progress

however, results may differ for samples with successful training and transfer