"Transfer after Working Memory Updating Training", Waris et al 2015
151 views
Skip to first unread message
Gwern Branwen
Nov 3, 2015, 12:26:45 PM11/3/15
to N-back
"Transfer after Working Memory Updating Training", Waris et al 2015
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0138734
> During the past decade, working memory training has attracted much interest. However, the training outcomes have varied between studies and methodological problems have hampered the interpretation of results. The current study examined transfer after working memory updating training by employing an extensive battery of pre-post cognitive measures with a focus on near transfer. Thirty-one healthy Finnish young adults were randomized into either a working memory training group or an active control group. The working memory training group practiced with three working memory tasks, while the control group trained with three commercial computer games with a low working memory load. The participants trained thrice a week for five weeks, with one training session lasting about 45 minutes. Compared to the control group, the working memory training group showed strongest transfer to an n-back task, followed by working memory updating, which in turn was followed by active working memory capacity. Our results support the view that working memory training produces near transfer effects, and that the degree of transfer depends on the cognitive overlap between the training and transfer measures.
So active control group, non-American (Finnish) subjects.
> All participants received a compensation of 70 euros.
(~$76)
> Training commenced during the week following the pretest session. The participants trained three times (45 min each) a week for five weeks, after which they completed the posttest session during the following week. The WM training group practiced with three computerized WM tasks (see below), while the active control group trained with three commercial computer games that taxed WM only slightly. The order of the training tasks was randomized for every training session. The participants recorded their individual training performances for each training session in personal training logs.
3*45*5=675 minutes of training
> Fluid intelligence: subtests two and four from the Cattell Culture Fair Intelligence Tests (CFIT [42])...The CFIT were employed as a far transfer measure of fluid intelligence and visual reasoning. In this study, subtests two (Classification) and four (Conditions) from Scale 3 were used. In subtest two, five figures are presented, and the participant must choose two figures that differ somehow from the other three. In subtest four, the participant has to choose among five alternatives the one that duplicates a set of conditions. The total score was used as the outcome variable.
> This training task was based on Jaeggi, Buschkuehl, Jonides, and Perrig’s task design [54]. Eight recorded Finnish syllables, spoken by a native Finnish speaker (dy, ki, le, nä, pö, ro, su, ta), and a matrix with eight visuospatial locations served as stimuli. Each syllable was presented via headphones, and it was synchronized with the presentation of a white square in one of the matrix locations. The participant had to simultaneously judge whether the syllable and/or the location matched the ones presented n trials back (see Fig 4). The participant was to press the left response button if the visuospatial location matched the location presented n trials back, and the right button if the syllable matched the syllable presented n trials back. The participant was to withhold a response if the location or the syllable did not match the appropriate stimulus presented n trials back. Each fourteen-minute training session consisted of separate blocks. Every block included 20 + n simultaneous syllable-location trials. The first n trials could not be compared to any previous trials and were thus excluded from the data analyses. The difficulty level (i.e., n) was automatically adjusted after every block on the basis of task performance. N was raised if the participant answered correctly on at least 18 of the 20 trials for both stimulus types. N was decreased if more than five errors were made on either stimulus type. N remained unchanged if the participant made between three to five errors on either, or both, stimulus types. Every training session began with a 2-back block. The minimum difficulty level was 1-back and the maximum was 9-back. Every block began with instructions, a reminder of which response buttons to use, and a text indicating the current level of n. The participant started the block by pressing a keyboard button. Every 500ms trial was followed by a 2500ms blank matrix screen. The instruction screen was once again displayed after completion of the current block. When fourteen minutes had passed, and the currently active block was completed, the task ended and a result screen was displayed. The result screen consisted of the highest level of n achieved during the current training session and the number of blocks completed for each level of n. The participants recorded these results in their personal training logs.
So dual n-back
Cattell results:
> CFIT: No data were excluded from the CFIT analysis. The ANCOVA on the CFIT score was non-significant, F < 1...We did not observe transfer to the CFIT following WM updating training, which goes against the meta-analysis results of Au et al. [29]. The lack of transfer to the CFIT might stem from the small sample size in the current study, which makes it difficult to detect small differences between the groups. However, the effect size on the CFIT analysis showed no signs of an emerging group difference (see Fig 6). It could also be related to the specific CFIT subtests that were selected, which might differ somehow from the more commonly used matrix reasoning tasks; however, Au et al. report fairly equal transfer to both matrix and non-matrix reasoning tasks. Lack of transfer to Gf is nevertheless not uncommon, as several other WM training studies have not observed transfer to Gf (e.g., [18, 24, 26, 57]).
The numerical results are reported in
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure/image?size=large&id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0138734.t002
1. experimental: n=15, 16.4(2.8)
2. active control: n=16, 15.9(3.0)
(If you download the spreadsheet of the full data provided at the end,
you can do your own t-test to double-check that it is indeed
non-statistically-significant, at p=0.66.)
--
gwern
http://www.gwern.net
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0138734
> During the past decade, working memory training has attracted much interest. However, the training outcomes have varied between studies and methodological problems have hampered the interpretation of results. The current study examined transfer after working memory updating training by employing an extensive battery of pre-post cognitive measures with a focus on near transfer. Thirty-one healthy Finnish young adults were randomized into either a working memory training group or an active control group. The working memory training group practiced with three working memory tasks, while the control group trained with three commercial computer games with a low working memory load. The participants trained thrice a week for five weeks, with one training session lasting about 45 minutes. Compared to the control group, the working memory training group showed strongest transfer to an n-back task, followed by working memory updating, which in turn was followed by active working memory capacity. Our results support the view that working memory training produces near transfer effects, and that the degree of transfer depends on the cognitive overlap between the training and transfer measures.
So active control group, non-American (Finnish) subjects.
> All participants received a compensation of 70 euros.
(~$76)
> Training commenced during the week following the pretest session. The participants trained three times (45 min each) a week for five weeks, after which they completed the posttest session during the following week. The WM training group practiced with three computerized WM tasks (see below), while the active control group trained with three commercial computer games that taxed WM only slightly. The order of the training tasks was randomized for every training session. The participants recorded their individual training performances for each training session in personal training logs.
3*45*5=675 minutes of training
> Fluid intelligence: subtests two and four from the Cattell Culture Fair Intelligence Tests (CFIT [42])...The CFIT were employed as a far transfer measure of fluid intelligence and visual reasoning. In this study, subtests two (Classification) and four (Conditions) from Scale 3 were used. In subtest two, five figures are presented, and the participant must choose two figures that differ somehow from the other three. In subtest four, the participant has to choose among five alternatives the one that duplicates a set of conditions. The total score was used as the outcome variable.
> This training task was based on Jaeggi, Buschkuehl, Jonides, and Perrig’s task design [54]. Eight recorded Finnish syllables, spoken by a native Finnish speaker (dy, ki, le, nä, pö, ro, su, ta), and a matrix with eight visuospatial locations served as stimuli. Each syllable was presented via headphones, and it was synchronized with the presentation of a white square in one of the matrix locations. The participant had to simultaneously judge whether the syllable and/or the location matched the ones presented n trials back (see Fig 4). The participant was to press the left response button if the visuospatial location matched the location presented n trials back, and the right button if the syllable matched the syllable presented n trials back. The participant was to withhold a response if the location or the syllable did not match the appropriate stimulus presented n trials back. Each fourteen-minute training session consisted of separate blocks. Every block included 20 + n simultaneous syllable-location trials. The first n trials could not be compared to any previous trials and were thus excluded from the data analyses. The difficulty level (i.e., n) was automatically adjusted after every block on the basis of task performance. N was raised if the participant answered correctly on at least 18 of the 20 trials for both stimulus types. N was decreased if more than five errors were made on either stimulus type. N remained unchanged if the participant made between three to five errors on either, or both, stimulus types. Every training session began with a 2-back block. The minimum difficulty level was 1-back and the maximum was 9-back. Every block began with instructions, a reminder of which response buttons to use, and a text indicating the current level of n. The participant started the block by pressing a keyboard button. Every 500ms trial was followed by a 2500ms blank matrix screen. The instruction screen was once again displayed after completion of the current block. When fourteen minutes had passed, and the currently active block was completed, the task ended and a result screen was displayed. The result screen consisted of the highest level of n achieved during the current training session and the number of blocks completed for each level of n. The participants recorded these results in their personal training logs.
So dual n-back
Cattell results:
> CFIT: No data were excluded from the CFIT analysis. The ANCOVA on the CFIT score was non-significant, F < 1...We did not observe transfer to the CFIT following WM updating training, which goes against the meta-analysis results of Au et al. [29]. The lack of transfer to the CFIT might stem from the small sample size in the current study, which makes it difficult to detect small differences between the groups. However, the effect size on the CFIT analysis showed no signs of an emerging group difference (see Fig 6). It could also be related to the specific CFIT subtests that were selected, which might differ somehow from the more commonly used matrix reasoning tasks; however, Au et al. report fairly equal transfer to both matrix and non-matrix reasoning tasks. Lack of transfer to Gf is nevertheless not uncommon, as several other WM training studies have not observed transfer to Gf (e.g., [18, 24, 26, 57]).
The numerical results are reported in
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure/image?size=large&id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0138734.t002
1. experimental: n=15, 16.4(2.8)
2. active control: n=16, 15.9(3.0)
(If you download the spreadsheet of the full data provided at the end,
you can do your own t-test to double-check that it is indeed
non-statistically-significant, at p=0.66.)
--
gwern
http://www.gwern.net
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages