Abstract
A randomized controlled trial compared complex span and n-back training regimes to investigate the generality of training benefits across materials and paradigms. The memory items and training intensities were equated across programs, providing the first like-with-like comparison of transfer in these two widely used training paradigms. The stimuli in transfer tests of verbal and visuo-spatial n-back and complex span differed from the trained tasks, but were matched across the untrained paradigms. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three training groups: complex span training, n-back training, or no training. Pre- to- post training changes were observed for untrained n-back tasks following n-back training. Following complex span training there was equivocal evidence for improvements on a verbal complex span task, but no evidence for changes on an untrained visuo-spatial complex span activity. Relative to a no intervention group, the evidence supported no change on an untrained verbal complex span task following either n-back or complex span training. Equivocal evidence was found for improvements on visuo-spatial complex span and verbal and visuo-spatial n-back tasks following both training regimes. Evidence for selective transfer (comparing the two active training groups) was only found for an untrained visuo-spatial n-back task following n-back training. There was no evidence for cross-paradigm transfer. Thus transfer is constrained by working memory paradigm and the nature of individual processes executed within complex span tasks. However, within-paradigm transfer can occur when the change is limited to stimulus category, at least for n-back.
Highlights
Research investigating transfer within and across working memory paradigms following training has largely concluded that transfer is confined to untrained working memory tests that are highly similar to the trained activities (e.g., Harrison et al, 2013; Sprenger et al, 2013; von Bastian et al, 2013; Minear et al, 2016; Blacker et al, 2017; Soveri et al, 2017)
The current study addressed this by examining the degree to which near transfer across working memory tasks is limited by two properties of both the trained and untrained tasks: the stimulus category and the working memory paradigm
There was substantial evidence for a group effect for the visuo-spatial n-back transfer task, with greater gains found for those who trained on n-back relative to those who trained on complex span (BF10 = 9.702). This training study compared transfer patterns from two working memory training paradigms (n-back and complex span) matched for memory items and training intensity to outcome measures that were matched for memory items
Summary
Research investigating transfer within and across working memory paradigms following training has largely concluded that transfer is confined to untrained working memory tests that are highly similar to the trained activities (e.g., Harrison et al, 2013; Sprenger et al, 2013; von Bastian et al, 2013; Minear et al, 2016; Blacker et al, 2017; Soveri et al, 2017). Dahlin et al (2008) proposed that training that both involves continuous updating of the contents of working memory (in running span) and activates the striatum enhances performance in n-back, another working memory paradigm involving updating They concluded that “transfer can occur if the criterion and transfer tasks engage specific overlapping processing components and brain regions” An alternative position advanced by Gathercole et al (2019) is that training on complex working memory tasks such as these leads to the development of highly specific skills and not to the expansion of existing capacities By this account, new cognitive routines coordinating the execution of the individual processes are developed for unfamiliar tasks that are not readily served by existing mechanisms. Running span and n-back both involve updating the contents of working memory, their other distinctive task requirements (serial recall for running span as opposed to single item recognition for n-back) would predict weak or absent transfer across the tasks due to their distinct task structures
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
