Why Does Cognitive Training Yield Inconsistent Benefits? A Meta-Analysis of Individual Differences in Baseline Cognitive Abilities and Training Outcomes.

Hilary J Traut,Yuko Munakata,Ryan M Guild

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.662139

Hilary J Traut, Yuko Munakata + Show 1 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.662139

Copy DOI

Abstract

Despite growing interest in improving cognitive abilities across the lifespan through training, the benefits of cognitive training are inconsistent. One powerful contributor may be that individuals arrive at interventions with different baseline levels of the cognitive skill being trained. Some evidence suggests poor performers benefit the most from cognitive training, showing compensation for their weak abilities, while other evidence suggests that high performers benefit most, experiencing a magnification of their abilities. Whether training leads to compensation or magnification effects may depend upon the specific cognitive domain being trained (such as executive function or episodic memory) and the training approach implemented (strategy or process). To clarify the association between individual differences in baseline cognitive ability and training gains as well as potential moderators, we conducted a systematic meta-analysis of the correlation between these two variables. We found evidence of a significant meta-correlation demonstrating a compensatory effect, a negative association between initial ability on a trained cognitive process and training gains. Too few papers met our search criteria across the levels of proposed moderators of cognitive domain and training approach to conduct a reliable investigation of their influence over the meta-analytic effect size. We discuss the implications of a compensatory meta-correlation, potential reasons for the paucity of qualifying papers, and important future directions for better understanding how cognitive trainings work and for whom.

Highlights

There has been steady and growing interest in developing effective methods to manipulate an individual’s cognitive abilities
All reported meta-analytic tests were conducted based on a total of 82 correlation coefficients extracted from this set of papers reporting correlation coefficients
Participants with initially weaker targeted abilities gain more from cognitive training than those who are initially more proficient. This metaanalytic finding is consistent with multiple prior accounts of the influence of individual differences on cognitive training gains, for executive function and process based cognitive training approaches (Lövdén et al, 2012; Karbach and Unger, 2014), and is the first to demonstrate it via a systematic literature synthesis

Summary

Introduction

There has been steady and growing interest in developing effective methods to manipulate an individual’s cognitive abilities. While the design and methodological rigor with which cognitive training research is conducted is an established source of this variation (Noack et al, 2014; Tidwell et al, 2014; Simons et al, 2016; Smolenet al., 2018) variability remains even when accounting for these concerns Sources of this remaining variability are of great interest as they could both provide insight into the reasons for the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of cognitive training— illuminating the mechanisms of how trainings work and for whom—and allow for administration of more tailored cognitive trainings in clinical or therapeutic contexts

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion