training with a complex WM span task? ⢠Prior work ... Contrast WM and STM training in the verbal domain. ⢠Include active ... Auto Operation Span (Î. ) Stroo.
Alexandra Morrison, Jason Chein, Shannon Fitzhugh, Nora Newcombe, Ingrid Olson, & Thomas Shipley
Temple University, Department of Psychology
• Which subjects show the greatest degree of transfer following WM training?
blick Symmetry Judgment
Spatial WM
Recall
M Location Memory
S
T
V
X
Z
B
C
D
F
G
J
K
L
M
N
P
Recall
Feedback
95% 3/4
Second Cognitive Assessment
Feedback
Experiment 2 - Training
95% 3/4
Lexicality Judgment
• Prior studies have shown transfer through working memory training (e.g., Gf, Stroop, N-back)
Verbal WM
Experiment 1 - Results
Storage + Processing (n=11)
*
Span (Δ)
4 3 2 1 0 -1
Untrained
3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0
WM
Average Change in Spatial WM Span
*
Storage only (n=11)
WM
Cognitive Control (Stroop)
WM
1 & 2 used different measures of WM Capacity
Experiment 1 - Design 1st Cognitive Assessment
WM Training
2nd Cognitive Assessment
STM
5 4 3
1 0 SV
WM
STM
Experiment 2 - Aims Replicate/Extend findings from Experiment 1 • Contrast WM and STM training in the verbal domain • Include active control group
Examine influence of WM training on Spatial Intelligence • Collaboration with the Spatial Intelligence and Learning Center (SILC) • Contrast WM training and spatial visualization training (Sorby workbook, 2008)
4 3 2 1 0 High Span
Low Span
Average Improvement in the Stroop Effect
40 30 20 10 0 High Span
Low Span
5 4 3 2 1 0 High Span
Low Span
Average Change in Mental Rotation
30 25 20 15 10 5 0
High Span
Low Span
5 4 3 2 1 0 SV
WM
1.5 1 0.5 0 -0.5 -1
WM
50
• Transfer across domains (verbal to spatial) • Transfer to non-WM tasks
STM
Average Reduction in the Stroop Effect
• May indicate differential strategy engagement during training
40 30
References
20 10 0
STM
Average Change in Reading Comp
SV
Training in an adaptive complex WM span task results in significant WM capacity increases
High span individuals seem to capitalize on transfer benefits of training
Average Change in Spatial WM
-1
Conclusions
• Implicates a domain-general mechanism
Transfer Effects
5
WM training leads to improvements in other cognitive abilities
2
-1
Stroop Effect (Δms)
Verbal Reasoning (Nonsense Sylll., Inference)
WM
SV
MRT-A Score (% Δ )
Spatial Reasoning (Paper folding, Surface Dev.)
Average Change in Verbal WM
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 Days of Training
Measures of verbal and spatial reasoning, and Gf did not exhibit significant or selective training effects
Nonverbal Fluid Intelligence (Ravens)
No Training
Untrained
Auto Symmetry Span (Δ)
Mental Rotation (MRT-A)
*Experiments
WM
*
12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3
Nelson Denny Score (Δ)
Reading Comprehension (Nelson Denny)
Untrained
Average Span Across Training Sessions Verbal WM Span
Short Term Memory Capacity (Storage Only)
12 10 8 6 4 2 0 -2
6
Average Change in Spatial WM
Practice Effects
Average Change in Reading Comprehension Nelson Denny Score (Δ)
*
Stroop Effect (Δ ms)
Working Memory Capacity (Storage + Processing)
Exp 2
*
70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
M
Experiment 2 - Results Untrained
Average Reduction in the Stroop Effect
*****
Average Change in Verbal WM
50
Letter Memory
Verbal STM
Transfer Effects
Exp 1
Spatial Visualization
M
(n=14)
Average Change in Verbal WM Span
Experiment 1- verbal and spatial WM training versus untrained control
Cognitive Assessment Battery
blick
Letter Memory
Practice Effects
• Current training targets domain-general WM mechanisms to promote broader transfer
• Identified subjects as “High WM span” and “Low WM span” groups based on a median split of composite WM score from 1st cognitive assessment
Stroop Effect (Δms)
Verbal WM
Letter Memory
Short Term Memory Training (STM)
Auto Symmetry Span (Δ)
Lexicality Judgment
Working Memory Training (WM)
Auto Symmetry Span (Δ)
Spatial Visualization Training (SV)
repeats n times
Do the benefits of WM training transfer to other cognitive skills?
Experiment 2- verbal WM Training, verbal STM training, & spatial visualization training
• WM training produced the highest level of transfer
Storage + Processing
• Present study uses a more widely investigated WM measure – complex WM span – as the training task
Study Overview
First Cognitive Assessment
• Difficulty (n) adjusted according to performance
CogMed: Klingberg et al., 2002, 2005 N-back variants: Verhaeghen et al., 2004, Jaeggi et al., 2008 Updating task: Dahlin et al., 2008
• Explore transfer in a more extensive battery of cognitive tests
Who Benefits?
Auto Operation Span (Δ)
• Prior work indicates that WM improves with repetitive practice
Experiment 2 - Design
• Participants (n=20) trained for 4 weeks, completing a total of 20 daily training sessions (~ 30 min. each)
Span (Δ)
Can WM capacity be improved through training with a complex WM span task?
Experiment 1 - Training
MRT-A Score (% Δ )
Background & Motivation
25
WM
STM
Average Change in Mental Rotation
20 15 10 5 0 SV
WM
STM
Dahlin, E., Stigsdotter Neely, A., Larsson, A., Bäckman, L., & Nyberg, L. (2008). Transfer of learning after updating training mediated by the striatum. Science, 320(5882), 1510-1512. Jaeggi, S., Buschkuehl, M., Jonides, J., & Perrig. W. (2008).Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(19):6829–6833. Klingberg, T., Fernell, E., Olesen, P., Johnson, M., Gustafsson, P., Dahlström, K., Gillberg, C.G., Forssberg, H. &, Westerberg H (2005). Computerized training of working memory in children with ADHD – a randomized, controlled trial. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 44(2): 177-186. Klingberg T, Forssberg H, Westerberg H (2002), Training of working memory in children with ADHD. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 24:781-791. Verhaeghen, P., Cerella, J, & Basak, C. (2004). A working memory workout: How to change to size of the focus of attention from one to four in ten hours or less. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 13221337.
