The big question about working memory (WM) training is whether it results in transfer—better performance on tasks other than WM itself. Near transfer is for tasks that are similar but not identical to WM training. Far transfer is for tasks that are quite different from WM training. Typically, studies find that WM training strongly boosts performance on the WM task and near transfer, but results in weak far transfer.
I am curious about whether any gains in far transfer might be masked by test insensitivity, noise, overshadowing by learning effects, or interactions between impacts of WM and learning rate. A good test needs to have its difficulty calibrated so that there is substantial variability in scores, with that variability influenced primarily by fluid intelligence. Test-retest reliability should be high after controlling for learning. Insofar as these don’t hold (the test is noisy or insensitive), then it’ll be hard to detect real effects, if they exist: there will be little signal, and what there is will be swamped by noise. If learning effects aren’t controlled for adequately and are more important than the impact of transfer due to WM exercise, then this too could swamp any signal.
One point in favor of the idea that these tests are adequately measuring signal is that they do find substantial improvements to WM itself as well as near-transfer tasks. This makes me think that psych tests of cognition are capable of picking up differences, and we’re just not finding strong ones for far-transfer tasks.
Another point I’m uncertain of is the interaction between learning and task nearness. I would expect that WM and fluid intelligence generally are most influential in a) one’s learning rate and b) one’s maximum cognitive performance capacity. But insofar as learning effects are minimal, which is a primary goal of psych studies attempting to measure pre vs. post training effects, then for subjects closer to the beginner end of the spectrum, I’d expect that even boosted WM and fluid intelligence might play only a limited role in far transfer performance. By contrast, near transfer might be enhanced, because WM training is portable to the near transfer task. Perhaps if WM improves fluid intelligence, this effect could best be observed when measuring performance on tasks where the subject has a high level of expertise already, or where the subject is engaged in continuous study over time. Maybe this is already taken into account in these studies, but most of the ones I’ve seen look like they give people unfamiliar tests of cognitive function before and after the WM training and assess improvements while controlling for learning. Maybe we’re going about trying to measure far transfer all wrong?
The big question about working memory (WM) training is whether it results in transfer—better performance on tasks other than WM itself. Near transfer is for tasks that are similar but not identical to WM training. Far transfer is for tasks that are quite different from WM training. Typically, studies find that WM training strongly boosts performance on the WM task and near transfer, but results in weak far transfer.
I am curious about whether any gains in far transfer might be masked by test insensitivity, noise, overshadowing by learning effects, or interactions between impacts of WM and learning rate. A good test needs to have its difficulty calibrated so that there is substantial variability in scores, with that variability influenced primarily by fluid intelligence. Test-retest reliability should be high after controlling for learning. Insofar as these don’t hold (the test is noisy or insensitive), then it’ll be hard to detect real effects, if they exist: there will be little signal, and what there is will be swamped by noise. If learning effects aren’t controlled for adequately and are more important than the impact of transfer due to WM exercise, then this too could swamp any signal.
One point in favor of the idea that these tests are adequately measuring signal is that they do find substantial improvements to WM itself as well as near-transfer tasks. This makes me think that psych tests of cognition are capable of picking up differences, and we’re just not finding strong ones for far-transfer tasks.
Another point I’m uncertain of is the interaction between learning and task nearness. I would expect that WM and fluid intelligence generally are most influential in a) one’s learning rate and b) one’s maximum cognitive performance capacity. But insofar as learning effects are minimal, which is a primary goal of psych studies attempting to measure pre vs. post training effects, then for subjects closer to the beginner end of the spectrum, I’d expect that even boosted WM and fluid intelligence might play only a limited role in far transfer performance. By contrast, near transfer might be enhanced, because WM training is portable to the near transfer task. Perhaps if WM improves fluid intelligence, this effect could best be observed when measuring performance on tasks where the subject has a high level of expertise already, or where the subject is engaged in continuous study over time. Maybe this is already taken into account in these studies, but most of the ones I’ve seen look like they give people unfamiliar tests of cognitive function before and after the WM training and assess improvements while controlling for learning. Maybe we’re going about trying to measure far transfer all wrong?