Making working memory work: a meta-analysis of executive-control and working memory training in older adults

Abstract

This meta-analysis examined the effects of process-based executive-function and working memory training (49 articles, 61 independent samples) in older adults (> 60 years). The interventions resulted in significant effects on performance on the trained task and near-transfer tasks; significant results were obtained for the net pretest-to-posttest gain relative to active and passive control groups and for the net effect at posttest relative to active and passive control groups. Far-transfer effects were smaller than near-transfer effects but were significant for the net pretest-to-posttest gain relative to passive control groups and for the net gain at posttest relative to both active and passive control groups. We detected marginally significant differences in training-induced improvements between working memory and executive-function training, but no differences between the training-induced improvements observed in older adults and younger adults, between the benefits associated with adaptive and nonadaptive training, or between the effects in active and passive control conditions. Gains did not vary with total training time.

Keywords: cognitive aging; cognitive plasticity; executive-control training; meta-analysis; transfer of training; working memory training.

Figure 1

Funnel plots for effect sizes (pre to posttest gain) on (A) target measures, (B) near-transfer measures, and (C) far-transfer measures (bubble size denotes 1/SE, as a measure of precision). Only Panel B shows significant asymmetry.

Figure 2

Averaged effect sizes (pre to posttest gain) (A) by treatment and type of measure, (B) by age group (only studies that included both younger and older adults were included), (C) as a function of training type, and (D) as a function of the type of transfer measure. Error bars denote 95% confidence intervals. Note: k denotes the number of studies; the count is reported in order of presentation on the graph; EF=executive function, WM=working memory, STM=short-term memory.

Figure 3

Funnel plots for effect sizes (net effect, operationalized as the difference between effect size in experimental conditions minus effect size in control conditions) on (A) target measures, (B) near-transfer measures, and (C) far-transfer measures (bubble size denotes 1/SE, as a measure of precision). Only Panel A shows significant asymmetry.

Figure 4

Average effect sizes (A) for the net effect at posttest for the treatment tasks (all effect sizes significantly larger than zero) and (B) as a function of training type for studies with active control conditions (all effect sizes significantly larger than zero, except for far-transfer measures in executive function training). Error bars denote 95% confidence intervals. Note: k denotes the number of studies; the count is reported in order of presentation on the graph.