The Potential of a Relational Training Intervention to Improve Older Adults' Cognition

Abstract

Behavioral gerontology rarely focuses on improving older adults' cognitive function. This gap in the literature should be addressed, as our aging population means that greater numbers of older adults are experiencing cognitive decline and reduced functional independence. If cognitive training interventions are to be socially significant, they should target improvements in core executive functions (EFs) that are critical for everyday cognition and functioning independence. Evidence from the cognitive sciences suggests that a cognitive training intervention targeting "relational knowledge" and "cognitive flexibility," which are core EFs, could translate to improvements in cognition and functioning for older adults. Behavioral researchers, interested in the effects of relational training on cognition, have shown a relationship between complex and flexible arbitrarily applicable relational responding (AARRing) and improved performance on measures of intelligence in children and young adults. However, data examining the impact of AARRing on the cognition of older adults are lacking. This article suggests that complex and flexible AARRing may be synonymous with the aforementioned EFs of relational knowledge and cognitive flexibility, and that a behaviorally oriented relational training intervention might improve cognition and functioning for healthy older adults or those experiencing cognitive decline. The article initially presents a brief overview of research in behavioral gerontology and older adult cognition, followed by a detailed explanation of how training complexity and flexibility in AARRing could result in improvements in core EFs. Specific suggestions for designing a relational training intervention and assessing relevant outcomes are provided.

Keywords: Aging; Behavioral gerontology; Derived relational responding; Healthy cognition; Relational training.

Fig. 1

A representation of executive functions (EFs) as described in-text; including core EFs of relational knowledge and cognitive flexibility. The figure depicts that these core EFs are necessary for higher order EFs, which in turn are important for everyday cognition and functional independence. The figure also suggests that relational complexity and relational flexibility, as described by RFT, are interrelated with relational knowledge and cognitive flexibility. Note that this figure does not depict all executive functions, only those relevant to this paper

Fig. 2

Possible Ghent-Odysseus Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (GO-IRAP) trials in a relational training intervention. Each screen shows increasing levels of relational complexity, from nonarbitrary coordination relations (top left), to arbitrary coordination relations (top right), relational framing with derived arbitrary comparative relations (bottom left), and relating relations/analogical reasoning (bottom right). Contingency reversals can be built in to promote flexibility (e.g., require correct responding first, then require incorrect responding). The first three panels are reprinted from “Teaching Important Relational Skills for Children With Autism Spectrum Disorder and Intellectual Disability Using Freely Available (GO-IRAP) Software,” by C. Murphy and D. Barnes-Holmes, 2017, Austin Journal of Autism and Related Disabilities, 3, 1041–1047. Copyright 2017 by Murphy et al. Reprinted with permission.; Top left: “Nonarbitrary coordination relations (e.g., select SAME when trial presents 2 pigs; select DIFFERENT when trial presents a pig and a cow)” (p. 1042); top right: “Arbitrary coordination relations (e.g., select SAME when trial presents 50% with the symbol indicating half, and select DIFFERENT when trial presents 50% with ¼)” (p. 1043); bottom left: “Derived arbitrary comparative relations (DRR) based on SAME-OPPOSITE relations: Participants were taught relations: X same-as SMALL, Z same-as P, Z opposite to X. Test trial for DRR depicted in graphic: Z same or opposite to BIG? P same or opposite to SMALL? DRR response based on taught relations is Z and P are both same-as BIG” (p. 1044). The bottom-right panel (newly devised) requires relating relations (e.g., select TRUE when the analogy is correct and FALSE when the analogy is incorrect)