Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Sep;6(3):327-339.
doi: 10.1007/s41465-022-00241-y. Epub 2022 Mar 23.

The Effects of Working Memory versus Adaptive Visual Search Control Training on Executive Cognitive Function

Peter R Finn  1 , Luca Nemes  1 , Allen Bailey  1 , Rachel L Gunn  2 , Elizabeth A Wiemers  3 , Thomas S Redick  4
Affiliations

The Effects of Working Memory versus Adaptive Visual Search Control Training on Executive Cognitive Function

Peter R Finn et al. J Cogn Enhanc. 2022 Sep.

Abstract

There is considerable debate about whether Working Memory (WM) training specifically results in far-transfer improvements in executive cognitive function (ECF) rather than improvements on tasks similar to the training tasks. There has also been recent interest in whether WM training can improve ECF in clinical populations with clear deficits in ECFs. The current study examined the effects of WM training compared with non-WM adaptive Visual Search (VS) control training (15 sessions over 4 weeks) on various measures of ECF, including delay discounting (DD) rate, inhibition on flanker, color and spatial Stroop tasks, and drinking in a community-recruited sample with Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD, 41 men, 41 women, mean age = 21.7 years), who were not in treatment or seeking treatment, and non-AUD healthy controls (37 men, 52 women, mean age = 22.3 years). Both WM and VS training were associated with improvements on all ECF measures at 4 weeks and 1-month follow-up. WM and VS training were associated with reductions in both DD rates and interference on Stroop and Flanker tasks in all participants, as well as reductions in drinking in AUD participants that remained apparent one month post training. The results suggest that nonspecific effects of demanding cognitive training, as opposed to specific WM training effects, could enhance ECF, and that such enhancements are retained at least one-month post-training.

Keywords: alcohol use; delay discounting; executive cognitive function; inhibitory control; working memory training.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of interest/Competing interests. The authors (Peter Finn, Luca Nemes, Allen Bailey, Rachel Gunn, Elizabeth Wiemers, and Thomas Redick) declare that they have no conflict of interest in any aspect of the data collection, analysis, interpretation, or manuscript preparation.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Delay discounting rate (log10 transformed) at baseline (base), 4 weeks (immediate post training), and 8 weeks (4 week post training follow-up) after WM training (WMT) and Visual Search Training (VST).
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Interference measures on the Flanker task (Panel A), the Spatial Stroop (Panel B), and Color Stroop (Panel C) at baseline (base), 4 weeks (immediate post training), and 8 weeks (4 week post training follow-up) after WM training (WMT) and Visual Search Training (VST). RT = Reaction Time. Interference was calculated as the RT on incongruent trials minus the RT for neutral trials at each time point for each measure.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Panel A. The average quantity of alcohol consumed per drinking occasion after WM training (WMT) and Visual Search (VS) training at baseline (base), 4 weeks (immediate post training), and 8 weeks (4 week post training follow-up) in Control (con) and AUD (Alcohol Use Disorder Groupts. Panel B changes in the average frequency of drinking alcohol (occasions per week).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Au J, Buschkuehl M, Duncan GJ, & Jaeggi SM (2016). There is no convincing evidence that working memory training is NOT effective: a reply to Melby-Lervåg and Hulme (2015). Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23, 331–337. - PubMed
    1. Au J, Gibson BC, Bunarjo K,Buschkuehl M, & Jaeggi SM (2020). Quantifying the Difference Between Active and Passive Control Groups in Cognitive Interventions Using Two Meta-analytical Approaches. Journal of Cognitive Enhancement, 4, 192–210. 10.1007/s41465-020-00164-6 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Au J, Sheehan E, Tsai N, Duncan GJ, Buschkuehl M,& Jaeggi SM (2015). Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 22, 366–377. doi:10.3758/s13423-014-0699-x - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bailey AJ, Gerst K, & Finn PR (2018) Delay discounting of losses and rewards in Alcohol Use Disorder: The effect of working memory load. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 32(2) 197–204. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Barrett LF, Tugade MM, & Engle RW (2004). Individual differences in working memory capacity and dual-process theories of the mind. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 553–573. - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources