To what extent can working memory training be considered effective PDF

Preview

Summary

Download To what extent can working memory training be considered effective PDF

Description

1 Student #: z5312876

Effectiveness of Working Memory Training

Madhuvanthi Senthil Kumar- z5312876

Psychology- University of New South Wales

PSYC1011: Psychology 1B

Tanya Wayne

Due:24/07/2020

2 Student #: z5312876

To what extent can working memory training be considered effective? Argue for your position with reference to scientific evidence Models of working memory are central to understanding the role and processes of memory in our cognitive system (Conway, Cowan, and Bunting 2001). Thus, the incipient working memory training studies are integral to our understanding of cognitive psychology and neuroscience. This prompts an important question; is working memory training effective? The assessment of effectiveness in this essay, is a measure of the training literature’s ability to reliably and validly demonstrate that working training programs achieve their cognitive objectives. A critical review of extant literature supports the notion that working memory training has limited effectiveness in terms of generalised cognitive enhancement and fluid intelligence after analysing outcomes and limitations in the research. However working memory has provided invaluable introspection on improving working memory capacity in groups of people in cognitive decline or with cognitive impairment. To measure effectiveness, this essay will begin by establishing the foundations of working memory and defining the criteria for effectiveness in relation to working memory training and cognition. An examination of models of memory in strategy training and core training, specifically outlining the working memory mechanisms aids in forming a comprehensive argument. Accompanied with critique of the limitations and alternatives in available research contribute to the notion that working memory training has a limited capacity. However other literature does support the notion that working memory training is not considered completely ineffective, due to the impacts of the paradigm on groups of individuals with cognitive impairments. The rationale

3 Student #: z5312876

for testing the effectiveness of working memory training developed from the integration of theoretical and empirical psychological perspectives of working memory capacity; a critical component of psychological research is the review of its paradigms and constant evolution of its approaches to contemporary understandings of the mind. Foundations of Working Memory and Effectiveness An accumulated definition of Working Memory [WM] construes it as a concept critical to cognition. Our current understanding of WM is centred around Alan Baddeley’s proposed adaptation of the information processing model of memory; using sensory buffers to inform short-term memory which is then stored and manipulated to be processed as long-term memory .(Melby-Lervåg, Redick, and Hulme, 2016). Working memory training (WMT), involves the targeted training (Morrison and Chein 2010) to ‘improve’ working memory capacity [WMC], the objective of these retention exercises is to ‘enhance’ fluid intelligence and provide the individual with ‘higher cognition’. The effectiveness of working memory can be evaluated through the following criteria: Have the studies/ experimental designs, through reliable and valid means shown that working memory enhanced the cognition and fluid intelligence to a considerable effect? Fluid intelligence here can be defined as the ability to reason and problem (Harrison, Shipstead, Hicks, Hambrick, Redick and Engle 2013) solve using the sensory encoding buffers that shape working memory from Baddeley’s Model(Baddeley and Hitch 1994); phonological, episodic and visuospatial. Whilst Baddeley’s model is the prevailing paradigm of working memory, other psychological models of memory are used to substantiate working

4 Student #: z5312876

memory training. By establishing this criteria for effectiveness, you measure a specific relationship between working memory training strategies and cognitive capacities, and discount irrelevant findings. Strategy Training, Core Training and Working Memory Mechanisms Strategy Training (ST) involves teaching approaches, to encode, maintain and retrieve information from Working Memory, increasing performance in tasks requiring the retention of performance over a delay (Morrison and Chein 2010); Strategy training focuses on domain-specific tasks. Core Training (CT) involves the repetition of demanding working memory tasks; core training focuses on domain-general tasks. Domain specific tasks involve rehearsal procedures of particular sensory buffers discussed in the Baddeley model (Baddeley and Hitch 1994). Domain-specific tasks involve selective responses to unique stimuli, so the replication of the task across different contexts is increasingly difficult, especially when considering factors that experiments fail to account for such as the: magnitude of training effects, individual receptiveness towards working memory tasks and most importantly transfer measures. The concept of transfer measures in relation to WMT, is the conclusion that whilst working memory training approaches produce long-term results, or the “transference” of these skills learnt for these specific tasks onto generalised tasks that their brain has not been “ trained for” (Shipstead, Redick and Engle 2010; Taatgen 2013). Domain General tasks that remain the focus of CT approaches involve mechanisms of working memory such as the episodic buffer; controlling the flow of information and attention. Again however, researchers have noticed that whilst the participants show that WMT improves the WMC of the individual for that specific task and stimuli of a

5 Student #: z5312876

heterogeneous manner, there has not been any sufficient observation of transfer to broader cognition functions or enhancements in fluid intelligence, especially due to the constraints of an experimental method that isn’t longitudinal (Thompson, Waksom, Garel, Carednas-Iniguez, Reynolds, Winter, Chang, Pollard, Lala, Alvarez and Gabrieli 2013). Strategy training employs the levels of processing model of memory, through its embrace of articulatory and elaborative rehearsal; the incoming information is processed in relation to the sensory input of the information available in the short-term memory, creating a salient relationship with task relevant information (Roediger, Gallo and Geraci 2002). This explains why the information is not embedded further into the memory, impacting domains influencing fluid intelligence. ST approaches also fall under a model of memory known as transfer-appropriate processing; wherein the method of encoding the information is the determinant of the efficacy of the retrieval of it (Baddeley and Hitch 1994). This contradicts the notion of higher cognition if working memory skills developed by WMT are limited to the context of the task; this is essentially the flaw with programs such as COGMED (Shipstead, Hicks and Engle 2012). The uncertain relationship between transfermeasures, working memory mechanisms such as domain-specificity, domain generality and training approaches such ST and CT, reinforce the ineffectiveness of working memory training. Whilst it has strong theoretical underpinnings, lacks empirical, experimental data that is able to sufficiently justify it. Limitations and alternative explanations to the research The incongruous nature of findings across this neo-nascent branch of cognitive psychology is indicative of the elements of unreliability and the degree of validity

6 Student #: z5312876

across the experimental designs regarding working memory training. Key limitations in these studies include the expectancy effect and lack of consistency in experimental findings (Morrison and Chien 2010), specifically in terms of using untreated control groups (Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016). The use of an untreated control group usually means higher cognitive engagements, since training elicits an expectation of improvement hence the expectancy effect skews the results. Is the subject showing improvement due to the nature of the working memory training or is it their subconscious efforts to cognitively participate? Since it’s generalised that these exercises will ‘improve their intelligence’(Shipstead, Redick and Engle 2010). The lack of standardisation or convergence in either the findings or the style of training measured across different research studies dramatically decreases the reliability of the results in these studies, as they don’t consistently measure a single cognitive output (Morrison and Chien 2010) due to the variability. Areas of divergence across these methods, convolute reliability and invalidate these experiments to a certain extent, which makes the effectiveness of WMT less plausible. Effectiveness on cognitively impaired groups However, research has demonstrated that those with cognitive impairments, for example; children with ADHD, dyslexia, low working memory and other neuropsychological disorders (Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016), have been more receptive showing great improvement in certain cognitive tasks. Like most other studies, conducted in the WMT field, no significant treatment effect on a primary cognitive outcome can be definitively connected to improved cognition via WMT (Dongen Boomsma, Vollebregt, Buitelaar and Slaats- Wilemse 2014). However, these studies

7 Student #: z5312876

mark an improving experimental design in the field. The use of a triple-blind randomised placebo-controlled experimental design is consistently used across these studies accounting for expectancy effect errors and varying learner statuses of the participants that previous studies failed to account for (Dongen Boomsma et al., 2014; Gatherscole 2014; Egeland, Aarlien, A.K. and Saunes 2013). Given the role of memory deficits in individuals, the theoretical underpinning of WMT directly address the cognitive inhibitions within this group of people (Chacko, Feirsen, Bedard, Marks., Uderman and Chimikilis A., 2013). The positive results yielded from studies correlating improved fluid intelligence and working memory training illustrates that there is a remote effectiveness in the WMT approach. Conclusion Consistent with the review of the literature; it can be concluded that contemporary approaches to cognitive-training particularly working-memory training is mostly ineffective in terms of generalised cognitive enhancement, but has been shown to be promising in showinging improvements in specific mental capacities of cognitively impaired groups of individuals. This view is consistent with the examination of the research surrounding the inefficiency of both strategy training methods and core training methods in successfully targeting domain-specific and domain-general mechanisms. The limited effectiveness of working memory training approaches is supported by critiquing the research supporting its effectiveness through the outline of its limitations and alternative explanations. However, the positive benefits of working memory training on those with cognitive impairments, indicates there is some success in working memory training approaches. Whilst the concept of

8 Student #: z5312876

working memory training cannot be entirely discounted as ineffective. Through integrating theoretical and empirical perspectives of memory processing models, future studies show some promise in providing valid, reliable experimental designs and results that demonstrate, with limited contending views in the scientific community, the undeniable effectiveness of working memory training. The status quo of approaches and conclusions in working memory training studies, presents the need for deeper introspection in the field of memory and cognition.

REFERENCES Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. J. (1994). Developments in the concept of working memory. Neuropsychology, 8(4), 485–493. https://doi.org/10.1037/0894-4105.8.4.485 Beck SJ, Hanson CA, Puffenberger SS, Benninger KL, Benninger WB. A controlled trial of working memory training for children and adolescents with ADHD. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol. 2010;39(6):825-836. doi:10.1080/15374416.2010.517162 Borella, E., Carretti, B., Riboldi, F., & De Beni, R. (2010). Working memory training in older adults: Evidence of transfer and maintenance effects. Psychology and Aging, 25(4), 767–778. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020683 Brehmer, Y., Westerberg, H., & Bäckman, L. (2012). Working-memory training in younger and older adults: Training gains, transfer, and maintenance. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, Article 63. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00063 Chacko, A., Feirsen, N., Bedard, A. C., Marks, D., Uderman, J. Z., & Chimiklis, A. (2013). Cogmed Working Memory Training for youth with ADHD: a closer examination of efficacy utilizing evidence-based criteria. Journal of clinical child and adolescent psychology : the official journal for the Society of Clinical Child and Adolescent

9 Student #: z5312876

Psychology, American Psychological Association, Division 53, 42(6), 769–783. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2013.787622 Chooi, W.-T., & Thompson, L. A. (2012). Working memory training does not improve intelligence in healthy young adults. Intelligence, 40(6), 531– 542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2012.07.004 Conway, A. R. A., Cowan, N., & Bunting, M. F. (2001). The cocktail party phenomenon revisited: The importance of working memory capacity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8(2), 331–335. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196169 Dahlin, K.I.E., (2010). Effects of working memory training on reading in children with special needs. Reading and Writing 24: 478-491 Dongen‐ Boomsma, M., Vollebregt, M. A., Buitelaar, J. K., & Slaats‐Willemse, D. (2014). Working memory training in young children with ADHD: A randomized placebo‐ controlled trial. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 55(8), 886– 896. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12218 Dunning, D. L., Holmes, J., & Gathercole, S. E. (2013). Does working memory training lead to generalized improvements in children with low working memory? A randomized controlled trial. Developmental Science, 16(6), 915–925. Egeland, J., Aarlien, A. K., & Saunes, B.-K. (2013). Few effects of far transfer of working memory training in ADHD: A randomized controlled trial. PLoS ONE, 8(10), Article e75660. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0075660 Gathercole SE.(2014). Commentary: Working memory training and ADHD - where does its potential lie? Reflections on Chacko et al. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2014;55(3):256-257. doi:10.1111/jcpp.12196

10 Student #: z5312876

Roediger, H. L. III, Gallo, D. A., & Geraci, L. (2002). Processing approaches to cognition: The impetus from the levels-of-processing framework. Memory, 10(5-6), 319– 332. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210224000144 Harrison, T. L., Shipstead, Z., Hicks, K. L., Hambrick, D. Z., Redick, T. S., & Engle, R. W. (2013). Working memory training may increase working memory capacity but not fluid intelligence. Psychological Science, 24(12), 2409– 2419. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613492984 Melby-Lervåg, M., Redick, T. S., & Hulme, C. (2016). Working memory training does not improve performance on measures of intelligence or other measures of “far transfer” evidence from a meta-analytic review. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(4), 512-534 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691616635612 Morrison, A. B., & Chein, J. M. (2010). Does working memory training work? The promise and challenges of enhancing cognition by training working memory. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 18(1), 46-60. https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13423-0100034-0 Olesen, P. J., Westerberg, H., & Klingberg, T. (2004). Increased prefrontal and parietal activity after training of working memory. Nature Neuroscience, 7(1), 75– 79. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1165 Schwaighofer, M., Fischer, F., & Bühner, M. (2015). Does working memory training transfer? A meta-analysis including training conditions as moderators. Educational Psychologist, 50(2), 138–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2015.1036274 Shipstead, Z., Hicks, K. L., & Engle, R. W. (2012). Cogmed working memory training: Does the evidence support the claims? Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 1(3), 185–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2012.06.003

11 Student #: z5312876

Shipstead, Z., Redick, T. S., & Engle, R. W. (2010). Does working memory training generalize? Psychologica Belgica, 50(3-4), 245–276. https://doi.org/10.5334/pb-50-34-245 Shipstead, Z., Redick, T. S., & Engle, R. W. (2012). Is working memory training effective? Psychological Bulletin, 138(4), 628–654. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027473 Taatgen, N. A. (2013). The nature and transfer of cognitive skills. Psychological Review, 120(3), 439–471. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033138 Takeuchi, H., Sekiguchi, A., Taki, Y., Yokoyama, S., Yomogida, Y., Komuro, N., Yamanouchi, T., Suzuki, S., & Kawashima, R. (2010). Training of working memory impacts structural connectivity. The Journal of Neuroscience, 30(9), 3297– 3303. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4611-09.2010 Thompson, T. W., Waskom, M. L., Garel, K. L., Cardenas-Iniguez, C., Reynolds, G. O., Winter, R., Chang, P., Pollard, K., Lala, N., Alvarez, G. A., & Gabrieli, J. D. (2013). Failure of working memory training to enhance cognition or intelligence. PloS one, 8(5), e63614. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0063614 Title Page Setup. (24.07.2020, In APA style/APA.org from https://apastyle.apa.org/stylegrammar-guidelines/paper-format/title-page von Bastian, C.C., Oberauer, K. Effects and mechanisms of working memory training: a review. Psychological Research 78, 803–820 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426013-0524-6...