MixedWM: The Effects of Mixed Working Memory Training on Subsequent Training Gains Among Older Adults
Study Details
Study Description
Brief Summary
While an intellectually active and socially integrated lifestyle shows promise for promoting cognitive resilience, the mechanisms underlying any such effects are not well understood. The aim of the current project is test the implications of the "mutualism" hypothesis, which suggests that intellectual function emerges out of the reciprocal influence of growth in abilities as they are exercised in the ecology of everyday life. Such a view implies that improvement in one component will enhance the modifiability of a related component. An additional aim was to test the idea that mutualistic effects will be enhanced by more diverse training in related skills, such as interleaved training of multiple skills, relative to single-component training.
A "successive-enrichment" paradigm was developed to test this with working memory (WM) as the target for training given its centrality in models of attention, intellectual function, and everyday capacities such as reasoning and language comprehension. All participants receive the same target training, but the nature of the training that precedes it is manipulated. Outcome measures include pre- to posttest gains in working memory and episodic memory, as well as the rate of gain in learning the target task. The principle of enhanced mutualism would predict that more diverse experiences related to the target skill will enhance efficiency in acquiring the target skill.
| Condition or Disease | Intervention/Treatment | Phase |
|---|---|---|
|
N/A |
Detailed Description
Within conventional assessments of transfer that examine the effects of training on measures of function at a single time point, these ideas has not been tested. In this project, a "successive-enrichment" paradigm was used to examine improvement in cognitive skills as a function of different conditions for earlier training. The target for training is working memory (WM) given its centrality in models of attention, intellectual function, and everyday capacities such as reasoning and language comprehension.
In the successive-enrichment paradigm, all participants receive the same target training, but the nature of the training that precedes it is manipulated. Thus, in Phase 2, all participants are trained for 10 days on the reading span task (RdgS), in which the task is to verify sensibility in a set of sentences and retain in memory an alphabetic character presented after each sentence. The set size adapts to the participant's skill (in both accuracy of sensibility decisions and memory for the letter set). In Phase 1, participants are randomly assigned to one of four groups designed to test the assumption that related and diverse experiences with the target skill differentially enhance the rate of learning the new skill. In the Same Task (ST) control, participants train on the RdgS, and were expected to be at ceiling in Phase 2. In the Different Single condition (DS), participants trained on a WM task different from that in Phase 1 (the lexical decision span). In the Different Mixed (DM) condition, participants trained on two different interleaved WM tasks, the lexical decision span and the category span. In the non-WM Placebo Control (PC), participants train on a speeded lexical decision task (matched in materials and verbal decision component to the lexical decision span the but requiring no simultaneous memory.
Outcome measures include pre- to posttest gains in working memory and episodic memory, as well as the rate of gain in learning the RdgS in Phase 2. The PC and ST controls define the lower and upper limits of performance, respectively. The principle of enhanced mutualism would predict that the DM group will show more efficient learning of the RdgS in Phase 2 than the DS group, which will both show more efficient learning than the PC group.
Study Design
Arms and Interventions
| Arm | Intervention/Treatment |
|---|---|
| Experimental: Different Mixed Condition (DM) Training in both Lexical Decision Span and Category Span in Phase 1 (which are both different from the target task Reading Span in Phase 2). |
Behavioral: Different Mixed Condition (DM)
Participants engage in home-based training on two working memory tasks, both different from those in the target task training. Goal is 10 days of training, with 4 8-min blocks of training each day.
|
| Experimental: Different Single Condition (DS) Training in the Lexical Decision Span in Phase 1 (which is different from the target task Reading Span in Phase 2). |
Behavioral: Different Single Condition (DS)
Participants engage in home-based training on a working memory task that is different from that in the target task training. Goal is 10 days of training, with 4 8-min blocks of training each day.
|
| Active Comparator: Same Task (ST) Practice Control Training in Reading Span task in Phase 1 (which is the same as target task in Phase 2). |
Behavioral: Same Task (ST) Practice Control
Participants engage in home-based training on the exact same working memory tasks as that in the target task training. Goal is 10 days of training, with 4 8-min blocks of training each day.
|
| Placebo Comparator: Non-WM Placebo Control (PC) Training in a speeded Lexical Decision task only (which has no memory component) in Phase 1 prior to Phase 2 training in WM. |
Behavioral: Non-WM Placebo Control (PC)
Participants engage in home-based training on speeded verbal decision, which unlike the target task training, has no memory component. Goal is 10 days of training, with 4 8-min blocks of training each day.
|
Outcome Measures
Primary Outcome Measures
- Training gains on the Reading Span Task in Phase 2 [2 weeks]
In Phase 2, training data on the target task is collected over 10 days. Learning curves are modeled with log function WM = Int + Coeff * ln(Trails). The coefficient is the primary outcome measure.
- Change in Working Memory [Baseline and 5-6 weeks after pretest (1 hour each session)]
Reading Span, Lexical Decision Span, Category Span, Operation Span, Count Span
Secondary Outcome Measures
- Change in Episodic Memory [Baseline and 5-6 weeks after pretest (20 min each session)]
Hopkins Verbal Learning Task (HVLT)
- Change in Associative Memory [Baseline and 5-6 weeks after pretest (20 min each session)]
Paired associate recall task modeled on the HVLT
Eligibility Criteria
Criteria
Inclusion Criteria:
-
Native English speakers or acquisition of English before age 6 yrs old
-
Self-report of hearing ability sufficient to engage with lab personnel
-
No stroke in the last 3 years
-
No current cancer treatment involving radiation or chemotherapy - No self-reported learning disability
-
No self-reported psychiatric disorder
-
Willingness to be randomly assigned to training conditions
-
No plans that would limit participation during the activity period
-
No participation in a cognitive intervention program in the last year
No additional Exclusion Criteria.
Contacts and Locations
Locations
| Site | City | State | Country | Postal Code | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Beckman Institute | Urbana | Illinois | United States | 61801 |
Sponsors and Collaborators
- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Investigators
- Principal Investigator: Elizabeth A L Stine-Morrow, PhD, University of Illinois at Chicago
Study Documents (Full-Text)
None provided.More Information
Publications
- Brown, P. C., Roediger, H. L., & McDaniel, M. A. (2014). Make it stick: The science of successful learning. Harvard University Press.
- Daneman M, Merikle PM. Working memory and language comprehension: A meta-analysis. Psychon Bull Rev. 1996 Dec;3(4):422-33. doi: 10.3758/BF03214546.
- Engle RW, Tuholski SW, Laughlin JE, Conway ARA. Working memory, short-term memory, and general fluid intelligence: a latent-variable approach. J Exp Psychol Gen. 1999 Sep;128(3):309-331. doi: 10.1037//0096-3445.128.3.309.
- Payne BR, Stine-Morrow EAL. The Effects of Home-Based Cognitive Training on Verbal Working Memory and Language Comprehension in Older Adulthood. Front Aging Neurosci. 2017 Aug 8;9:256. doi: 10.3389/fnagi.2017.00256. eCollection 2017.
- Savi AO, Marsman M, van der Maas HLJ, Maris GKJ. The Wiring of Intelligence. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2019 Nov;14(6):1034-1061. doi: 10.1177/1745691619866447. Epub 2019 Oct 24.
- Stine-Morrow EAL, Payne BR, Roberts BW, Kramer AF, Morrow DG, Payne L, Hill PL, Jackson JJ, Gao X, Noh SR, Janke MC, Parisi JM. Training versus engagement as paths to cognitive enrichment with aging. Psychol Aging. 2014 Dec;29(4):891-906. doi: 10.1037/a0038244. Epub 2014 Nov 17.
- Stine-Morrow, E. A. L., & Manavbasi, I. (2022). Beyond "Use It or Lose It": The impact of engagement on cognitive aging. Annual Review of Developmental Psychology, 4, 319-352.
- van der Maas HL, Dolan CV, Grasman RP, Wicherts JM, Huizenga HM, Raijmakers ME. A dynamical model of general intelligence: the positive manifold of intelligence by mutualism. Psychol Rev. 2006 Oct;113(4):842-61. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.113.4.842.
- Van Der Maas HLJ, Kan KJ, Marsman M, Stevenson CE. Network Models for Cognitive Development and Intelligence. J Intell. 2017 Apr 20;5(2):16. doi: 10.3390/jintelligence5020016.
- Mixed Working Memory Training