Cognitive training studies, particularly those focused on working memory, face several methodological challenges that can significantly impact the interpretation and reliability of their results. These challenges highlight the need for careful experimental design and critical analysis in the field of cognitive enhancement research (Redick, 2015).
One of the primary concerns in these studies is the selection of an appropriate control group. Many researchers opt for a passive control group, where participants do not engage in any study-related activities between pre- and post-tests. However, this approach can introduce biases stemming from factors such as expectancy effects, demand characteristics, and placebo effects. Boot et al. (2013) suggest that using an active control group, where participants engage in an alternative intervention, may help mitigate these biases, although it’s important to note that this approach doesn’t entirely eliminate potential confounds.
Sample size is another crucial factor that can significantly influence study outcomes. Button et al. (2013) point out that small sample sizes can lead to inflated effect sizes and produce noisier data patterns. This issue underscores the importance of conducting adequately powered studies with larger sample sizes to obtain more reliable estimates of true effects.
Researchers must also be vigilant about atypical data patterns. Redick (2015) notes that statistically significant results can sometimes contradict predicted outcomes. For instance, both training and control groups might show a decrease in IQ scores from pre-test to post-test, but with a significantly larger decrease in the control group. Such patterns, while statistically significant, may not align with the hypothesized benefits of the intervention.
The choice of outcome measures is another critical consideration. Shipstead et al. (2012) argue that broad cognitive abilities like working memory, fluid intelligence, and executive function should ideally be measured using multiple tasks. This approach helps to account for both construct-relevant and construct-irrelevant variance in the scores, providing a more robust assessment of the cognitive constructs under investigation.
Finally, the use of subjective outcome measures can introduce significant biases into the research. Rapport et al. (2013) caution against relying heavily on subjective ratings, particularly self-reports or assessments completed by individuals aware of the participant’s group assignment. These measures are prone to various biases and may not accurately reflect the true effects of the intervention.
Addressing these methodological challenges is crucial for advancing the field of cognitive training research. By implementing rigorous experimental designs, using appropriate control conditions, ensuring adequate sample sizes, employing multiple objective outcome measures, and carefully analyzing results, researchers can produce more reliable and valid evidence regarding the efficacy of cognitive training interventions. This approach will help to clarify the true potential and limitations of working memory training and other cognitive enhancement techniques, ultimately contributing to a more nuanced understanding of their role in improving cognitive function across various populations.
References
Boot, W. R., Simons, D. J., Stothart, C., & Stutts, C. (2013). The pervasive problem with placebos in psychology: Why active control groups are not sufficient to rule out placebo effects. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(4), 445-454. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613491271
Button, K. S., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Mokrysz, C., Nosek, B. A., Flint, J., Robinson, E. S. J., & Munafò, M. R. (2013). Power failure: Why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 14(5), 365-376. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3475
Rapport, M. D., Orban, S. A., Kofler, M. J., & Friedman, L. M. (2013). Do programs designed to train working memory, other executive functions, and attention benefit children with ADHD? A meta-analytic review of cognitive, academic, and behavioral outcomes. Clinical Psychology Review, 33(8), 1237-1252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2013.08.005
Redick, T. S. (2015). Working memory training and interpreting interactions in intelligence interventions. Intelligence, 50, 14-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2015.01.014
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
I am an experimental psychologist and cognitive neuroscientist, working as a PhD researcher in the Centre for Cognition, Computation and Modelling at Birkbeck, University of London. My work investigates the architecture of working memory, how our highest cognitive functions develop and change across the lifespan, and the design of interventions to support cognitive health, particularly in ageing.
My professional foundation in psychology and cognitive neuroscience is built upon over fifteen years of continuous, hands-on research and applied practice. This extensive trajectory is formally validated by a portfolio of over 245 accredited Continuing Professional Development and Continuing Medical Education certificates, reflecting a sustained and profound dedication to expertise.
My work is defined by established, evidence-based concentrations in complex, high-impact areas:
-
Clinical & Neurocognitive Health: My advanced expertise encompasses the neuroscience and clinical management of degenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and Multiple Sclerosis, alongside neurodevelopmental conditions including ADHD and Autism. I also maintain a command of trauma-informed care, epilepsy, sleep disorders, schizophrenia, and substance use disorders.
-
Women's Mental Health & Lifespan Care: A core area of my practice focuses on women's mental health, with in-depth knowledge of disorders where biological and psychological health intersect. This includes specialised proficiency in perinatal and postpartum mental health, perimenopausal and menopausal mood disorders, the psychological impact of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) and endometriosis, and the mental health dimensions of breast cancer and cardiovascular disease.
-
Intervention, Innovation & Cognitive Healthspan: My concentration is in designing both cognitive rehabilitation strategies and evidence-based programmes for healthy cognitive ageing. This involves the applied use and governance of AI in healthcare, machine learning for health equity, gamification in treatment, and deploying integrated telehealth platforms to support cognitive vitality across the lifespan.
-
Inclusive Practice & Scientific Leadership: My work is grounded in expert knowledge of mental health leadership, team-based care models, and the psychology of influence. It is further informed by advanced, practical training in diversity, equity, and inclusion—with a particular focus on LGBTQ+ health, mitigating unconscious bias, and providing culturally integrated care—all governed by a rigorous framework of research ethics and science communication.
Outside of academic research, I design and build proprietary digital tools for cognitive intervention. This work is the foundation of NeuxScience, a Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) platform that I architected and developed. The system leverages my own machine learning models and data science pipelines to deliver personalised, adaptive cognitive training by integrating my research on higher order cognitive functions directly into the platform's core logic.
I am committed to making the science of the mind clear and useful. Through my writing, I aim to educate, share evidence, and show how research in cognition and brain health can be applied in everyday, meaningful ways.
In my life beyond work, I am a mother and wife, managing a very full home with three boys, four dogs, and five cats.