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
As a research scientist specialising in cognitive neuroscience and psychology, I write a blog that explores the fascinating world of computational modelling and gamified Working Memory training. Through my writing, I share insights from my research on how these interventions affect learning and cognitive functions in both typically developing individuals and clinical populations. My blog delves into cognitive rehabilitation for people with brain injuries, neurodegenerative disorders, and neurodevelopmental conditions. I also discuss my work on assessing cognition, emotion, and behaviour, as well as understanding the biopsychosocial factors that impact everyday cognitive abilities. By translating complex scientific concepts into accessible content, I aim to provide a valuable resource for professionals and the general public interested in brain health and cognitive science.
Dorota Styk
The Author