How to interpret cognitive training studies: A reply to Lindskog & Winman

Area of Science:

• Cognitive Psychology
• Neuroscience
• Educational Psychology

Background:

• Previous studies demonstrated that approximate arithmetic training selectively improves symbolic arithmetic performance.
• A common cognitive component, mental quantity manipulation, was proposed to drive this causal relationship.
• A recent commentary challenged the evidence for performance improvement in the training task itself.

Purpose of the Study:

• To address criticisms regarding the interpretation of causality in cognitive training.
• To clarify that causality is inferred from selective transfer effects, not solely from training task performance improvement.
• To present an empirical approach for testing training effects in adaptive training paradigms.

Main Methods:

• Re-analysis of existing data to investigate performance changes during approximate arithmetic training.
• Empirical approach for testing training effects in adaptive training.
• Critique of simulation-based approaches for evaluating training effects.

Main Results:

• New evidence indicates that approximate arithmetic performance did improve over the course of training in a prior study (Park & Brannon, 2014).
• The findings support the interpretation that causality in cognitive training is derived from selective transfer.
• The common cognitive component of mental quantity manipulation is reinforced as the driver of improvements.

Conclusions:

• Causality in cognitive training is established through selective transfer effects, irrespective of direct performance gains in the training task.
• Approximate arithmetic training enhances symbolic arithmetic skills by strengthening the underlying mental quantity manipulation.
• The study reaffirms the causal link between approximate arithmetic training and improved symbolic arithmetic abilities.