Transfer effects of abacus training on cognition

Abstract

The Chinese abacus was invented 1800 years ago as a piece of calculation equipment for economic education and support. The abacus no longer serves as an economic tool but has emerged as a powerful educational tool to promote individual development. It is not yet known, however, whether abacus training may lead to cognitive transfer in the individual development context. This transfer effect was investigated in the present study with a randomized controlled design centered on comparison against abacus training with cognitive training and English training. The final sample consisted of 343 vocational school/college students (55 males, mean age = 17.79 years, range: 14.17 to 24.67 years) whom completed the pre-test, the 52-h training session, and the post-test. Participants in each school or college were randomly assigned into three training groups based on their pre-test scores. Abacus training is shown to promote calculation and spatial abilities by comparison with English training, and to promote calculation ability and processing speed by comparison with cognitive training. Cognitive training shows transfer effect of spatial ability by comparison with English training. However, abacus training does not show pervasive transfer effect for any general cognitive abilities that do not typically involve numerical processing or visuospatial processing. These findings suggest a limited transfer effect of abacus training on cognitive development.

Appendix

Descriptions of the Cognitive Tests

Choice Reaction Time

This test was used to measure processing speed (Butterworth, 2003). In each trial, a white dot was presented on a black screen to the left or right of a white “+” without time limitation. Participants were asked to determine whether white dots appeared on the left or right side of the “+” on their computer screen. The interval between the response and the onset of the next trial varied randomly between 1500 and 3000 ms. The test contained 30 random presentation trials, and reaction times were recoded.

Numerosity Comparison

This test was used to measure number sense ability (Rodic et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2019). In each trial, two dot arrays were simultaneously presented on the screen, lasting for 200 ms. Participants were asked to judge which dot array contained more dots while ignoring the sizes of individual dots. The number of dots in each set varied from 5 to 32. The interval between the response and the onset of the next trial was 1000 ms. There were three blocks administered with 40 trials in each block. The proportion of correct trials was calculated.

Simple Subtraction

This test was used to measure simple calculation ability (Wang et al., 2016). In each trial, a subtraction equation was presented at the top of screen and two answers were presented at the bottom of screen with no time limitation. Participants were asked to select the correct answer from the two alternatives. All minuends were no more than 18, and the answers were single-digit numbers, (e.g., 7–2, 15–8). The differences between false and true answers were 1 to 3. The test had 92 random presentation trials and was limited to 2 min. The adjusted number of correct trials was calculated as the difference between the numbers of correct responses and incorrect responses to control for guessing effect (Cirino, 2011).

Complex Subtraction

This test was used to measure complex calculation ability (Zhou et al., 2015). In each trial, one equation was presented at the top of screen and two answers were presented at the bottom of screen with no time limitation. Participants were asked to choose correct answer from the two alternatives. All minuends were larger than 20 and smaller than 98, with the subtractors ranging from 10 to 88 (e.g., 26–14, 91–33). The differences between false and true answers were 1 to 10. This test had 96 random presentation trials and was limited to 2 min. The adjusted number of correct trials was recorded.

Multi-step Computation

This test was used to measure multi-step calculation ability. Again, in each trial, one equation was presented at the top of screen and two answers were presented at the bottom of screen without time limitation. Participants asked to select the correct answer from the two alternatives. All problems included four one-digit addition or subtraction (e.g., 7–3 + 5–4). The differences between false and true answers were 1 to 2. This test had 360 random presentation trials and was limited to 4 min. The adjusted number of correct trials was recorded.

Two-dimensional Mental Rotation

This test was designed to evaluate two-dimensional (2D) spatial ability (Collins & Kimura, 1997). In each trial, one irregular shape was presented at the top of screen and two irregular shapes were presented at the bottom. Participants were asked to choose the figure from the alternatives that would create a complete rectangle with the figure at the top after mentally rotating it. This test had 120 random presentation trials and was limited to 4 min. The adjusted number of correct trials was recorded.

Three-dimensional Mental Rotation

This test was adapted from Shepard and Metzler’s mental rotation task (Shepard & Metzler, 1971), and was used to assess three-dimensional (3D) spatial ability. In each trial, one 3D image was presented at the top of screen, with two analogues at the bottom. Participants were asked to choose the figure from the alternatives that would match the target figure after mentally rotating it. The angles of rotation ranged from 15° to 345° with a step of 15°. This test had 180 random presentation trials and was limited to 3 min. The adjusted number of correct trials was recorded.

Paper Folding Task

This test was used to measure spatial visualization ability (Harris et al., 2013; Shepard & Feng, 1972). In each trial, two parallel rows of figures were presented on the screen with no time limitation. The first row showed the folding and punching process of the paper, and the second row showed five alternative items. Participants were asked to imagine how the piece of paper would appear once unfolded and select the correct figure from the alternatives given. This test had 18 random presentation trials and was limited to 4 min. The number of correct trials was recorded.

Visual Tracking

This test was adapted from the task designed by Groffman (1966), and was used to assess visual attention ability. In each trial, several curved lines were interwoven within a square, starting from the left side of the square and ending on the right side. Participants were asked to track three particular lines from the beginning to the end of the square using only their vision and then to mark the correct end point. The total number of lines increased from 8 to 12. The test was limited to 4 min. The number of correct trials was recorded.

UFOV Attention

This test was adapted from the useful field of view (UFOV) task, and was used to measure spatial attention ability (Ball et al., 1988). In each trial, a bright outlined box was presented in the center of the screen (1000 ms); then a series of other boxes, one of which showed a circle containing a triangle (the target box) presented for 50 ms; then a mask was presented for 750 ms. Finally, a radial pattern appeared with eight equally spaced spokes with no time limit. Participants clicked on the target position on the line segment as accurately as possible. This test had 48 random presentation trials. Accuracy was calculated as follows:

$$ \mathrm{Accuracy}=100-\frac{\mid \mathrm{response}-\mathrm{standard}\ \mathrm{answer}\mid }{\mathrm{standard}\ \mathrm{answer}+\mid \mathrm{response}-\mathrm{standard}\ \mathrm{answer}\mid}\times 100, $$

where “response” refers to the location where participants clicked, and “standard answer” refers to the correct location of the target box.

Focused Attention

This test was adapted from Franceschini et al. (2013), and was used to measure focused attention ability. In each trial, a fixation point (1000 ms) appeared before the onset of the six successive stimuli. A red dot focused participants’ attention on the target location for 34 ms, then a row of six meaningless symbols was presented (150 ms) and participants were asked to remember the symbol that appeared at the target location. A blank screen with fixation point was presented then for 100 ms, followed by a post-mask for 50 ms and another blank screen with fixation point was then presented for 1000 ms. Finally, participants were asked to identify the target as quickly as possible with no stated time limit. This test had 48 random presentation trials. The number of correct trials was recorded.

Distributed Attention

This test was also adapted from Franceschini et al. (2013), and was used to evaluate distributed attention ability. The stimuli and procedure were same as that in focused attention task, excepted for the presentation order of the red dot indicating the target location. In this test, the red dot appeared after a row of six meaningless symbols. This test had 48 random presentation trials. The number of correct trials was recorded.

Geometric Form Searching

This test was used to evaluate attention ability (Lu et al., 2021). Ten graphics were presented in each row, moving from the bottom upward on the screen and disappearing once they reached the top. And new row of graphics appeared every 3000 ms. Participants were asked to use the mouse to click the graphic that contained both a circle and a square as quickly as possible. This test had 252 random presentation rows and was limited to 4 min (or terminated after 50 missed targets had accumulated). The number of correct trials was recorded.

Digit Span

Short-term memory ability for digits (Wechsler, 1974) was tested by presenting a series of digits aurally through earphones. Participants were asked to remember the order of the digits and type them into the computer at the end of each series in the forward condition, or enter them in reverse order in the backward condition. The test began with three digits and increased gradually until the children failed to key them properly three consecutive times. The number of correctly recalled digits was recorded.

Spatial 2-back

This test was used to measure spatial working memory ability (Dong et al., 2016). A 3 × 3 matrix with nine black squares was presented on the center of screen. Each trial began with a fixation point (3000 ms) followed by 11 consecutively presented white squares randomly filled into one of the nine squares in the matrix. Each of them appeared for 500 ms with an inter-stimulus interval of 2500 ms. Participants were asked to memorize the location of each white square, and to successively judge whether the location of the current white square was same as that of the white square presented two steps back (e.g., whether the location of the third white square was same as that of the first). There were a total of 10 trials. The hit minus false alarm was recorded.

Spatial 4-back

Spatial working memory (Dong et al., 2016) was tested via spatial 4-back test. Unlike the spatial 2-back test, participants were asked to successively judge whether the location of a current white square was same as that of the white square presented four steps back (e.g., whether the location of the fifth black square was same with as of the first). There were a total of 10 trials with 13 consecutively presented white squares in each trial. The hit minus false alarm was recorded.

Spatial Short-term Memory

This test was adapted from Corsi block task (Corsi, 1972), and was used to measure spatial short-term memory. In each trial, a series of dots was sequentially presented on the computer screen each for 1000 ms with a 1000 ms blank-screen inter-stimulus interval. Participants were asked to sequentially click the position of each dot as they it in the same order as the dot had appeared. This test had 10 trials, and the number of dots in each trial increased from 3 to 7 (two times for each number of dots). The accuracy was calculated using the same formula as the UFOV attention task.

Visual Short-term Memory

This test was used to evaluate short-term memory (Zhang et al., 2019). In each trial, four irregular shapes consecutively presented on the screen. Each of them presented for 500 ms, with an inter-stimulus interval of 300 ms. Participants were asked to judge whether the fourth shape had been presented in the previous series without time limit. There were 2 blocks with 40 trials in each block. The proportion of correct trial was recorded.

Sentence Completion

This test assessed language ability (Coltheart et al., 2001; Cui et al., 2019). In each trial, a sentence with one word missing was presented. Participants were asked to select the missing word to complete the sentence from two alternatives. This test had 120 trials, and was limited to 5 min. The adjusted number of correct trials was recorded.

Nonverbal Matrix Reasoning

This test was a short version of nonverbal intelligence tasks that adapted from Raven’s Progressive Matrices (Raven, 1998), and was used to measure reasoning ability. Participants were asked to identify the missing segment of a figure according to its inherent regularity from 6 or 8 candidate answers. This test had 60 random presentation trials and was limited to 10 min. The number of correct trials was recorded.