The role of proactive interference in working memory training and transfer
Recent work on working memory training has produced conflicting results regarding the degree and generality of transfer to other cognitive processes. However, few studies have investigated possible mechanisms underlying transfer. The current study was designed to test the role of proactive interference in working memory training and transfer. Eighty-six young adults participated in a pretest–posttest design, with ten training sessions in between. In the two working memory training conditions, subjects performed an operation span task, with one condition requiring recall of letters on every trial (operation-letters), whereas the other condition alternated between letters, digits, and words as the to-be-remembered items across trials (operation-mix). These groups were compared to an active-control group (visual-search). Working memory, verbal fluency, and reading comprehension measures were administered in pretest and posttest sessions. All groups significantly increased their performance over the ten training sessions. There was evidence of strategy-specific benefits on transfer, such that transfer to working memory measures was higher for the operation-letters group on tasks specifically involving letters, and no differential transfer to working memory tests without letters, to verbal fluency, or to reading comprehension. The results indicate that proactive interference does not appear to play a causal role in determining transfer from working memory training, and instead a strategy account based on stimulus content provides a more parsimonious explanation for the pattern of training and transfer.
The research reported here was funded by the Office of Naval Research (Award # N00014-12-1-1011) to RWE. While working on this manuscript, TSR was supported by the National Institutes of Health (Award # 2R01AA013650-11A1). The research described here was presented at the 2015 annual meetings of the Association for Psychological Science and the Midwestern Psychological Association. We thank Devlin Bertha, Chandani Bhatt, Haley Brower, Caleb Carriere, Taylor Daniel, Kent Etherton, Andrea Grovak, Anoop Javalagi, Yun Qi Lim, Sarika Srivastava, and Michael White for assistance with data collection and scoring. We thank Nash Unsworth and Matt Robison for helpful comments on an earlier draft of the manuscript.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
All authors declare they have no conflict of interest.
The study described here was approved by the local university Institutional Review Board.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual subjects included in the study.
- Burgess, G. C., Gray, J. R., Conway, A. R. A., & Braver, T. S. (2011). Neural mechanisms of interference control underlie the relationship between fluid intelligence and working memory span. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140, 674–692. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Cowan, N., Elliott, E. M., Saults, J. S., Morey, C. C., Mattox, S., Hismjatullina, A., & Conway, A. R. A. (2005). On the capacity of attention: Its estimation and its role in working memory and cognitive aptitudes. Cognitive Psychology, 51, 42–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2004.12.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Foster, J. L., Harrison, T. L., Hicks, K. L., Draheim, C., Redick, T. S., & Engle, R. W. (2017). Do the effects of working memory training depend on baseline ability level? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43, 1677–1689.Google Scholar
- Hussey, E. K., Harbison, J. I., Teubner-Rhodes, S. E., Mishler, A., Velnoskey, K., & Novick, J. M. (2017). Memory and language improvements following cognitive control training. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43(1), 23–58. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000283.Google Scholar
- Jonides, J., & Nee, D. E. (2006). Brain mechanisms of proactive interference in working memory. Neuroscience, 139(1), 181–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2005.06.042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kane, M. J., Poole, B. J., Tuholski, S. W., & Engle, R. W. (2006). Working memory capacity and the top-down control of visual search: Exploring the boundaries of ‘executive attention’. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32(4), 749–777. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-73220.127.116.119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Loosli, S. V., Falquez, R., Unterrainer, J. M., Weiller, C., Rahm, B., & Kaller, C. P. (2016). Training of resistance to proactive interference and working memory in older adults: A randomized double-blind study. International Psychogeriatrics, 28(3), 453–467. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1041610215001519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Melby-Lervåg, M., Redick, T. S., & Hulme, C. (2016). Working memory training does not improve performance on measures of intelligence or other measures of “far transfer”: Evidence from a meta-analytic review. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11, 512–534. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616635612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Nelson-Denny. (1993). Reading Comprehension test. Rolling Meadows: The Riverside Publishing Company.Google Scholar
- Oelhafen, S., Nikolaidis, A., Padovani, T., Blaser, D., Koenig, T., & Perrig, W. J. (2013). Increased parietal activity after training of interference control. Neuropsychologia, 51(13), 2781–2790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.08.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Redick, T. S., Broadway, J. M., Meier, M. E., Kuriakose, P. S., Unsworth, N., Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2012). Measuring working memory capacity with automated complex span tasks. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 28, 164–171. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Redick, T. S., Shipstead, Z., Harrison, T. L., Hicks, K. L., Fried, D. E., Hambrick, D. Z., Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2013). No evidence of intelligence improvement after working memory training: A randomized, placebo-controlled study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142, 359–379. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar