Key result
Extensive task-switching training for 21 days significantly reduced switch costs on an untrained switching task for trials with a short cue-stimulus interval, but did not improve performance on far-transfer cognitive tasks.
Why the study?
Does extensive task-switching training improve near and far transfer cognitive tasks in healthy young adults?
RCT (n=60)
Open-label
Randomly assigned
No
Does extensive task-switching training improve near and far transfer cognitive tasks in healthy young adults?
Effect estimate: ηp2 = 0.47
p-value: p=<0.001
Extensive task-switching training improves task-specific performance and near transfer but does not generalize to far-transfer cognitive domains like working memory or general IQ.
Limited near-transfer without far-transfer; hypothesis-generating and should not yet change practice.
The capacity to switch between tasks is a central component of executive functioning. Previous studies assessing effects of task-switch training have revealed mixed results, both in terms of processes that may be improved and the extent of beneficial effects on non-trained tasks. These studies primarily used few training sessions, which may have limited training and transfer effects. Here, 31 students were trained for 21 days on a cued switching task. Both the trained group and an active control group (n = 29) performed a number of cognitive tasks before and after training. Training reduced both switch and mixing costs, which mostly reached an asymptote after approximately four to six training sessions, although there were residual costs at the end of training. The switch cost reduction was restricted to trials with a short cue-stimulus onset interval (CSI). Training benefitted performance on another switching task, reflecting near transfer. However, this benefit was limited to the switch cost and to trials with a short CSI. There were no beneficial effects on far-transfer tasks measuring interference control, response inhibition, working memory, and general IQ. The results suggest that the present extensive training protocol, implicating overtraining, specifically enhanced the efficiency of processes involved in preparing for the relevant upcoming task set and/or inhibition of the previous task set. However, the lack of beneficial far-transfer effects is in line with previous cognitive training studies employing fewer training sessions, suggesting that the extent of training is not critical for (not) finding transfer effects.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhao et al. (2018) conducted an RCT in Healthy (n=60). Extensive task-switching training vs. Active control (sand painting) was evaluated on Switch cost on untrained switching task (near transfer) at 300 ms cue-stimulus interval (ηp2 = 0.47, p=<0.001). Extensive task-switching training for 21 days significantly reduced switch costs on an untrained switching task for trials with a short cue-stimulus interval, but did not improve performance on far-transfer cognitive tasks.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: