Jagiellonian University Repository

Most evidence for the compensation account of cognitive training is unreliable

pcg.skipToMenu

Most evidence for the compensation account of cognitive training is unreliable

Show full item record

dc.contributor.author Smoleń, Tomasz [SAP13001231] pl
dc.contributor.author Jastrzębski, Jan [USOS115324] pl
dc.contributor.author Estrada, Eduardo pl
dc.contributor.author Chuderski, Adam [SAP13015922] pl
dc.date.accessioned 2019-03-29T08:32:02Z
dc.date.available 2019-03-29T08:32:02Z
dc.date.issued 2018 pl
dc.identifier.issn 0090-502X pl
dc.identifier.uri https://ruj.uj.edu.pl/xmlui/handle/item/71782
dc.language eng pl
dc.rights Udzielam licencji. Uznanie autorstwa 4.0 Międzynarodowa *
dc.rights.uri http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/pl/legalcode *
dc.title Most evidence for the compensation account of cognitive training is unreliable pl
dc.type JournalArticle pl
dc.description.physical 1315-1330 pl
dc.identifier.weblink https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758%2Fs13421-018-0839-z pl
dc.abstract.en Cognitive training and brain stimulation studies have suggested that human cognition, primarily working memory and attention control processes, can be enhanced. Some authors claim that gains (i.e., post-test minus pretest scores) from such interventions are unevenly distributed among people. The magnification account (expressed by the evangelical "who has will more be given") predicts that the largest gains will be shown by the most cognitively efficient people, who will also be most effective in exploiting interventions. In contrast, the compensation account ("who has will less be given") predicts that such people already perform at ceiling, so interventions will yield the largest gains in the least cognitively efficient people. Evidence for this latter account comes from reported negative correlations between the pretest and the training/stimulation gain. In this paper, with the use of mathematical derivations and simulation methods, we show that such correlations are pure statistical artifacts caused by the widely known methodological error called "regression to the mean". Unfortunately, more advanced methods, such as alternative measures, linear models, and control groups do not guarantee correct assessment of the compensation effect either. The only correct method is to use direct modeling of correlations between latent true measures and gain. As to date no training/stimulation study has correctly used this method to provide evidence in favor of the compensation account, we must conclude that most (if not all) of the evidence should be considered inconclusive. pl
dc.subject.en training pl
dc.subject.en stimulation pl
dc.subject.en regression to the mean pl
dc.subject.en compensation effect pl
dc.description.volume 46 pl
dc.description.number 8 pl
dc.description.points 40 pl
dc.identifier.doi 10.3758/s13421-018-0839-z pl
dc.identifier.eissn 1532-5946 pl
dc.title.journal Memory & Cognition pl
dc.language.container eng pl
dc.date.accession 2019-03-19 pl
dc.affiliation Wydział Filozoficzny : Instytut Filozofii pl
dc.affiliation Wydział Filozoficzny : Instytut Psychologii pl
dc.subtype Article pl
dc.rights.original CC-BY; inne; ostateczna wersja wydawcy; w momencie opublikowania; 0 pl
dc.identifier.project ROD UJ / OP pl
.pointsMNiSW [2018 A]: 25


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Udzielam licencji. Uznanie autorstwa 4.0 Międzynarodowa Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Udzielam licencji. Uznanie autorstwa 4.0 Międzynarodowa