↓ Skip to main content

Training on Working Memory and Inhibitory Control in Young Adults

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
65 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
203 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Training on Working Memory and Inhibitory Control in Young Adults
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, November 2016
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00588
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maria J. Maraver, M. Teresa Bajo, Carlos J. Gomez-Ariza

Abstract

Different types of interventions have focused on trying to improve Executive Functions (EFs) due to their essential role in human cognition and behavior regulation. Although EFs are thought to be diverse, most training studies have targeted cognitive processes related to working memory (WM), and fewer have focused on training other control mechanisms, such as inhibitory control (IC). In the present study, we aimed to investigate the differential impact of training WM and IC as compared with control conditions performing non-executive control activities. Young adults were divided into two training (WM/IC) and two (active/passive) control conditions. Over six sessions, the training groups engaged in three different computer-based adaptive activities (WM or IC), whereas the active control group completed a program with low control-demanding activities that mainly involved processing speed. In addition, motivation and engagement were monitored through the training. The WM-training activities required maintenance, updating and memory search processes, while those from the IC group engaged response inhibition and interference control. All participants were pre- and post-tested in criterion tasks (n-back and Stroop), near transfer measures of WM (Operation Span) and IC (Stop-Signal). Non-trained far transfer outcome measures included an abstract reasoning test (Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices) and a well-validated experimental task (AX-CPT) that provides indices of cognitive flexibility considering proactive/reactive control. Training results revealed that strongly motivated participants reached higher levels of training improvements. Regarding transfer effects, results showed specific patterns of near transfer effects depending on the type of training. Interestingly, it was only the IC training group that showed far transfer to reasoning. Finally, all trained participants showed a shift toward a more proactive mode of cognitive control, highlighting a general effect of training on cognitive flexibility. The present results reveal specific and general modulations of executive control mechanisms after brief training intervention targeting either WM or IC.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 203 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Poland 1 <1%
Unknown 197 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 42 21%
Student > Bachelor 29 14%
Student > Master 21 10%
Researcher 18 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 5%
Other 30 15%
Unknown 52 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 85 42%
Neuroscience 20 10%
Social Sciences 7 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 2%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 2%
Other 22 11%
Unknown 59 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 January 2018.
All research outputs
#2,407,821
of 23,362,684 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#1,192
of 7,276 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,368
of 418,610 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#31
of 166 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,362,684 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,276 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 418,610 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 166 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.