ArticleMemory & cognition2018
Most evidence for the compensation account of cognitive training is unreliable.
Article in Memory & cognition, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Prognostic Factors and Models for Changes in Cognitive Performance After Multi-Domain Cognitive Training in Healthy Older Adults: A Systematic Review.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2021Pooled it
- A Systematic Review on Predictors of Working Memory Training Responsiveness in Healthy Older Adults: Methodological Challenges and Future Directions.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2020Pooled it
- Cognitive training and promoting a healthy lifestyle in isolated REM sleep behavior disorder: The randomized controlled trial CogTrAiL-RBD.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2026Trial
- Personalized home based neurostimulation via AI optimization augments sustained attention.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- No effects of the theta-frequency transcranial electrical stimulation for recall, attention control, and relation integration in working memory.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2024Article
- Long-Term Effects of the Multicomponent Program BrainProtectJournal of Alzheimer's disease reports · 2024Article
- Cognitive Training: A Field in Search of a Phenomenon.Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2023Article
- Why Does Cognitive Training Yield Inconsistent Benefits? A Meta-Analysis of Individual Differences in Baseline Cognitive Abilities and Training Outcomes.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
- The Effect of Baseline Performance and Age on Cognitive Training Improvements in Older Adults: A Qualitative Review.The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease · 2021Review
- Nothing wrong about change: the adequate choice of the dependent variable and design in prediction of cognitive training success.BMC medical research methodology · 2020Article
- Mapping differential responses to cognitive training using machine learning.Developmental science · 2020Article
- Prognostic factors for change in memory test performance after memory training in healthy older adults: a systematic review and outline of statistical challenges.Diagnostic and prognostic research · 2020Review
- The Influence of Individual Differences in Cognitive Ability on Working Memory Training Gains.Journal of cognitive enhancement : towards the integration of theory and practice · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.