Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36067292›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2022

Expectation effects in working memory training.

Jocelyn Parong, Aaron R Seitz, Susanne M Jaeggi, C Shawn Green

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Unpacking placebo and working memory training effects on cognitive performance.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022
    Article
  15. Expectation effects in working memory training.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Jocelyn ParongDepartment of Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53706.ORCID 0000-0001-7076-2535
Aaron R SeitzDepartment of Psychology, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521.
Susanne M JaeggiSchool of Education, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697.ORCID 0000-0002-6165-2526
C Shawn GreenDepartment of Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53706.ORCID 0000-0002-9290-0262

Funding

Cognitive Training and Brain Plasticity - Towards an Understanding of Mediators and ModeratorsK02AG054665 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · PI JAEGGI, SUSANNE M · 2017 to 2021
$806k
Examining the Potential for Placebo Effects in Cognitive TrainingR56AG063952 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI GREEN, CHRISTOPHER S, JAEGGI, SUSANNE M · 2019 to 2019
$799k
NIA NIH HHS K02 AG054665NIA NIH HHS R56 AG063952
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is a growing body of research focused on developing and evaluating behavioral training paradigms meant to induce enhancements in cognitive function. It has recently been proposed that one mechanism through which such performance gains could be induced involves participants' expectations of improvement. However, no work to date has evaluated whether it is possible to cause changes in cognitive function in a long-term behavioral training study by manipulating expectations. In this study, positive or negative expectations about cognitive training were both explicitly and associatively induced before either a working memory training intervention or a control intervention. Consistent with previous work, a main effect of the training condition was found, with individuals trained on the working memory task showing larger gains in cognitive function than those trained on the control task. Interestingly, a main effect of expectation was also found, with individuals given positive expectations showing larger cognitive gains than those who were given negative expectations (regardless of training condition). No interaction effect between training and expectations was found. Exploratory analyses suggest that certain individual characteristics (e.g., personality, motivation) moderate the size of the expectation effect. These results highlight aspects of methodology that can inform future behavioral interventions and suggest that participant expectations could be capitalized on to maximize training outcomes.

Indexed as

CognitionMemory, Short-TermFemaleHumansMaleMotivationcognitive trainingexpectation effectplacebo effectworking memory training

Identifiers

PMID36067292
PMCPMC9477404

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.