ArticleQuarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006)2026
Up, down, and all around? Deciphering the boundary conditions for training-induced transfer effects within a set of hierarchically nested tasks.
Article in Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Convergent evidence suggests that the transfer effects engendered by training studies are tied to specific task features. The present study examined transfer in a set of three hierarchically nested change-detection tasks (CDTs) using a tightly controlled adaptive training paradigm. These CDT paradigms all required participants to remember arrays of stimuli, and then report the change (in colour, orientation or both) of a probed item. The three tasks were identical except for the response judgement requirements: colour, orientation or dual (both colour and orientation). We also included a retro-cue - a spatial cue within the retention period - allowing us to test whether training impacts the allocation of attention during maintenance. Each training group made significantly greater on-task gains relative to the active control group (digit-span training). Between-task transfer patterns were present but limited and largely feature-specific. Training gains on the orientation task did not transfer to the colour variant and vice versa; in fact, there was some evidence of negative transfer. However, those trained on the colour variant did show benefits to both variants within the dual-task context. The dual-CDT trainees also showed transfer to the simple orientation and colour variants. Finally, we found no compelling evidence to distinguish whether training gains and transfer effects are due to improved capacity or the improved precision with which representations are held. In short, participants learn to better represent and report specific features, but it is not clear if this is driven by changes in capacity or precision.
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.