ArticlePsychological research2026
A comparison of single-domain and multidomain executive functions cognitive training for enhancing cognition and well-being in older adults.
Article in Psychological research, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study investigated the efficacy of single-domain (working memory; WM) and multidomain core executive functions (EFs; cognitive flexibility, inhibitory control, WM) cognitive training programs in enhancing cognitive performance (measured objectively and subjectively) and well-being. Participants comprised 66 healthy older adults (Mage = 69.58, SD = 7.04) who were assigned to a 4-week single-domain WM, multidomain EF, or active control program. Bayesian analyses yielded ambiguous evidence regarding near-transfer to global executive functioning for both training groups. However, findings revealed substantial evidence for training-related far-transfer (prospective memory) for the multidomain EF group and mixed evidence for the single-domain WM group. No far-transfer was observed for fluid intelligence in either training group. Post-test performance for the multidomain EF group was comparable to that of an untrained young adult sample (Mage = 22.42, SD = 5.14) on some trained and near-transfer executive functioning measures (n-back, mixing costs, global EF accuracy), though evidence for comparable performance on other outcomes was ambiguous. The single-domain WM group was comparable to young adults on 1-back and 2-back levels of the trained WM updating measure (n-back). Neither group demonstrated comparable performance to young adults on the far-transfer task (Virtual Week). Both multidomain and single-domain programs, but not the control, elevated participants’ subjective perceptions of their own cognitive abilities (particularly attention and memory); however, improvements in well-being were observed across all groups. These findings provide initial support for multidomain training (targeting core EFs) over single-domain cognitive training in promoting transfer to objective and subjective measures of cognition. However, considering the ambiguous evidence across numerous outcomes, further research applying Bayesian analyses is warranted to evaluate the strength of evidence regarding cognitive training-related changes and provide clearer insight into the potential that cognitive training might offer.
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.