CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 132Cognitive Abilities and TestingCognitive Functions and MemoryAging and Gerontology Research

Individual differences in cognitive plasticity: an investigation of training curves in younger and older adults.

Bürki, Céline N., Ludwig, Catherine, Chicherio, Christian, de Ribaupierre, Anik·2014·Psychological Research
DOI 10.1007/s00426-014-0559-3
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

To date, cognitive intervention research has provided mixed but nevertheless promising evidence with respect to the effects of cognitive training on untrained tasks (transfer). However, the mechanisms behind learning, training effects and their predictors are not fully understood. Moreover, individual differences, which may constitute an important factor impacting training outcome, are usually neglected. We suggest investigating individual training performance across training sessions in order to gain finer-grained knowledge of training gains, on the one hand, and assessing the potential impact of predictors such as age and fluid intelligence on learning rate, on the other hand. To this aim, we propose to model individual learning curves to examine the intra-individual change in training as well as inter-individual differences in intra-individual change. We recommend introducing a latent growth curve model (LGCM) analysis, a method frequently applied to learning data but rarely used in cognitive training research. Such advanced analyses of the training phase allow identifying factors to be respected when designing effective tailor-made training interventions. To illustrate the proposed approach, a LGCM analysis using data of a 10-day working memory training study in younger and older adults is reported.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00426-014-0559-3

Cites

110 of 110 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Previous studies have reported that at baseline, reasoning predicts training achievement.

    “previous studies have already reported that at baseline, reasoning predicts training achievement (Bürki et al., 2014).”

    From Training on Working Memory and Inhibitory Control in Young Adults (2016) · cites this paper as Bürki et al., 2014

  • Abstract reasoning was a meaningful predictor of training improvement, such that people with higher reasoning scores benefited more from training.

    “In line with previously reported studies (Bürki et al., 2014), we have found that abstract reasoning was a meaningful predictor of training improvement, indicating that people with higher reasoning scores benefited more from training.”

    From Training on Working Memory and Inhibitory Control in Young Adults (2016) · cites this paper as Bürki et al., 2014

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 111 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Bürki, C. N., Ludwig, C., Chicherio, C., & de Ribaupierre, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Basel (CH)
  • HES-SO Genève (CH)
  • University Hospital of Geneva (CH)
Corresponding author
Bürki, Céline N.
ORCID
Venue
Psychological Research
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2014-03-21
Volume
78
Issue
6
Pages
821-835
ISSN
  • 0033-3026 (ISSN-L)
  • 0340-0727
  • 1430-2772
DOI
10.1007/s00426-014-0559-3
OpenAlex
W1979135863
Cited by
131
References
111
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 4
FWCI
15.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Locations
  • Psychological Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • reroDoc Digital Library (submittedVersion)
  • ArODES (HES-SO (https://www.hes-so.ch/)) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Aging and Gerontology Research
Keywords
cognitive training, individual differences, cognitive plasticity, learning curve, latent growth curve models, transfer of training, fluid intelligence, age differences, working memory training
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Age Factors, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Aging, Cognition, Female, Humans, Individuality, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Middle Aged, Neuropsychological Tests, Transfer, Psychology, Young Adult, Learning Curve

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review