CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 102Cognitive Abilities and TestingNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesCognitive Functions and Memory

No evidence for true training and transfer effects after inhibitory control training in young healthy adults.

Open access
Enge, Sören, Behnke, Alexander, Fleischhauer, Monika, Küttler, Lena, Kliegel, Matthias, Strobel, Alexander·2014·Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition
DOI 10.1037/a0036165
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Recent studies reported that training of working memory may improve performance in the trained function and beyond. Other executive functions, however, have been rarely or not yet systematically examined. The aim of this study was to test the effectiveness of inhibitory control (IC) training to produce true training-related function improvements in a sample of 122 healthy adults using a randomized, double-blind pretest/posttest/follow-up design. Two groups performed either adaptive (training group) or nonadaptive (active control) versions of go/no-go and stop-signal tasks for 3 weeks. Training gains as well as near-transfer to an untrained Stroop task and far-transfer to psychometric fluid intelligence were explored. Although the adaptive group could substantially improve overall IC task performance after training, no differences to the active control group occurred, neither at posttest nor at follow-up testing. A large decrease in response latency from pre- to posttest (and from pretest to 4 months' follow-up testing) was found when the training group was compared to the passive control group, which, however, does not sufficiently control for possible confounds. Thus, no conclusive evidence was found that this performance increase mirrors a true increase in IC function. The fact that training improvement was mainly related to response latency may indicate that individuals were more focused on performance gains in the prepotent go trials but less on the stop trials to meet the requirements of the tasks as well as possible. The challenges for response inhibition training studies are extensively discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0036165

Cites

74 of 74 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • Some studies have failed to find behavioral transfer effects after training IC, while others have found positive near and far transfer effects after task-switching training across the lifespan of healthy individuals.

    “Although several of these studies have failed to find behavioral transfer effects after training IC (Thorell et al., 2009; Berkman et al., 2014; Enge et al., 2014), others have found positive near and far transfer effects after task-switching training across the lifespan of healthy individuals (Karbach and Kray, 2009)”

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

  • Training studies with large effect sizes normally included small sample sizes (less than 20 participants per training condition) and untreated (passive) control groups, which produces biases toward significant - but low powered - results.

    “In a recent meta-analysis, Melby-Lervåg et al. (2016) established that training studies with large effect sizes normally included small sample sizes (less than 20 participants per training condition) and untreated (passive) control groups, which produces biases toward significant – but low powered – results (Enge et al., 2014; Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016).”

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Enge, S., Behnke, A., Fleischhauer, M., Küttler, L., Kliegel, M., & Strobel, A.
Affiliations
  • Technische Universität Dresden (DE)
  • University of Geneva (CH)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2014-07
Volume
40
Issue
4
Pages
987-1001
ISSN
  • 0278-7393 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1285
DOI
10.1037/a0036165
OpenAlex
W2318894573
Cited by
102
References
74
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 2
FWCI
9.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Archive ouverte UNIGE (University of Geneva) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SFB 940/1 2012)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
Keywords
inhibitory control training, transfer of training, executive function, go/no-go task, stop-signal task, Stroop task, fluid intelligence, response latency, active control, prepotent response inhibition, working memory training
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adolescent, Adult, Analysis of Variance, Association Learning, Choice Behavior, Double-Blind Method, Female, Humans, Inhibition, Psychological, Intelligence, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Neuropsychological Tests, Photic Stimulation, Reaction Time, Teaching, Transfer, Psychology, Young Adult

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