Cited by 62Cognitive Abilities and TestingNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesCognitive Functions and Memory

The mechanisms of far transfer from cognitive training: Review and hypothesis.

Greenwood, Pamela M., Parasuraman, Raja·2016·Neuropsychology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: General intelligence is important for success in daily life, fueling interest in developing cognitive training as an intervention to improve fluid ability (Gf). A major obstacle to the design of effective cognitive interventions has been the paucity of hypotheses bearing on mechanisms underlying transfer of cognitive training to Gf. Despite the large amounts of money and time currently being expended on cognitive training, there is little scientific agreement on how, or even whether, Gf can be heightened by such training. METHOD: We review the relevant strands of evidence on cognitive-training-related changes in (a) cortical mechanisms of distraction suppression, and (b) activation of the dorsal attention network (DAN). We hypothesize that training-related increases in control of attention are important for what is termed far transfer of cognitive training to untrained abilities, notably to Gf. RESULTS: We review the evidence that distraction suppression evident in behavior, neuronal firing, scalp electroencephalography, and hemodynamic change is important for protecting target processing during perception and also for protecting targets held in working memory. Importantly, attentional control also appears to be central to performance on Gf assessments. Consistent with this evidence, forms of cognitive training that increase ability to ignore distractions (e.g., working memory training and perceptual training) not only affect the DAN but also affect transfer to Gf. CONCLUSIONS: Our hypothesis is supported by existing evidence. However, to advance the field of cognitive training, it is necessary that competing hypotheses on mechanisms of far transfer of cognitive training be advanced and empirically tested. (PsycINFO Database Record

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/neu0000235

Cites

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?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 120 · Cited by 62

Authors
Greenwood, P. M., & Parasuraman, R.
Affiliations
George Mason University (US)
Venue
Neuropsychology
Published
2016-09
Volume
30
Issue
6
Pages
742-755
ISSN
  • 0894-4105 (ISSN-L)
  • 1931-1559
OpenAlex
W2417336327
Cited by
62
References
120
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 2
FWCI
7.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Neuropsychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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
cognitive training, far transfer, fluid intelligence, general intelligence, dorsal attention network, attentional control, working memory training, perceptual training, training mechanisms, hemodynamic response, EEG
MeSH terms
Attention, Humans, Intelligence, Memory, Short-Term, Practice, Psychological, Transfer, Psychology

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