The mechanisms of far transfer from cognitive training: Review and hypothesis.
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
There is some evidence to support that training can impact fluid intelligence.
“Although the idea that training can impact Gf has been challenged [15], there is some evidence to support it [21-23].”
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 120 · Cited by 62
- Authors
- Greenwood, P. M., & Parasuraman, R.
- Affiliations
- George Mason University (US)
- ORCID
- Greenwood, Pamela M.
- 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