Cited by 6Cognitive Abilities and TestingNeuroscience and Music PerceptionNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism

Auditory frequency discrimination is correlated with linguistic skills, but its training does not improve them or other pitch discrimination tasks.

Jakoby, Hilla, Raviv, Ofri, Jaffe-Dax, Sagi, Lieder, Itay, Ahissar, Merav·2019·Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

Abstract

Brain-training, aimed at advancing and improving cognitive and perceptual abilities, is vastly studied because of its immense promise. Yet, there are major controversies regarding its main claim that intensive weeks' training on a single challenging task could improve performance in related untrained tasks. Ample training studies showing transfer were criticized for flawed design. We now explored the impact of perceptual training (auditory frequency discrimination), applying a carefully controlled intensive training experiment. First, we administered a battery of perceptual, linguistic, and cognitive tasks to a large population to determine "near" to "far" tasks according to (pretraining) correlations in performance. This assessment revealed significant correlations between simple pitch discrimination and complex linguistic tasks, including reading and syntactic reasoning. Second, we administered a broad test battery before (and after) training, which included several tasks assessing pitch discrimination, and the linguistic tasks that showed pretraining correlation with auditory frequency discrimination. The test group trained with 2 tone frequency discrimination for 40 sessions. An active control group trained with a working memory (n-back) task for the same duration, and a passive control group was only tested before and after training. Pretraining performance levels were similar in the three groups. Our results were straightforward. No transfer was found to untrained tasks that rely on pith discrimination, or to linguistic tasks that showed pretraining correlation. Mild to marginal transfer was found only to pitch discrimination tasks using almost exactly the trained protocol. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/xge0000573

Cites

25 of 25 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?

  • Since improvement was larger than three standard deviations (Jakoby et al., 2019), 14 participants per group were sufficient in both the previously studied group (no-instruction) and the newly added one (strategy-instruction group).

    “Since improvement was larger than three standard deviations (Jakoby et al., 2019), 14 participants per group were sufficient in both the previously studied group (no-instruction) and the newly added one (strategy-instruction group).”
  • Most of the participants in the prior no-instruction training improved significantly in the spatial n-back task, but showed no transfer to other WM tasks.

    “Most of those participants improved significantly in this task, but showed no transfer to other WM tasks.”
  • Studies that used active control groups typically found either small near-only transfer or no transfer at all.

    “Studies that used active control groups (trained with a similarly demanding task and a similar reward protocol) typically found either small near-only transfer (Linares, Borella, Teresa, Id, & Carretti, 2019) or no transfer at all (Jakoby, Raviv, Jaffe-dax, Lieder, & Ahissar, 2019).”
  • Statistical power analysis shows that to get the power of 0.9 with α = 0.01, based on the results of the first and the last session of the no-instruction group (Jakoby et al., 2019), at least 10 participants are needed per group.

    “Statistical power analysis shows that to get the power of 0.9 with α = 0.01, based on the results of the first and the last session of the no-instruction group (Jakoby et al., 2019), at least 10 participants are needed per group (Table 1).”
  • Performance in most other working memory tasks, and even in n-back tasks for which the efficient strategy is difficult to implement, is not expected to benefit from the discovery of this strategy.

    “However, performance in most other WM tasks, and even in n-back tasks for which the strategy is difficult to implement (Jakoby et al., 2019), is not expected to benefit from the discovery of this strategy.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jakoby, H., Raviv, O., Jaffe-Dax, S., Lieder, I., & Ahissar, M.
Affiliations
Hebrew University of Jerusalem (IL)
Venue
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
Published
2019-11
Volume
148
Issue
11
Pages
1953-1971
ISSN
  • 0096-3445 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2222
OpenAlex
W2922485409
Cited by
6
References
25
Citations by year
2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1
FWCI
1.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Experimental Psychology General (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Edmond and Lily Safra Center for Brain Sciences
  • Israel Science Foundation (616/11; 2425/15)
  • German-Israeli Foundation for Scientific Research (I-1303–105.4/2015)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Music Perception
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Keywords
auditory frequency discrimination, pitch discrimination, perceptual training, brain training, transfer of training, language skills, reading, n-back task, working memory, tone discrimination
MeSH terms
Adult, Auditory Perception, Discrimination, Psychological, Female, Humans, Linguistics, Male, Pitch Discrimination, Reading, Task Performance and Analysis, 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