Cited by 100Cognitive Abilities and TestingCognitive Functions and MemoryCognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skills

Why does cognitive training yield inconsistent benefits? A meta-analysis of individual differences in baseline cognitive abilities and training outcomes

Open access
Traut, Hilary J., Guild, Ryan M., Munakata, Yuko·2021·Frontiers in Psychology

Abstract

Despite growing interest in improving cognitive abilities across the lifespan through training, the benefits of cognitive training are inconsistent. One powerful contributor may be that individuals arrive at interventions with different baseline levels of the cognitive skill being trained. Some evidence suggests poor performers benefit the most from cognitive training, showing compensation for their weak abilities, while other evidence suggests that high performers benefit most, experiencing a magnification of their abilities. Whether training leads to compensation or magnification effects may depend upon the specific cognitive domain being trained (such as executive function or episodic memory) and the training approach implemented (strategy or process). To clarify the association between individual differences in baseline cognitive ability and training gains as well as potential moderators, we conducted a systematic meta-analysis of the correlation between these two variables. We found evidence of a significant meta-correlation demonstrating a compensatory effect, a negative association between initial ability on a trained cognitive process and training gains. Too few papers met our search criteria across the levels of proposed moderators of cognitive domain and training approach to conduct a reliable investigation of their influence over the meta-analytic effect size. We discuss the implications of a compensatory meta-correlation, potential reasons for the paucity of qualifying papers, and important future directions for better understanding how cognitive trainings work and for whom.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.662139

Cites

82 of 83 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Individuals with lower baseline cognitive ability demonstrate greater performance gains following cognitive training compared to those with higher baseline cognitive ability.

    “For instance, individuals with lower baseline cognitive ability demonstrate greater performance gains following cognitive training compared to those with higher baseline cognitive ability, potentially due to a sufficient “mismatch” between the task demand and functional supply of the brain [68–72].”

    From Primary outcome from the augmenting cognitive training in older adults study (ACT): A tDCS and cognitive training randomized clinical trial (2023) · cites this paper as [69]

    The Results (§3.2.2; page not available in our copy) report a significant negative correlation: lower baseline performers tended to gain more from training. But the authors call the result inconclusive and report substantial heterogeneity, so the unqualified claim is stronger than their finding. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Chooi W. T. (2011). Improving intelligence by increasing working memory capacity (Electronic Thesis or Dissertation). Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH. Retrieved from: https://etd.ohiolink.edu/
  2. Lipsey M. W. Wilson D. B. (2001). Applied social research methods series, Vol. 49. Practical Meta-Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
  3. Tulving E. (1972). Episodic and Semantic Memory [w:] E. Tulving, W. Donaldson (Red.), Organisation of Memory (s. 381–403). New York, NY: Academic Press.
  4. Vygotsky L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development, in Mind in Society: The development of higher psychological processes, eds M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, and E. Souberman (Cambridge: Harvard University Press).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Traut, H. J., Guild, R. M., & Munakata, Y.
Affiliations
  • University of Colorado Boulder (US)
  • University of California, Davis (US)
Corresponding author
Traut, Hilary J.
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Published
2021-05-26
Volume
12
Pages
662139-662139
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3164249540
Cited by
100
References
82
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 3
FWCI
2.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Cognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skills
Keywords
cognitive training, individual differences, compensation effect, magnification effects, executive function, episodic memory, strategy training, process training

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