A theoretical framework for the study of adult cognitive plasticity.

Abstract

Does plasticity contribute to adult cognitive development, and if so, in what ways? The vague and overused concept of plasticity makes these controversial questions difficult to answer. In this article, we refine the notion of adult cognitive plasticity and sharpen its conceptual distinctiveness. According to our framework, adult cognitive plasticity is driven by a prolonged mismatch between functional organismic supplies and environmental demands and denotes the brain's capacity for anatomically implementing reactive changes in behavioral flexibility (i.e., the possible range of performance and function). We distinguish between 2 interconnected but distinct cognitive outcomes of adult cognitive plasticity: alterations in processing efficiency and alterations in representations. We demonstrate the usefulness of our framework in evaluating and interpreting (a) increments in frontal brain activations in the course of normal aging and (b) the effects of cognitive training in adulthood and old age. Finally, we outline new research questions and predictions generated by the present framework and recommend design features for future cognitive-training studies.

On the validity and generality of transfer effects in cognitive training research

“…The recent review, together with others (e.g., Hertzog et al, 2009;Lövdén et al, 2010;Noack et al, 2009;Klingberg, 2010;Shipstead et al, 2010;, revealed that some transfer is typically observed with training procedures targeting working memory, executive functioning, general cognitive ability, and other constructs. However, the validity of positive transfer depends on both theoretical and methodological considerations.…”

“…This question is related to the old issue of separating task-specific from task-general effects of training (e.g. Baltes & Lindenberger, 1988;Lövdén et al, 2010). One way to answer this question is to try to determine and evaluate the distance of transfer tasks (Barnett & Ceci, 2002;Noack et al, 2009;Zelinski, 2009;cf.…”

“…Then, multiple heterogeneous transfer tasks (i.e., implementing different paradigms and tapping into different content dimensions) must be sampled from the theoretically determined task space (Little, Lindenberger, & Nesselroade, 1999;Lövdén et al, 2010). Finally, the appropriate analytic methods, such as structural equation modeling that forms a latent factor representing the common variance among its indicators, must be used (e.g., McArdle & Nesselroade, 1994;McArdle, 2009).…”

Does working memory training have to be adaptive?

“…Rather, the present data set suggests that exposing participants to varying levels of difficulty is sufficient for challenging the flexibility of the cognitive system by exceeding routine demands (cf. Lövden, et al, 2010) and thereby inducing performance improvements.…”

Transfer after process-based object-location memory training in healthy older adults.

“…OLM training may also be particularly successful in older adults because OLM relies heavily on the hippocampus (for a meta-analysis see Kessels, de Haan, Kappelle, & Postma, 2001; for reviews see Burgess, 2008;Postma, Kessels, & van Asselen, 2008), one of the most plastic brain regions up into old age (Goh & Park, 2009;Lövdén et al, 2010). To maximize the intervention's effectiveness, OLM training was both variable (by using three different tasks; Schmidt & Bjork, 1992) and adaptive (by adjusting task difficulty to individual performance; Klingberg, 2010, but see von Bastian & Eschen, 2016.…”