Data for "Prospective memory training in young adults enhances trained-task but not transfer-task performance".

Published: 18-06-2019| Version 1 | DOI: 10.17632/x4swt2ntmk.1
Contributor:
Joseph Maes

Description

In the study associated with these data (doi: 10.1080/09658211.2019.1613435), one group of adult participants was subjected to an 8-day prospective memory (PM) training program using Virtual Week. Each participant completed three virtual days on each of the eight training days (24 virtual days in total). A control group performed a control activity at the times that the participants from the training group were involved in the training task. Before and after the training or control program, all participants completed a nearest-transfer task that was similar to the trained PM task, near-transfer tasks consisting of non-trained event- and time-based PM tasks, and far-transfer tasks consisting of tasks measuring a variety of executive functions and two general, non-verbal intelligence tests. According to the compensation account of the effects of cognitive training in general, the hypothesis was that the training in the adults would reveal less evidence of beneficial transfer effects compared to the results found in a previous study with young adolescents (doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2018.11.014). According to the magnification account, the trained adults would display similar or enhanced transfer grains as/than the adolescent participants from the previous study. The data were mainly acquired with tasks programmed in eprime. The data in the SPSS file are pre-processed data: the score for each participant on each of the main outcome variable from the diverse tasks. The meaning of each of the columns in the data file is described below. These data were used in the repeated measures analyses of variance reported in the paper. Raw (eprime) data are available upon request. Meaning of columns in SPSS data file: Pp_numb: participant number; Gender: 1 = male; 2 = female; Age: age of the participant at the time of first testing; Group: 1 = control; 2 = training: acc: percentage or proportion correct responses; rep: number of trials required to reach criterion accuracy; diffscore: hits - false alarms; interfscore: RT difference between incongruent and congruent trials; sc: switch cost; pre: pre-training assessment; post: post-training assessment; f3: 3-month follow-up assessment; f6: 6-month follow-up assessment; Tr1−Tr24: virtual day 1−24 of the training task; VW: virtual week transfer task; EBPM_focal_1: (focal) event-based PM task based on Bisiacchi et al. (2009); EBPM_focal_2: focal trials of the event-based PM task based on Zuber et al. (2016); EBPM_non_focal_2: non-focal trials of the EBPM task based on Zuber et al. (2016); TBPM: time-based PM task; WM_2_back: 2-back working memory task block of the pre-training EBPM(non)-focal_2 task; RWM: running working memory task; easy: easy task; diff: difficult task; GNG: go/no-go task; Flanker: flanker task; Stroop: Stroop task; Switch: switching task; RSPM: Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices test; RASP: Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices test

Files