Psychological Research (2019) 83:1519–1530

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-1007-6

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Training and transfer effects of interference control training

in children and young adults
Xin Zhao1 · Lina Jia1 

Received: 26 December 2017 / Accepted: 1 April 2018 / Published online: 24 April 2018
© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Abstract
Many studies have examined transfer of working memory (WM) training improvements to non-trained cognitive tasks,
with largely disappointing results. Interference control has been suggested to be a central feature of WM. However, studies
examining transfer effects of a training program exclusively and directly targeting interference control are lacking. Forty-one
10‒12 year-old children and 47 19‒24 year-old adults were assigned to an adaptive interference control training or active
control condition. Transfer of training effects to tasks measuring interference control, response inhibition, WM updating,
task-switching, and non-verbal fluid intelligence were assessed during a 3-month follow-up session and/or an immediate
post-training session. Substantial evidence of training improvements and a positive transfer effect to a non-trained interfer-
ence control task were observed for both age groups. Marginal evidence for beneficial transfer of training effects for the
trained compared to non-trained participants was found for a WM task for both age groups, and for the children for another
interference control task and a response inhibition task. However, these transfer effects were absent during the 3-month
follow-up measurement. These results suggest some potential for interference control training programs to enhance aspects of
cognitive functioning, with some evidence for a more wide-spread, but short-lived, transfer for children compared to adults.

Introduction recent reviews). Relatively few studies explicitly focused

The issue of the trainability of cognitive functions in gen-
eral, and higher-order cognitive processes implied in execu-
tive functions (EFs) in particular, have received considerable
attention since the 1980s. EFs are related to many daily-life
cognitive skills and psychological well-being (Diamond,
2013). They enable the display of goal-directed behavior
in the face of distracting information and are decomposable
into a limited number of more basic processes, such as work-
ing memory monitoring and updating (WM), inhibition of
prepotent responses, and task switching (Miyake, Friedman,
Emerson, Witzki, Howerter, & Wager, 2000).
The majority of studies examining whether EFs and gen-
eral intelligence of healthy and clinical populations can be
improved through training adopted training tasks specifi-
cally targeting WM (see Melby-Lervåg, Redick, & Hulme,
2016; Soveri, Antfolk, Karlsson, Salo, & Laine, 2017, for
* Lina Jia
psyjialn@163.com
1
Behavior Rehabilitation Training Research Institution,
School of Psychology, Northwest Normal University, 967
East Anning Road, Lanzhou 730070, China
on training other aspects of executive functioning, such as
response inhibition (e.g., Enge, Behnke, Fleischhauer, Küt-
tler, Kliegel, & Strobel, 2014; Thorell, Lindqvist, Bergman
Nutley, Bohlin, and Klingberg, 2009), and task switching
(e.g., Grönholm-Nyman et  al., 2017; Karbach & Kray,
2009; Minear, & Shah, 2008; Pereg, Shahar, & Meiran,
2013; Zinke, Einert, Pfenning, & Kliegel, 2012). By and
large, these studies suggest that training improves perfor-
mance on the trained task and on similar non-trained tasks
(called near-transfer effects). However, at least for healthy
participants and when using appropriate control groups, the
evidence of training-induced beneficial transfer to dissimi-
lar non-trained tasks is not convincing (far-transfer effects,
Dougherty, Hamovitz, & Tidwell, 2016; Soveri et al., 2017).
Moreover, even if near- or far-transfer effects are found, it
is far from conclusive that these effects are due to a genuine
improvement of the trained cognitive function(s) or instead
reflect the (learned) use of some relatively task-specific,
strategy-based approach (e.g., Shipstead, Redick, & Engle,
2012).
As indicated above, training programs targeting inhibition
are relatively few and did not reveal convincing evidence
for (strong) transfer effects (Enge et al., 2014; Thorell et al.,

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

1520
2009). One feature of these studies is that they primarily
used response or behavioural inhibition tasks for training.
However, behavioural inhibition is but one of other types
or components of inhibition that have been suggested in the
literature (e.g., Nigg, 2000). Specifically, more ‘cognitive’
types of inhibition (hereafter referred to using the more gen-
eral term of cognitive inhibition), such as the suppression of
distracting or proactively interfering information, have been
found to be correlated with, but separable from, response
inhibition (Stahl et al., 2014). Importantly, cognitive inhibi-
tion capabilities have been found to show considerable over-
lap with WM capacity (Jonides & Nee, 2006). This overlap
prompts the question whether a training specifically focus-
sing on this central element of WM would lead to stronger
transfer effects than those observed for response inhibition
training programs, and for that matter, also for WM-training
protocols that do not explicitly train cognitive inhibition.
Notably, training studies addressing cognitive inhibi-
tion are even rarer than response inhibition training studies.
To our knowledge, cognitive inhibition training has until
now only been realized in the framework of WM updat-
ing training tasks, such as the n-back task. The participant
in an n-back task has to monitor whether the identity of
the current item of sequentially presented items is identical
to that presented n trials before. Involvement of proactive
interference has been manipulated in this task by varying the
number of ‘lure’ trials. These are the trials in which a recent
stimulus, which is not at position n but close to it, is identical
to the current stimulus. On such trials, relative to trials in
which identical previous stimuli are relatively far removed
from the current stimulus, the participant has to inhibit the
tendency evoked by the familiarity of the recent item to iden-
tify the current stimulus as a target stimulus, also called the
control of proactive interference. Oelhafen et al. (2013) and
Loosli et al. (2016) manipulated the number of lure trials
and did not find differential transfer effects to other EF tasks:
there was no convincing evidence of transfer, regardless of
interference control demand in the training task. However,
these studies used a very specific and arguably somewhat
indirect way of training interference control, based on the
suppression of familiarity-evoked responses. The question
remains whether a training protocol that implies a more
direct training of interference control, using a task that is
derived from a very commonly used interference control
task, would yield more promising results.
Against this background, the purpose of the present study
was to evaluate training and transfer effects of repeatedly
performing a Stroop-like task (MacLeod, 1991), using an
active control group as comparison. The task entailed the
consistent suppression of responses that were automati-
cally triggered by the identity of visual stimuli. Transfer
benefits were assessed using non-trained tasks measuring
interference control, response inhibition, working memory,
13
Psychological Research (2019) 83:1519–1530
task-switching, and general intelligence. Moreover, we used
two different age groups: a group of 10–12 year-old children
and a group of young adults. The age range for the children
was based on previous evidence that interference control, as
trained in the present study by the Stroop-like task, shows a
developmental spurt between about 10 and 13 years of age
(Brocki & Bohlin, 2004). We reasoned that training within
the 10–12 years of age range might be associated with the
strongest training effects, boosting potential development-
based enhanced plasticity. Given the previous evidence of
larger transfer benefits of cognitive training programs for
children compared to young adults (e.g., Karbach & Unger,
2014; Zhao, Chen, & Maes, 2016), we expected that any
near- or far-transfer benefits (if present) would be larger for
the children than adults.
Method
Participants
The study included 52 healthy undergraduate students from
Northwest Normal University (begin data collection: May
2016), and 47 fifth graders from an elementary school in
Gansu province (begin data acquisition: April 2017). The
adults and children were mostly (adults: 96%; children: 98%)
from the Han population. The participants were randomly
assigned to a training and a control group. Further details
for the adult sample are as follows. Three participants from
the training group did not complete the training program;
the data for two participants from the control group were
not complete because of an internship elsewhere. Their data
were discarded. Hence, the adult training group consisted
of 13 women and 10 men (M = 20.39 years, SD = 1.31,
range 19–24); the control group included 16 women and 8
men (M = 20.92, SD = 0.93, range 20–24). The groups did
not significantly differ in age, sex distribution, and hand-
edness. Based on self-reports, all participants had normal
or corrected-to-normal vision, were not colour-blind, and
had no history of psychiatric or neurological disease. The
students were paid 8 RMB (about €1) for each training ses-
sion. All students had signed an informed consent form and
received small presents for their participation in the pre-and
post-training, and 3-month follow-up (F3) assessment ses-
sions. Further details for the child sample are as follows. The
elementary school was contacted via the Education Bureau
of Lanzhou city and the children had their primary caretak-
ers sign informed consent forms. Participants were randomly
assigned to either the training or control group according to
the last two digits of the child’s student number. The train-
ing or transfer data of six children (three from each group)
were incomplete for various reasons, such as transference
to another school, participation in sports competitions, or
Psychological Research (2019) 83:1519–1530 1521
sick leave. The data from these children were not included
in the data analysis. Therefore, the training group included
9 girls and 12 boys (M = 10.48 years, SD = 0.60, range
10–12), and the control group consisted of 10 girls and 10
boys (M = 10.65 years, SD = 0.67, range 10–12). One child
from each of the control and training groups did not perform
the transfer tests during the F3 session. During this session,
one child from the control group did not complete the go/
no-go task and two children from the training group failed to
complete the switching task. Based on medical reports and
teachers’ information, all children had normal or corrected-
to-normal vision, were not colour-blind, and had no history
of psychiatric or neurological disease. The children from
the training group received some pencils as remuneration.
All children received a small present (pencil, ruler, etc.) for
their participation in the assessment sessions. There was no
significant difference between the two groups in age, sex
distribution, and handedness. The study was approved by the
local ethics committee and all experimental manipulations
were performed in accordance with the approved guidelines.
Pre‑ and post‑training, and F3 tests
We employed the following six transfer tasks, which were
all programmed using Eprime software.
Stroop color–word interference task
This task was used as near-transfer task. The participant had
to indicate the color in which Chinese characters (Hanzi) or
the symbols “####” were printed as quickly and accurately
as possible, by pressing “F” for red and “J” for green on a
standard keyboard. The corresponding keys were covered by
a piece of red and green paper. The Hanzi represented the
colors red or green and were printed in either red or green.
The task contained congruent, incongruent, and neutral tri-
als. Congruent trials consisted of the Hanzi referring to the
word “red” printed in red and the word “green” printed in
green. On incongruent trials the word “red” was printed in
green and the word “green” was printed in red. On neu-
tral trials, the symbols “####” were either printed in red or
green. Each trial commenced with a fixation cross that was
presented for 500 ms, followed by a 1000-ms blank screen.
Thereafter, the target stimulus (colored Hanzi or symbols)
was presented for 1500 ms (response window). A blank
screen was subsequently presented for a variable duration
between 600 and 1000 ms. The next trial started immediately
thereafter. The task contained 18 practice trials and three
blocks of 36 experimental trials each; the participant could
have a break between blocks. Each block consisted of 12
congruent, 12 incongruent, and 12 neutral trials. The order
of trials was random and the test lasted about 15 min. The
dependent measure was the mean RT on the different trial
types, excluding trials with a RT < 200 ms and an incorrect
response. For statistical analysis, we used an interference
index representing the difference in mean RT on incongruent
and congruent trials. A high score reflects weak interference
control.
Flanker task
The Flanker task was used to obtain an additional index of
interference control, also implicating a near-transfer task.
Stimuli consisted of five arrows presented in the center of
the screen. The central arrow was the target; the four non-
center arrows were distractors. Trials were either congruent
(→→→→→ or ←←←←←) or incongruent (→→←→→
or ←←→←←). Participants had to make a response in
accordance with the direction of the middle arrow by press-
ing “J” and “F” on the keyboard if the arrow was pointing to
the right and left, respectively. On each trial, a fixation cross
was first presented for 500 ms, followed by a blank screen
that was presented for a variable duration between 300 and
500 ms. The stimulus was presented for 1500 ms (response
window), followed by a 1000-ms blank screen. The next
trial started immediately thereafter. After 16 practice trials,
the main task was initiated, which comprised four blocks of
32 trials each (16 incongruent trials), with a possible break
between blocks if the participant wished to have a break. The
order of trials was random and the test lasted about 15 min.
The dependent measure was the mean RT on the different
trial types, based on RTs > 200 ms and trials with a correct
response. We computed an interference index by subtract-
ing the mean RT on congruent trials from the mean RT on
incongruent trials. A high score reflects weak interference
control.
Go/no‑go task
A go/no-go task was used to assess response inhibition
(far-transfer task). The task consisted of practice trials and
four blocks of 100 experimental trials each. Each practice
trial commenced with a white fixation point presented for
1000 ms in the center of the screen against a black back-
ground, followed by a 600-ms presentation of either the
letter X or Y. Thereafter, a blank screen was presented
for 1000 ms. The next trial began immediately thereafter,
implicating a response window of 1600 ms. The partici-
pant was instructed to respond to each X by pressing “J” on
a standard computer keyboard and to refrain from respond-
ing upon presentation of the letter Y. The participant was
asked to perform the task as quickly and accurately as
possible. The participant continued with the experimental
phase of the task after reaching an accuracy level of ≥ 85%
during a block of 20 trials. Each trial of the following
two experimental blocks was identical to the trials in the
13

1522
practice phase. For the adult participants, each 100-trial
block consisted of 75% trials with the letter X (go trials)
and 25% trials with the letter Y (no-go trials). Also, based
on a pilot study, for the children we choose a 50% go-50%
no-go trials distribution to achieve pre-training accuracy
rates that were comparable to those for the adults. The
order of trials was random. During the next two 100-trial
blocks (which were preceded by one or more blocks of
practice trials until the participant reached an accuracy
level of ≥ 85%), the participant had to press “J” to the
letter Y and not respond to the letter X. In these blocks,
the percentage of Y and X trials was 75 and 25%, respec-
tively, for the adults and 50 and 50% for the children. The
participant could have a break between trial blocks and the
task lasted approximately 15 min. The dependent measure
from this test was the difference score: proportion of hits
(correct response to go stimuli) minus proportion of false
alarms (incorrect response to no-go stimuli). A high score
represents a strong inhibition capacity.
Numerical WM updating: easy and difficult task
Two tasks were used to measure WM ability (far-transfer
tasks). On each trial of the easy task, a series of single
digits, ranging from 0 to 9, were presented consecu-
tively in the center of the screen. The length of the digit
sequences varied and consisted of 5, 7, 9, or 11 digits. The
four trial types, defined by sequence length, appeared an
equal number of times and were presented in a random
order. Participants were instructed to sequentially remem-
ber the final three numbers presented. For example, if the
presented digits were 7–6–3–1–4–5–8, the participants
should have remembered 7–76–763–631–314–145–458.
After presentation of the last digit of the sequence, a blank
bar was presented on the screen and the participant had
to enter the last three digits presented (i.e., 4–5–8) using
the keyboard. Each trial commenced with a fixation cross,
which was presented for 500 milliseconds. Subsequently,
the digits were shown for 1750 ms, followed by a blank
screen that was presented for a random time between 800
and 1200 ms. The task included three trial blocks. The
first consisted of eight practice trials. The second and third
blocks constituted the formal test and each block contained
12 trials. The difficult WM updating task was identical to
the easy task except that the digits were shown for only
750 ms. Each participant finished the easy task prior to the
difficult task. The dependent measure was the total number
of points acquired during the task, with one point assigned
for each correct digit correctly put in the correct serial
position, implicating a maximum score of 72 points. This
number was converted to proportion correct responses.
13
Psychological Research (2019) 83:1519–1530
Switching task
This task measured the ability to flexibly switch between
tasks (far-transfer task). A series of digits (from 1 to 9 except
5) colored in red or blue were presented in the center of the
screen. Participants had to either make a magnitude or par-
ity judgment for each digit, depending on the digit’s color.
In task A, participants judged whether the current red digit
was larger than 5 or not (magnitude task), and to respond by
pressing “A” if the digit was < 5, and by pressing “L” if the
digit was > 5. In task B, participants had to judge whether
the blue digit was odd or even (parity task). They had to
respond by pressing “A” if the digit was odd and “L” if the
digit was even. Participants first performed two single-task
(task A and task B) practice blocks until they reached an
accuracy level of 75%. Subsequently, they performed 20
experimental blocks: 10 single-task blocks consisting of 8
trials each, and 10 mixed-task blocks, each consisting of
17 trials. During mixed-task blocks, the participant had to
switch between tasks A and B every second trial. The order
of blocks was random with the constraint that two single
and two mixed-task blocks were grouped together. Each
trial commenced with a fixation cross that was presented
for 1400 ms, followed by the target. The target was presented
until the participant responded and the next fixation cross
was presented 25 ms thereafter. The test lasted about 20 min.
Based on RTs > 200 ms and RTs < 4000 ms of trials with a
correct response, for each participant we first computed the
median RT on switch and non-switch trials of the mixed-
task blocks. These RTs were used to compute the dependent
measure: median RT on switch trials minus mean median
RT on non-switch trials. Hence, a high score reflects a poor
switching ability.
Raven’s progressive matrices test
Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices (RSPM; Raven,
Raven, & Court, 2000) test and Raven’s Advanced Progres-
sive Matrices test (RAPM; Raven, Court, & Raven, 1977)
were used as measure of non-verbal intelligence for the chil-
dren and adults, respectively. These tests consist of a series
of incomplete designs. The participant is asked to select
the correct part to complete the designs from a number of
options printed underneath. For the children, the 60-item
RSPM was split into two equal parts. They performed the
even- and odd-numbered items in the pre- and post-training
test, respectively. The adults completed 18 even-numbered
problems from the RAPM before training and 18 odd-num-
bered problems during the post-training session. The maxi-
mum time allowed to work on the task was 20 min for both
the children and adults. The dependent measure was the pro-
portion of correctly solved problems. It must be noted that
the RSPM and RAPM are not directly comparable, thereby
Psychological Research (2019) 83:1519–1530 1523
complicating the interpretation of possible age group dif-
ferences. However, we were primarily interested in perfor-
mance differences in the pre- vs. post-training assessment
as a function of training condition within each age group.
Computerized training program
A Stroop-like task was used for training. The task included
three types of picture pairs: scenery pictures (sun and moon;
8 different pictures of each category), cartoon characters
(boy and girl; 8 different pictures of each category) and
fruit pictures (big watermelon and small watermelon; 1 pic-
ture of each type). The task consisted of three blocks of 80
experimental trials each on each session. One type of picture
pair was presented during each block, with a fixed order of
picture-type blocks on each session: sun/moon, followed by
boy/girl, followed by big/small. Within each block, pictures
were presented in a random order with the constraint that
each category (e.g., sun or moon, boy or girl, were presented
on 50% of the trials). Each trial started with a 500-ms fixa-
tion cross, followed by a blank screen that was presented
for a variable duration between 400 and 600 ms. The target
stimulus (picture) was then presented for 2000 ms, followed
by a 1000-ms blank screen. The next trial started imme-
diately thereafter. Participants could have a short break
between trial blocks. The task lasted about 20 min. Task
difficulty was adapted by decreasing or increasing the inter-
stimulus interval (ISI, measured between stimulus onset
and onset of the next trial) for each type of 80-trial block,
starting with an ISI of 3000 ms during the first training ses-
sion, depending on the participant’s percentage of correct
responses on that type of trial block during the preceding
session. For example, for the first block (sun/moon), if the
percentage of correct responses on this block in the previ-
ous session was < 60%, the ISI would increase with 200 ms.
If the percentage of correct responses on the previous cor-
responding block was > 90%, the ISI would be reduced by
200 ms. Finally, in case the percentage of correct responses
ranged from 60 to 90%, the ISI would remain the same. The
same procedure was maintained for each of the other two
trial-type blocks (boy/girl and big/small). The “F” key on
the response keyboard was labeled with the word “day”,
“J” with “night”, “D” with “boy”, “K” with “girl”, “S” with
“big”, and “L” with “small”. The participant was instructed
to respond as quickly as possible to each stimulus by press-
ing the key corresponding to the “wrong” exemplar of the
category to which the picture belonged. For example, upon
presentation of a moon picture, the participant had to press
the key corresponding to “day”, and when shown a drawing
of a boy, the correct response was “girl”. After 10 days of
training, the labels of the keys were switched so that now
“F” was labeled with “night”, “J” with “day”, etc. After each
trial block, participants received feedback about mean speed
and accuracy of their responses. Mean RTs on correct tri-
als, based on the three training tasks, were used as outcome
measure.
Procedure
All participants completed the pre-training tests in the fol-
lowing order and with approximately 24 h in between: the
Stroop task (Day 1), Flanker task (Day 2), go/no-go task
(Day 3), WM updating tasks (Day 4) and the RAVEN (Day
5). Participants on Saturday and Sunday have rest, so task
was put off until next Monday for switching task. Adults
were divided into three groups in pre-test, about 18 people
per group and children were divided into two groups, about
21 people per group. The training group (23 adults or 21
children) then completed the adaptive Stroop-like training
consisting of one 240-trial session on each of 20 successive
weekdays. The training was performed under supervision
of teacher (for the child sample) and/or a lab assistant in
one group in a laboratory room (for the adults) or in the
school’s computer room (children). The daily training time
was approximately 20 min. The control groups (both the
children and adults, 20 children or 24 adults) made sand
paintings at the same time and in the same environment as
held for the training group. Sand paining is part of the Bud-
dhist tradition and involves the individual to evenly spread
fine colored sand on a sticky drawing paper containing tem-
plates. These templates, consisting of complex geometric
patterns, have to be completed stepwise. Completion of the
painting requires much patience, endurance, and focused
attention. After completion of the training or control pro-
gram, all participants performed the same tests, in the same
order and with the same inter-session interval as used in the
pre-training test sessions (post-training assessment). When
obtaining a significant transfer effect for a given task, a fol-
low-up measurement was planned to be performed approxi-
mately 3 months after the post-training assessment.
Statistical analysis
Prior to performing the main analyses, we first tested, for
each age group separately, whether there was a difference
between the trained and control participants on any of
the pre-training transfer tests, which was not the case (all
ps > 0.05). We used a repeated measures analysis of variance
(ANOVA) to evaluate the training RT data, with group (chil-
dren vs. adults) as between-subjects factor and training ses-
sion (1–20) as within-subject factor. Pre- and post-training
task performance was analyzed using a group (children vs.
adults), training condition (training vs. control), and ses-
sion (pre- vs. post-training) ANOVA, using the dependent
measure from each task. An identical ANOVA was used
to analyze pre-training and F3 assessment differences as a
13

1524
function of group and training condition. It is important to
note that identical analyses using a dependent measure for
the Stroop, Flanker, and Switching tasks that was based on
accuracy rather than RT data did not reveal any significant
effects of critical interest. This absence of effects was also
partly due to the fact that the overall accuracy (proportion
of trials with a correct response) was rather high, at least for
the Stroop (M 0.93) and Flanker (M 0.95) tasks. Significant
interactions were followed up by simple main effect analyses
and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). An alpha level of
p < 0.05 was adopted throughout. Partial eta-squared (ηp2)
was used as an effect size estimate. In addition to the tradi-
tional ANCOVAs, testing the significance of a hypothesis of
post-training test performance difference between training
conditions after controlling for pre-training performance, in
the case of a significant result we also performed a Bayes-
ian ANCOVA on the transfer test data using Bayes factors
(BF). These tests, which were performed using JASP (Com-
puter software; Version 0.8.0.1), enable a quantification of
the strength of the evidence for the alternative compared
to the null hypothesis, with a ­BF10 larger than 3 indicating
substantial evidence, and a B ­ F10 between 1 and 3 indicating
only marginal evidence in favor of the alternative hypothesis
relative to a null model. In our case, the alternative model
consisted of the model explaining post-training task perfor-
mance on the basis of training condition and pre-training
task performance. The null model incorporated only the pre-
training scores.
Results
Training
Figure 1 displays the mean RT for the adults and children
on each of the training sessions. ANOVA (see Table 1, for
details) revealed a main effect of group, reflecting overall
faster RTs for the adults than the children. The main effect
of session reflected the general decrease in RTs across ses-
sions for both groups. Follow-up analyses of the group × ses-
sion interaction revealed significantly shorter RTs for the
adults compared to the children on sessions 1–3 and 9–12,
ps < 0.02, but not on each of sessions 4–8, ps > 0.06. A nota-
ble feature was a significant increase in RT from session 10
to 11 in the children, p < 0.001, which was likely caused by
the change in response-to-key mapping initiated on session
11.
13
Psychological Research (2019) 83:1519–1530
800
700
Mean RT (ms)
600
500
400 Adults
Children
300
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Training Session
Fig. 1  Mean (+ SEM) RT on each of the 20 training sessions for the
children and adults
Transfer effects
Table 1 shows the groups’ mean score on the performance
measure of the different transfer tasks during the pre- and
post-training sessions, and F3 session (if performed).
Details of the overall ANOVAs on the pre- and post-train-
ing performance measures are presented in Table 2.
Stroop task
ANOVA using the Stroop interference score on the pre-
and post-training sessions revealed significant main ses-
sion and training condition × session interaction effects.
The interaction effect reflected a significantly lower inter-
ference score at post-compared to pre-training test for the
trained participants, F(1, 49) = 20.35, p < 0.001, η p2 =
0.32, but not control participants, F < 1. Moreover, also
when controlling for the pre-training performance differ-
ence between the training and control groups, the trained
participants had a lower interference score during the post-
training test than the control participants, ANCOVA, F(1,
85) = 6.93, p = 0.01, η p2 = 0.08, ­B F 10 = 4.14. ANOVA
using the pre-training and F3 data revealed a signifi-
cant main session effect, F(1, 80) = 6.74, p = 0.01, η p2
= 0.08, and a training condition × session interaction,
F(1, 80) = 4.33, p = 0.04, η p2 = 0.05. This interaction
reflected a significantly lower interference score at the
F3 than the pre-training test for the trained participants,
F(1, 41) = 9.80, p = 0.003, η p2 = 0.19, but not the con-
trols, F < 1. However, when controlling for the pre-training
performance difference between the training condition
groups, the difference between trained and control par-
ticipants on post-training test performance was not statisti-
cally significant, ANCOVA, F < 1. These results suggest
Psychological Research (2019) 83:1519–1530 1525

Table 1  Descriptive statistics (mean and SEM) for the groups’ pre- and post-training and 3-month follow-up (F3) test performance measures
Task (dependent measure) Session Children trained Children control Adults trained Adults control

Stroop (interference score in ms) Pre-training 67.72 (13.51) 35.06 (18.28) 45.06 (13.83) 23.24 (9.15)
Post-training 9.07 (10.42) 38.49 (16.07) 4.60 (6.02) 28.79 (11.52)
F3 20.80 (7.30) 35.89 (12.76) 20.13 (8.47) 16.24 (7.19)
Flanker (interference score in ms) Pre-training 44.96 (5.02) 33.33 (6.09) 16.88 (3.29) 14.93 (3.11)
Post-training 8.20 (3.87) 20.99 (5.45) 15.98 (2.21) 11.25 (3.76)
F3 19.40 (4.52) 28.82 (9.66)
Go/no-go (hits-FA) Pre-training 0.80 (0.04) 0.82 (0.02) 0.87 (0.01) 0.87 (0.02)
Post-training 0.87 (0.02) 0.79 (0.05) 0.85 (0.01) 0.84 (0.02)
F3 0.86 (0.04) 0.81 (0.04)
WM-easy (proportion correct) Pre-training 0.88 (0.01) 0.83 (0.02) 0.97 (0.01) 0.97 (0.01)
Post-training 0.91 (0.01) 0.84 (0.03) 0.97 (0.01) 0.97 (0.01)
WM-difficult (proportion correct) Pre-training 0.85 (0.02) 0.84 (0.03) 0.92 (0.01) 0.95 (0.01)
Post-training 0.90 (0.03) 0.81 (0.04) 0.94 (0.01) 0.94 (0.01)
F3 0.94 (0.01) 0.96 (0.01)
Switching (switch cost, ms) Pre-training 296.48 (57.72) 327.33 (77.25) 295.00 (48.46) 188.98 (31.22)
Post-training 159.17 (62.44) 347.15 (56.90) 162.50 (28.55) 130.31 (18.34)
Raven (proportion correct) Pre-training 0.65 (0.02) 0.61(0.04) 0.56 (0.04) 0.65 (0.02)
Post-training 0.76 (0.02) 0.68 (0.03) 0.68 (0.04) 0.70 (0.03)

substantial evidence for a short-lived positive transfer
effect of the interference control training on interference
control as measured with the Stroop task.
Flanker task
ANOVA of the Flanker task data revealed a significant
main effect of group and session, in addition to group × ses-
sion, training condition × session, and group × training
condition × session interaction effects. The latter interac-
tion was examined further with a training condition × ses-
sion ANOVA for each age group separately. For the adults,
this analysis did not reveal any significant effects, Fs < 1.
However, for the child sample, a significant training con-
dition × session interaction was found, F(1, 39) = 6.82,
p = 0.013, ηp2 = 0.15, in addition to a main effect of ses-
sion, F(1, 39) = 27.59, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.41. The interac-
tion reflected a significantly lower interference score on the
post- compared to pre-training test for the trained children,
F(1, 20) = 37.44, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.65, but not the control
children, p = 0.10. Moreover, the difference in post-training
task performance between the trained and non-trained chil-
dren was significant after controlling for pre-training task
performance, ANCOVA, F(1, 38) = 4.57, p = 0.039, ηp2 =
0.11, However, the evidence for the model incorporating
the training condition factor was only marginal, ­BF10 = 1.75.
ANOVA using the pre-training and F3 data from the children
revealed a significant training condition × session interac-
tion, F(1, 37) = 4.44, p = 0.04, ηp2 = 0.11, in addition to a
main session effect, F(1, 37) = 8.07, p = 0.007, ηp2 = 0.18.
The interaction was due to a smaller interference score for
the F3 compared to pre-training test session for the trained
children, F(1, 19) = 12.56, p = 0.002 ηp2 = 0.40, but not the
control children, F < 1. However, the difference between
training conditions on the F3 follow-up test was not sig-
nificant both with and without controlling for pre-training
task performance, ANCOVAs, ps > 0.12. These results sug-
gest marginal evidence for a short-lived transfer of training
benefits to interference control capacity as measured by the
flanker task for the children but not adults.
Go/no‑go task
ANOVA did not reveal any significant effects. However,
the three-way interaction was at trend level, motivating a
training condition × session ANOVA separately for each age
group. For the adults, this analysis only revealed a significant
session effect, F(1, 45) = 5.97, p = 0.02, ηp2 = 0.12, reflecting
a lower difference score for the post- than pre-training test,
other Fs < 1. For the children, the analysis revealed an inter-
action effect at trend level, F(1, 39) = 4.01, p = 0.052, ηp2 =
0.09, other Fs < 1. This interaction reflected a difference at
trend level between post- vs. pre-training performance for
the trained children, F(1, 20) = 3.91, p = 0.062, ηp2 = 0.16,
but not the controls, F < 1. Moreover, after controlling for
the difference in pre-training performance, the difference
in post-training performance between the trained and non-
trained children was significant, ANCOVA, F(1, 38) = 4.26,
p = 0.046, ηp2 = 0.10, ­BF10 = 1.50. However, analysis con-
trasting pre-training and 3-month follow-up test performance

13

1526 Psychological Research (2019) 83:1519–1530

Table 2  Results of statistical Task (dependent measure) Factor dfs F p η2

analyses (ANOVAs) of training
and transfer test data Training (RT) Group 1, 42 18.84 < 0.001 0.31
Session 19, 798 56.69 < 0.001 0.57
Group × session 19, 798 6.37 < 0.001 0.13
Stroop (interference score in ms) Group 1, 84 1.63 0.21 0.02
Training condition (TC) 1, 84 0.00 0.98 0.00
Session 1, 84 7.52 0.007 0.08
Group × TC 1, 84 0.02 0.88 0.00
Group × session 1, 84 0.38 0.54 0.01
TC × session 1, 84 10.81 0.001 0.11
Group × TC × session 1, 84 0.24 0.63 0.00
Flanker (interference score in ms) Group 1, 84 14.22 < 0.001 0.15
Training condition (TC) 1, 84 0.18 0.67 0.00
Session 1, 84 26.04 < 0.001 0.24
Group × TC 1, 84 0.37 0.54 0.00
Group × session 1, 84 17.92 < 0.001 0.18
TC × session 1, 84 4.24 0.04 0.05
Group × TC × session 1, 84 6.68 0.01 0.07
Go/no-go (hits-FA) Group 1, 84 2.68 0.11 0.03
Training condition (TC) 1, 84 0.40 0.53 0.01
Session 1, 84 0.14 0.71 0.00
Group × TC 1, 84 0.34 0.56 0.00
Group × session 1, 84 3.92 0.051 0.05
TC × session 1, 84 3.83 0.054 0.04
Group × TC × session 1, 84 2.97 0.088 0.03
WM updating-easy (proportion correct) Group 1, 84 53.01 < 0.001 1.0
Training condition (TC) 1, 84 4.97 0.03 0.06
Session 1, 84 1.33 0.25 0.02
Group × TC 1, 84 5.17 0.03 0.06
Group × session 1, 84 1.87 0.18 0.02
TC × session 1, 84 0.45 0.51 0.01
Group × TC × session 1, 84 0.26 0.61 0.00
WM updating-difficult (proportion correct) Group 1, 84 23.11 < 0.001 0.22
Training condition (TC) 1, 84 0.87 0.35 0.01
Session 1, 84 0.57 0.45 0.01
Group × TC 1, 84 2.86 0.10 0.03
Group × session 1, 84 0.01 0.94 0.00
TC × session 1, 84 4.50 0.04 0.05
Group × TC × session 1, 84 0.94 0.34 0.01
Switching (switch cost in ms) Group 1, 83 4.73 0.03 0.05
Training condition (TC) 1, 83 0.22 0.64 0.00
Session 1, 83 6.97 0.01 0.08
Group × TC 1, 83 5.10 0.03 0.06
Group × session 1, 83 0.36 0.55 0.00
TC × session 1, 83 3.86 0.053 0.04
Group × TC × session 1, 83 0.59 0.45 0.01

13
Psychological Research (2019) 83:1519–1530 1527

Table 2  (continued) Task (dependent measure) Factor dfs F p η2

Raven (proportion correct) Group 1, 84 0.90 0.35 0.01

Training condition (TC) 1, 84 0.00 0.97 0.00
Session 1, 84 44.93 < 0.001 0.35
Group × TC 1, 84 4.29 0.04 0.05
Group × session 1, 84 0.19 0.67 0.00
TC × session 1, 84 4.06 0.047 0.05
Group × TC × session 1, 84 0.46 0.50 0.01

p values in bold are significant using an α = 0.05 level

failed to reveal any significant effects, Fs < 1. These results
suggest marginal evidence for a short-lived positive transfer
of the training to go/no-go task performance for the children
but not adults.
WM updating tasks
The data from one adult participant for the difficult WM
task were lost. ANOVA using the data from the easy task
did not reveal any significant results of interest. However,
ANOVA on the data from the difficult test revealed a sig-
nificant training condition × session interaction effect, in
addition to a main group effect. The interaction reflected a
significant performance increase from pre- to post-training
for the trained participants, F(1, 43) = 8.89, p = 0.005, ηp2 =
0.17, but not control participants, F < 1. The training group
difference in post-training task performance was significant
after controlling for pre-training task performance differ-
ences, ANCOVA, F(1, 85) = 3.98, p = 0.049, ηp2 = 0.05,
although the evidence supporting the model assuming a
group difference was only marginal, B ­ F10 = 1.21. The adult
participants also performed the difficult task at the 3-month
follow-up test. A training condition × session ANOVA using
the pre-training and F3 data from the adult participants did
not reveal any significant effects, maximum p = 0.06, for the
non-critical main effect of training condition: if anything,
overall the control participants performed better than the
trained participants. These results suggest marginal evidence
for a short-term benefit of the interference control training
on WM performance as measured by a running memory
task.
Switching task
Analysis of the data from the switching task only revealed
significant main effects for the group and session factors
and the group × session interaction, which were not relevant
for the question of differential transfer benefits. The rel-
evant training condition × session interaction just failed to
be significant and follow-up analyses targeting this interac-
tion only revealed significantly better performance on the
post-compared to pre-training session for the trained par-
ticipants, F(1, 42) = 18.53, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.31, but not
the control participants, F < 1. However, the difference
between training groups was significant for neither the pre-
nor post-training session, ps > 0.16, and ANCOVA also
failed to reveal a significant difference in post-training task
performance between the trained and control participants
when controlling for pre-training performance differences,
p = 0.072. These analyses suggest no reliable training ben-
efits for switching task performance.
Raven
ANOVA using the Raven scores revealed a significant train-
ing condition × session interaction, next to a significant main
effect of session and a group × training condition interaction.
However, simple main effect analyses investigating the criti-
cal training context × session interaction revealed a signifi-
cant increase from pre- to post-training task performance
for both trained and non-trained participants, ps ≤ 0.001,
and the difference between conditions was significant for
neither assessment session, Fs < 1. Moreover, the difference
between training conditions on the post-training test was also
not significant after controlling for pre-training performance
differences, ANCOVA, p = 0.07. These results suggest no
reliable beneficial training effect on general IQ as measured
by the Raven test.
Discussion
The present study examined the effect of 20 sessions of
adaptive interference training, using a Stroop-like task in
both children and adults. We measured performance on the
trained task and on tasks measuring transfer effects to per-
formance on a variety of cognitive tasks. In the course of
training, both the children and adults improved performance
on the trained task, as indicated by decreasing RTs. Moreo-
ver, the trained participants from both age groups displayed
substantial evidence of beneficial transfer of the training to
a task measuring interference control using a different type

13

1528
of stimuli (words rather than pictures), relative to the par-
ticipants from an active control group. Marginal evidence
for beneficial transfer to a WM updating task was also found
for both age groups. Finally, marginal evidence for positive
transfer was obtained for the children but not adults to a
task measuring interference control using peripheral distrac-
tors, and a go/no-go task. However, all evidence of positive
transfer for the adults and/or children was restricted to a
post-training assessment that was performed immediately
after training. A follow-up assessment 3 months after the
post-training assessment did not reveal a difference between
the training conditions for any of the two age groups for any
of the transfer tasks.
The stimuli used for training were chosen to, at least
initially, automatically trigger a response due to prepotent,
‘over trained’ stimulus–response associations. The decreas-
ing RTs across training sessions suggest that the participants
gradually learned to ignore the interfering information pro-
vided by the identity of the visual stimulus and to inhibit
the incorrect prepotent response that was associated with
it, to generate the required, task-appropriate response (see
also Stahl et al. 2014, for evidence of the involvement of
both interference control and response inhibition in Stroop
tasks). Arguably, this description fits more to a conceptu-
alization of the task implicating interference control rather
than (resisting) proactive interference. This, in turn, would
implicate that the present training was not directly relevant
to the issue of the role of proactive interference in the (lack
of) success of previous WM-training studies that was dis-
cussed in the introduction. However, it is important to note
that although interference control and proactive inhibition
have been shown to be separable constructs, they are still
strongly correlated (Stahl et al., 2014). It is also noteworthy
that the pattern of decreasing RTs speaks to the task pro-
moting the learning of yet other “automatic” (“reversed”)
stimulus-key press response associations. If this were the
case, one would have expected the change in mapping of
stimuli to response keys that was introduced halfway the
training program to result in a recovery of the initial long
RTs. However, apart from a relatively small and temporary
increase in RT observed in the children from session 10 to
session 11, the continued short RTs suggest a maintained
involvement of controlled rather than automatic processes.
The standard Stroop task used as near-transfer task also
requires the participant to inhibit the prepotent response that
is triggered by the color word. Therefore, the differential
pre- to post-training performance improvement effect seen
for the Stroop task as a function of training condition sug-
gests identical processes involved in the trained and Stroop
tasks. As already partly indicated above, Stahl et al. (2014)
found Stroop task interference, expressed as RT difference
score, to be associated with other measures of interference
control and response inhibition, but not with measures of
13
Psychological Research (2019) 83:1519–1530
response interference. This suggests that what had been
learned during training, and used during the Stroop transfer
task, concerned both learning to ignore irrelevant distractors
consisting of the concrete identity of the visual or verbal
stimuli, and to suppress the prepotent response activated by
those stimuli.
Concerning the other task measuring interference con-
trol, the Flanker task, we only found marginal evidence of
transfer. Moreover, this evidence only applied to the child
sample. This more limited transfer suggests the involvement
of at least partly different processes in Stroop and Flanker
tasks. One option concerns the involvement of different
types of response-related interference. Specifically, in this
context, it may be noted that the Stroop task requires the
suppression of a prepotent response, whereas the Flanker
task implicates the simultaneous activation of two equipo-
tent responses. This difference may also be related to the dif-
ferential involvement of response inhibition in the two types
of task, with a stronger involvement in Stroop than Flanker
tasks (Stahl et al., 2014). In any case, the somewhat stronger
evidence for transfer in the children compared to adults is in
accordance with other evidence, suggesting generally larger
transfer effects for the former than latter age group (Karbach
& Unger, 2014). Moreover, it may be consistent with the
evidence of a developmental trajectory of EFs in general,
and inhibitory processes in particular, that extents well into
adolescence (e.g., Best & Miller, 2010). A process that is
still developing may show larger training-induced plasticity
than a matured one.
The involvement of response inhibition in Stroop-like
tasks may also be the source of the marginal evidence for
transfer of training benefits to go/no-go task performance
that we, again, found for the children but not the adults. In
other words, by training the Stroop-like task, the children
might also have improved their response inhibition abilities,
which marginally benefitted their performance on the go/
no-go task, a standard response inhibition task.
A notable finding was the marginal evidence that we
found in both age groups for training-mediated beneficial
effects on the WM task, suggesting common processes
involved in the training and WM tasks. One likely common
processes entails interference control (Szmalec, Verbruggen,
Kemps, & Vandierendonck, 2011). In both types of task,
target information must be protected against interference
(either proactive or otherwise) coming from simultaneously
present (in the Stroop task) or preceding (in the running
memory task) stimuli. Another common potential element
concerns goal maintenance (e.g., Kane & Engle, 2003): in
both types of task, participants must keep remembering the
“rules” of the task.
We did not find any evidence for training-induced trans-
fer effects for the switching task. Although this task may
share certain processes with the trained task, such as goal
Psychological Research (2019) 83:1519–1530 1529
maintenance and inhibitory processes, the lack of transfer
is consistent with previous studies suggesting that the task
mainly involves a separate component of executive func-
tioning compared to different types of WM and (response)
inhibition tasks (Miyake et al., 2000; Miyake & Friedman,
2012). We also failed to find transfer to performance on the
Raven tests. This failure does not seem to be due to ceiling
effects and is in accordance with the abundance of previous
cognitive training studies yielding no significant transfer to
general intelligence, at least not in non-clinical populations
(e.g., Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016).
Strengths and limitations
We used an adaptive training protocol that consisted of only
one type of task. Such approach ensures that training spe-
cifically targets one cognitive process, or a limited num-
ber of cognitive processes, and that evidence of transfer
can be ascribed to more specific cognitive processes than
would have been the case when using a battery of different
types of training tasks. We also used a relatively varied set
of assessment instruments that covered important aspects
of executive functioning. However, to measure transfer the
use of more than one task to tap a specific EF component,
thereby reducing the influence of task-specific aspects,
would have been preferred. A further strength was that the
sample sizes were relatively large. A post hoc power analy-
sis using G*Power 3 (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner,
2007) in fact revealed an achieved power of 1 − β = 0.88 to
detect a critical training condition × session interaction with
an intermediate effect size (Cohen’s d = 0.50) in a repeated
measures analysis, given a total sample size of 41 (the N
for the child sample), an α value of 0.05, two groups, and
two measurements (based on a total sample size of N = 88—
adults and children combined, the corresponding power was
even 1 − β = 1.0). However, the assumption of an intermedi-
ate effect size could be argued to be somewhat unrealistic,
especially for the far-transfer and follow-up measurements.
Reducing the to-be expected effect size by half (Cohen’s
d = 0.25) would in fact implicate an achieved power of only
0.64 (with the full sample of 88 participants). Hence, the
present study could have been underpowered, especially in
detecting far-transfer effects.
Our active control group was also used in a previous
study but might have been a bit unusual. The control task
was carefully chosen so as to equate the training and con-
trol groups on a number of important aspects: experience
with environmental factors associated with the study, being
involved in an engaging and motivating task, and believing
that one was involved in some treatment program, thereby
reducing potential differences in expectancy effects. Making
sand paintings might further be argued to involve focused
attention and the inhibition of internal and external sources
of interference. In this sense, our control group might be
argued to be more conservative compared to more traditional
control groups. However, future research should test these
speculations using a non-adaptive variant of the interference
control training in an additional control group. A final asset
of the present study is the use of Bayesian statistics in addi-
tion to the traditional null hypothesis significance testing
(NHST). These statistics enabled us to estimate the strength
of the evidence for a model assuming greater pre- to post-
training improvements for the trained compared to control
participants (alternative model). These additional analyses
revealed that, although NHST revealed significant effects,
the evidence for the alternative model was in fact very weak
for all but one of the transfer tests.
Conclusions
The present study was the first to assess training and transfer
effects of a training program that exclusively targeted inter-
ference control, using 10–12-year-old children and young
adults in a trained and an active control group. The trained
participants from both age groups improved their perfor-
mance across the 20 training sessions. More importantly,
this training benefit transferred to performance on a near-
transfer interference control task using verbal rather than
pictorial stimuli, as evaluated in comparison with the non-
trained participants. However, this beneficial transfer effect
was no longer present after 3 months. Some evidence was
obtained for training-induced benefits for participants from
both age groups regarding performance on a task measur-
ing WM updating ability. However, this evidence was only
very weak and no beneficial effects whatsoever were present
at the 3-month follow-up measurement. Specifically for the
children there was also evidence, albeit again very weak, of a
beneficial transfer effect to another interference control task
implicating the inhibition of attention to peripheral rather
than central stimuli and to a standard response inhibition
task. However, here too, there was no evidence whatsoever
for any of these training benefits to be maintained 3 months
after the training. The collective results at best suggest some
very limited potential for interference control training to
temporarily improve performance on tasks putatively involv-
ing interference control, with this potential being somewhat
stronger for children than adults. The limited transfer effects,
and the short-lived character of those effects that were found,
are in line with the general cognitive training literature that
so far failed to reveal strong evidence for the potential and
usefulness of process-based cognitive training programs to
improve non-trained and/or more general and daily-life cog-
nitive functions (Melby-Lervåg & Hulme, 2016; Shipstead,
Hicks, & Engle, 2012).
13

1530
Acknowledgements  We thank Joseph H.R. Maes for the help with
analysis and for feedback on the manuscript. This work was supported
by Grants to XZ by the National Natural Science Foundation of China
(31560283).
Compliance with ethical standards  An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 163‒203.
Conflict of interest  Author Xin Zhao declares that he has no conflict
of interest. Author Lina Jia declares that she has no conflict of interest.
Ethical statement  This study was funded by 31560283. The manuscript
does not contain clinical studies or patient data. Studies were approved
by the local ethics committee and all experimental manipulations were
performed in accordance with the approved guidelines.
Informed consent  All human participants had signed an informed
consent form. The school was contacted via the Education Bureau
of Lanzhou city and the children had their primary caretakers sign
informed consent forms.
References
Best, J. R., & Miller, P. H. (2010). A developmental perspective on execu-
tive function. Child Development, 81, 1641‒1660. https​://doi.org/1
0.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01499​.x.
Brocki, K. C., & Bohlin, G. (2004). Executive functions in children aged
6 to 13: A dimensional and developmental study. Developmental
Neuropsychology, 26, 571–593. https​://doi.org/10.1207/s1532​6942d​
n2602​_3.
Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychol-
ogy, 64, 135–168. https​://doi.org/10.1146/annur​ev-psych​-11301​
1-14375​0.
Dougherty, M. R., Hamovitz, T., & Tidwell, J. W. (2016). Reevaluating
the effectiveness of n-back training on transfer through the Bayesian
lens: Support for the null. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 23,
306–316. https​://doi.org/10.3758/s1342​3-015-0865-9.
Enge, S., Behnke, A., Fleischhauer, M., Küttler, L., Kliegel, M., & Stro-
bel, A. (2014). No evidence for true training and transfer effects
after inhibitory control training in young healthy adults. Journal
of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition, 40,
987–1001. https​://doi.org/10.1037/a0036​165.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3:
A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behav-
ioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39,
175–1191. https​://doi.org/10.3758/BF031​93146​.
Grönholm-Nyman, P., Soveri, A., Rinne, J. O., Ek, E., Nyholm, A., Neely,
S., A., & Laine, M. (2017). Limited effects of set shifting training in
healthy older adults. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, 9, 69. https​://
doi.org/10.3389/fnagi​.2017.00069​.
Jonides, J., & Nee, D. E. (2006). Brain mechanisms of proactive interfer-
ence in working memory. Journal of Neuroscience, 139, 181–193.
https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuro​scien​ce.2005.06.042.
Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2003). Working-memory capacity
and the control of attention: The contributions of goal neglect,
response competition, and task set to Stroop interference. Jour-
nal of Experimental Psychology General, 132, 47–70. https​://doi.
org/10.1037/0096-3445.132.1.47.
Karbach, J., & Kray, J. (2009). How useful is executive control train-
ing? Age differences in near and far transfer of task-switching train-
ing. Developmental Science, 12, 978‒990. https​://doi.org/10.111
1/j.1467-7687.2009.00846​.x.
Karbach, J., & Unger, K. (2014). Executive control training from middle
childhood to adolescence. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Article 390.
https​://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg​.2014.00390​.
13
Psychological Research (2019) 83:1519–1530
Loosli, S. V., Falquez, R., Unterrainer, J. M., Weiller, C., Rahm, B., &
Kaller, C. P. (2016). Training of resistance to proactive interference
and working memory in older adults: A randomized double-blind
study. International Psychogeriatrics, 28, 453–467. https​://doi.
org/10.1017/S1041​61021​50015​19.
MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect:
Melby-Lervåg, M., Redick, T. S., & Hulme, C. (2016). Working memory
training does not improve performance on measures of intelligence
or other measures of “far transfer”: Evidence from a meta-analytic
review. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11, 512–534. https​
://doi.org/10.1177/17456​91616​63561​2.
Minear, M., & Shah, P. (2008). Training and transfer effects in task
switching. Memory and Cognition, 36, 1470–1483. https​://doi.
org/10.3758/MC.336.8.1470.
Miyake, A., & Friedman, N. P. (2012). The nature and organization of
individual differences in executive functions: Four general conclu-
sions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 8‒14. https​
://doi.org/10.1177/09637​21411​42945​8.
Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter,
A., & Wager, T. D. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive
functions and their contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: A
latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 49–100. https​://
doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1999.0734.
Nigg, J. T. (2000). On inhibition/disinhibition in developmental psycho-
pathology: Views from cognitive and personality psychology and a
working inhibition taxonomy. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 220‒246.
https​://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.2.220.
Oelhafen, S., Nikolaidis, A., Padovani, T., Blaser, D., Koenig, T., & Per-
rig, W. J. (2013). Increased parietal activity after training of inter-
ference control. Neuropsychologia, 51, 2781–2790. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.neuro​psych​ologi​a.2013.08.012.
Pereg, M., Shahar, N., & Meiran, N. (2013). Task switching effects are
mediated by working-memory management. Intelligence, 41, 467–
478. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.intel​l.2013.06.009.
Raven, J., Raven, J. C., & Court, J. H. (2000). Standard progressive matri-
ces. Oxford: Psychology Press.
Raven, J. C., Court, J. H., & Raven, J. (1977). Manual for Raven’s pro-
gressive matrices and vocabulary scales. London: H. K. Lewis.
Shipstead, Z., Redick, T. S., & Engle, R. W. (2012). Is working memory
training effective? Psychological Bulletin, 138, 628‒654. https​://doi.
org/10.1037/a0027​473.
Soveri, A., Antfolk, J., Karlsson, L., Salo, B., & Laine, M. (2017). Work-
ing memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back
training studies. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 24, 1077–1096.
https​://doi.org/10.3758/s1342​3-016-1217-0.
Stahl, C., Voss, A., Schmitz, F., Nuszbaum, M., Tüscher, O., Lieb, K., &
Klauer, K. C. (2014). Behavioral components of impulsivity. Jour-
nal of Experimental Psychology General, 143, 850–886. https​://doi.
org/10.1037/a0033​981.
Szmalec, A., Verbruggen, F., Kemps, E., & Vandierendonck, A. (2011).
Control of interference during working memory updating. Journal
of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance,
37, 137–151. https​://doi.org/10.1037/a0020​365.
Thorell, L. B., Lindqvist, S., Nutley, B., Bohlin, S., G., & Klingberg,
T. (2009). Training and transfer effects of executive functions in
preschool children. Developmental Science, 12, 106–113. https​://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00745​.x.
Zhao, X., Chen, L., & Maes, J. H. R. (2016). Training and transfer effects
of response inhibition training in children and adults. Developmental
Science. https​://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12511​.
Zinke, K., Einert, M., Pfennig, L., & Kliegel, M. (2012). Plasticity of
executive control through task switching training in adolescents.
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 41. https​://doi.org/10.3389/
fnhum​.2012.00041​.
Psychological Research is a copyright of Springer, 2019. All Rights Reserved.