GoConqr has a new look! Let us know what you think.

Sign up free

Flashcards

Seminar Essay 1

mollystaveleysha English 32 cards

Cards in this deck (32)

  1. 11. What would far-transfer effects demonstrate about WM capacity?They would be expected if WM capacity is really a domain-general capacity - reflects domain-general system (Melby-Lurvag & Hulme, 2013).
  2. 22. Holmes, Gathercole and Dunning (2009) claimed brain training had effect on what?Maths scores
  3. 33. Who created brain training programme Cogmed?Klingberg et al. (2005)
  4. 44. Aim 1 of essay:Outline & evaluate research that mem processes can be aided by brain training.
  5. 55. Who claimed the term "Working Memory"?Baddeley & HItch (1974)
  6. 66. What is the concept of "working memory"?WM recognises the complex, active role of STM in maintaing info whilst other cognitive activities are conducted
  7. 77. Aim 2 of essay:Discuss research regarding far reaching benefits of brain training, and assess the claim that these effects are long lasting.
  8. 88. Reference for WM concept:Morrisson & Chein (2011)
  9. 99. What are the features of the WM model?- Central executive - regulates cog processes, supervises 2 STM storage centres
    - phonological loop (sound and lang)
    - visuospatial sketchpad
  10. 1010.What is the 'episodic buffer'?Feature of WM - interface between WM sub-systems and the LTM store.
  11. 1111. How did Klingberg, Fossberg & Westburg (2002) define WM capacity?"the ability to retain and manipulate info over a short period of time"
  12. 1212. What are 2 qualities used to describe WM capacity?1. domain-general cognitive capacity (Kane et al., 2004)
    2. "synonymous with executive attention" (Melby-Lurvag & Hulme, 2013)
  13. 1313. When was the 'episodic buffer' added to the WM model?By Baddeley in 2000.
  14. 1414. How did Melby-Lurvag & Hulme (2013) describe WM capacity?"synonymous with executive function"
  15. 1515. What does having a "higher WM capacity" mean in relation to cognitive tasks?Better performance on inhibition and distraction tasks.
  16. 1616. How did Kane et al. (2004) describe WM capacity?a domain-general cognitive capacity.
  17. 1717. Which researchers showed that low WM capacity was related to poorer performance on an "anti-saccade task?Kane et al. (2001)
  18. 1818. What is an "anti saccade task" as described in Kane et al.'s (2001) study?A task where the pp has to inhibit their eye movements towards a visual cue.
  19. 1919. What did Conway et al.'s (2001) dichotic listening task show?High WM capacity = better at inhibiting information
  20. 2020. What proposal did Klingberg (2010) put forward?- "stonger fronto-parietal connectivity = mechanism for higher WM capacity.
    - WM training acts on neural structures to dictate/maintain higher level attentional processes.
  21. 2121. Describe Klingberg et al.'s (2002) study that showed a near-transference effect of brain training.Pps were children with ADHD. Given brain training programme involving 3 WM tasks. Training enhanced performance on similar non-trained tasks compared to controls.
  22. 2222. Give 2 problems with Klingberg's (2010) neuroplasticity account.1. doesn't explicitly state how/why brain trianing would increase synaptic connectivity
    2. doesn't provide rationale for why mechanism of cogmed (repeated performance, feedback and rewards, difficulty adjusted for individual) would result in greater WM capacity.
  23. 2323. Describe Thorell et al.'s (2008) study that showed a far-transference effect.Pps pre-school aged children. Given 5 weeks training on an online visuospatial cogmed programme. Showed significant improvement on trained tasks, as well as non-trained task measuring verbal WM capacity, relative to controls.
  24. 2424. Discuss a drawback of the literature described in support of the neuroplasticity account.Klingberg, the creator of cogmed, was a named author on both studies discussed. Possible bias due to vested interests. An independently sourced research team would provide more reliable validation of brain training programmes.
  25. 2525. Outline a drawback of Thorell et al.'s (2008) study.Control group did not perform active training procedure, just a pre-and post- test. Possible that performance differences in experimental group were due to irrelevant training aspects, manifested in "expectancy effects" (Melby-Lurvag & Hulme, 2013).
  26. 2626. Outline Holmes (2009) study.Pps were 7 and 14 year olds in 15th percentile on 3 WM variables. Found that computerised game environment training led to a boost in maths scores at 6 months.
  27. 2727. What did Au et al.'s (2014) meta-analysis show?Meta-analysis of 20 studies. Linked brain training to fluid IQ. CONTROVERSIAL.
  28. 2828. Why was Au et al.'s (2014) study criticised?Lack of stringent methodology, leading to misleading findings (Melby-Lurvag & Hulme, 2015).
  29. 2929. What are the findings and implications of Melby-Lurvag and Hulme's (2013) meta analysis, with regard to far-reaching effects of brain training?- Found no significant immediate or long-lasting improvement on a variety of WM measures including non-verbal and verbal ability, stroop, arithmetic.
    - This contradicts view that brain training has far-reaching impact.
    "would undermine proposed theoretical and practical importance"
    - brain training valued because of supposed changes to neuro-plasticity. If no domain-general effects of brain training found, this theory must be questioned.
  30. 3030. What are the findings and implications of Melby-Lurvag and Hulme's (2013) meta-analysis, with regards to the long-lasting impact of brain training?- Found some immediate gains in verbal measures, especially in young children. Also in some measures of visuospatial.
    - Verbal impact not maintained at 9 months, and no conclusive evidence for long-lasting impact of visuospatial.
    - in 23 studies, not consistent/significant long-term gains in training cond compared to control.
    - This discredits Klingberg & colleagues claim that brain training has lasting impact on neural structures.
  31. 3131. "Some good science has been conducted, but much more is needed"Morrisson and Chein (2012)
  32. 3232. What did Jaeggi (2011) say about future research of brain training?- Study found improved performance by school children in fluid intelligence test was "critically dependent" on improvement during WM training. Individual diffs may contribute to outcomes, and future research should concentrate on determining the "ideal training conditions" to enable transfer effects.

Information

Description
Flashcards on Seminar Essay 1, created by mollystaveleysha on 01/11/2015.
Views
1
Rating

Feedback

What is it about?

What do you think of the new look?

How do you like it?