Figure 1
Study model illustrating the objectives of the study. (A) Investigation of individual difference factors influencing commitment to and persistence with cognitive training. (B) Examination of the impact of compliance factors on learning and engagement within the cognitive training paradigm.
Figure 2
An illustration of the types of stimuli (i.e., colors and shapes) that were presented in the Recollect n-back training paradigm. The rows represent the correct responses for hits in conditions of 1-back to 4-back.
Figure 3
The frequency of completed sessions on the cognitive training paradigm for participants who progressed to the training phase of the study is presented through a histogram and a density plot. The density plot represents the relative likelihood of the value occurring using the probability and is displayed using the smoothed curve as an estimate of the underlying distribution of the sessions completed variable (y-axis). The histogram bars display the frequency distribution of completed sessions and are color-coded based on naturally occurring groups divided into thirds: dark grey for participants who completed a ‘Few’ number of sessions, light grey for participants who completed an ‘Intermediate’ number of sessions, and white for participants who completed the ‘Most’ number of sessions.
Table 1
Cognitive training sessions completed by group.
| GROUP | n | MEAN | SD | MIN | MAX |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Few | 354 | 1.31 | 0.46 | 1 | 2 |
| Intermediate | 316 | 5.77 | 2.43 | 3 | 11 |
| Most | 353 | 18.86 | 2.41 | 12 | 20 |
| Total | 1,023 | 8.74 | 7.82 | 1 | 20 |
[i] Note: Out of the 4,775 participants that signed up for the study and completed self-reported measures, only 1,023 completed at least one training session.
Table 2
Group differences in predictors between participants that committed to training versus those that did not commit to training.
| VARIABLE | COUNT | ADVANCED TO TRAINING | EFFECT SIZE; STATISTICAL TEST | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NO | YES | TOTAL | |||
| n = 3,752 | n = 1,023 | N = 4,775 | |||
| Age | 4,622 | 48.23(18.25) | 47.38(17.36) | 48.07(18.09) | d = –0.04, 99.69% CI [–0.16, 0.06]; t(4,620) = –1.24, p = .213 |
| Matrix Reasoning | 1,877 | 50.50(19.07) | 50.69(19.38 | 50.58(19.20) | d = 0.01, 99.69% CI [–0.13, 0.15]; t(1,875) = 0.21, p = .833 |
| Working Memory | 2,793 | 0(1.29) | 0.02(1.27) | 0.01(1.28) | d = 0.01, 99.69% CI [–0.10, 0.13]; t(2,791) = 0.37, p = .709 |
| Grit | 4,522 | 26.7(5.31) | 27.26(5.11) | 26.8(5.28) | d = 0.08, 99.69% CI [0.00, 0.22]; t(4,520) = 2.85, p = .004 |
| Ambition | 4,522 | 17.19(3.95) | 17.26(3.92) | 17.2(3.95) | d = 0.01, 99.69% CI [–0.09, 0.13]; t(4,520) = 0.46, p = .649 |
| Extraversion | 4,508 | 25.28(6.41) | 24.79(6.51) | 25.18(6.43) | d = –0.06, 99.69% CI [–0.19, 0.04]; t(4,506) = –2.03, p = .043 |
| Agreeableness | 4,508 | 33.22(4.65) | 32.96(4.73) | 33.17(4.66) | d = –0.05, 99.69% CI [–0.17, 0.05]; t(4,506) = –1.52, p = .129 |
| Conscientiousness | 4,508 | 30.37(5.6) | 31.02(5.49) | 30.49(5.59) | d = 0.09, 99.69% CI [0.00, 0.23]; t(4,506) = 3.08, p = .002* |
| Emotional Stability | 4,508 | 27.25(5.82) | 27.75(5.89) | 27.34(5.84) | d = 0.07, 99.69% CI [–0.02, 0.20]; t(4,506) = 2.28, p = .022 |
| Openness | 4,508 | 31(4.83) | 31.16(4.72) | 31.03(4.81) | d = 0.03, 99.69% CI [–0.08, 0.14]; t(4,506) = 0.86, p = .391 |
| Cognitive Failures | 4,495 | 24.48(5.74) | 24.05(5.44) | 24.4(5.69) | d = –0.06, 99.69% CI [–0.19, 0.04]; t(4,493) = –2.03, p = .042 |
| SES | 4,558 | 9.59(3.35) | 9.46(3.22) | 9.56(3.33) | d = –0.03, 99.69% CI [–0.15, 0.07]; t(4,558) = –1.04, p = .299 |
| Exercise | 4,597 | 2.31(1.69) | 2.4(1.64) | 2.33(1.68) | d = 0.04, 99.69% CI [–0.06, 0.16]; t(4,595) = 1.38, p = .168 |
| Gender (Female) | 4,622 | Cramer’s V = .01, 99.69% CI [.01, .05]; χ2(1) = 0.21, p = .647 | |||
| NO | 25 % (930) | 26 % (223) | 25 % (1,153) | ||
| YES | 75 % (2,802) | 74 % (646) | 75 % (3,448) | ||
| Education (Advanced) | 3,642 | Cramer’s V = .04, 99.6% CI [.02, .09]; χ2(1) = 5.66, p = .017* | |||
| NO | 50 % (1403) | 45 % (369) | 49 % (1772) | ||
| YES | 50 % (1419) | 55 % (451) | 51 % (1870) | ||
| Education (Secondary) | 3,642 | Cramer’s V = .04, 99.69% CI [.02, .09]; χ2(1) = 6.16, p = .013* | |||
| NO | 78 % (2214) | 82 % (676) | 79 % (2890) | ||
| YES | 22 % (608) | 18 % (144) | 21 % (752) | ||
[i] Note: Means and (Standard Deviations) are presented across continuous individual difference factors investigated in the study and percentages and count statistics are reported for categorical variables. * Denotes a significant difference after Bonferroni correction after 15 comparisons. Categorical variables of Education (Advanced) were grouped by those that have a master’s, doctorate, or professional degree as the highest degree attained (YES) compared to those that do not (NO); Education (Secondary) were grouped by those that have less than high-school, high-school or GED as the highest degree attained (YES) compared to those that do not (NO).
Table 3
Logistic regression summary for predicting commitment to training by model.
| NAME | b | SE | OR | OR 95% CI | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Intercept) | –0.36 | 0.48 | 0.7 | [0.27, 1.78] | 0.452 |
| Age | 0 | 0.01 | 1 | [0.99, 1.02] | 0.592 |
| Female (YES) | –0.19 | 0.12 | 0.83 | [0.66, 1.05] | 0.117 |
| Matrix Reasoning | 0.01 | 0.01 | 1.01 | [0.99, 1.03] | 0.299 |
| n-back | –0.2 | 0.13 | 0.82 | [0.63, 1.06] | 0.133 |
| Age × Matrix Reasoning | 0 | 0 | 1 | [0.99, 1.00] | 0.236 |
| Age × n-back | 0 | 0 | 1 | [1.00, 1.01] | 0.05 |
| Observed measures model: χ2(7) = 11.83, p = .11, McFadden’s R2 = 0.01; N = 1,603 | |||||
| (Intercept) | –1.42 | 0.87 | 0.24 | [0.04, 1.34] | 0.104 |
| Age | 0 | 0.01 | 1 | [0.97, 1.03] | 0.985 |
| Female (YES) | –0.01 | 0.1 | 0.99 | [0.82, 1.21] | 0.934 |
| Grit | 0.01 | 0.01 | 1.01 | [0.98, 1.03] | 0.585 |
| Ambition | –0.02 | 0.01 | 0.98 | [0.96, 1.01] | 0.198 |
| Extraversion | –0.01 | 0.01 | 0.99 | [0.97, 1.00] | 0.038* |
| Agreeableness | –0.02 | 0.01 | 0.98 | [0.96, 0.99] | 0.011* |
| Conscientiousness | 0.01 | 0.01 | 1.01 | [0.99, 1.03] | 0.16 |
| Emotional Stability | 0.02 | 0.01 | 1.02 | [1.00, 1.03] | 0.043* |
| Openness | 0.01 | 0.01 | 1.01 | [0.99, 1.03] | 0.169 |
| Cognitive Failures | 0 | 0.02 | 1 | [0.96, 1.04] | 0.945 |
| SES | –0.01 | 0.04 | 0.99 | [0.92, 1.07] | 0.778 |
| Exercise | 0.06 | 0.07 | 1.06 | [0.92, 1.22] | 0.451 |
| Education (Secondary) | –0.32 | 0.33 | 0.73 | [0.38, 1.39] | 0.339 |
| Education (Advanced) | 0.46 | 0.29 | 1.59 | [0.91, 2.79] | 0.106 |
| Age × Cognitive Failures | 0 | 0 | 1 | [0.99, 1.00] | 0.971 |
| Age × SES | 0 | 0 | 1 | [0.99, 1.00] | 0.567 |
| Age × Exercise | 0 | 0 | 1 | [0.99, 1.00] | 0.603 |
| Age × Education (Secondary) | 0 | 0.01 | 1 | [0.99, 1.02] | 0.5 |
| Age × Education (Advanced) | –0.01 | 0.01 | 0.99 | [0.98, 1.00] | 0.259 |
| Self-report measures model: χ2(22) = 11.83, p = .11, McFadden’s R2 = 0.02; N = 3,295 | |||||
[i] Note: Unstandardized beta coefficients (b), the standard error (SE), Odds Ratio (OR), the 95% confidence intervals [lower limit, upper limit], and p-value are presented by model (i.e., first logistic regression with observed predictors on top and second logistic regression with self-report measures on the bottom. Model chi-square test, McFadden’s pseudo R2, and sample size are also presented.
Table 4
Multinomial regression summary of predictors for completed sessions by model.
| NAME | b | SE | OR | OR 95% CI | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Intercept) x Intermediate | 0.5 | 1.09 | 1.65 | [0.20, 13.85] | 0.645 |
| (Intercept) x Most | 0.06 | 1.1 | 1.06 | [0.12, 9.14] | 0.956 |
| Age x Intermediate | 0.01 | 0.02 | 1.01 | [0.97, 1.05] | 0.712 |
| Age x Most | 0.02 | 0.02 | 1.02 | [0.98, 1.06] | 0.384 |
| Matrix Reasoning x Intermediate | 0.01 | 0.02 | 1.01 | [0.97, 1.05] | 0.505 |
| Matrix Reasoning x Most | 0.01 | 0.02 | 1.01 | [0.97, 1.05] | 0.622 |
| n-back x Intermediate | –0.34 | 0.3 | 0.71 | [0.39, 1.29] | 0.259 |
| n-back x Most | –0.19 | 0.31 | 0.83 | [0.45, 1.51] | 0.535 |
| Female x Intermediate | 0.03 | 0.28 | 1.03 | [0.59, 1.79] | 0.916 |
| Female x Most | –0.29 | 0.27 | 0.75 | [0.44, 1.27] | 0.278 |
| Age x Matrix Reasoning x Intermediate | 0 | 0 | 1 | [0.97, 1.05] | 0.554 |
| Age x Matrix Reasoning x Most | 0 | 0 | 1 | [0.98, 1.06] | 0.982 |
| Age x n-back x Intermediate | 0 | 0.01 | 1 | [0.97, 1.05] | 0.518 |
| Age x n-back x Most | 0 | 0.01 | 1 | [0.98, 1.06] | 0.5 |
| Observed measures model: χ2(16) = 28.24, p = .013, McFadden’s pseudo R2 = 0.02; N = 674 | |||||
| (Intercept) x Intermediate | –2.69 | 2.03 | 0.07 | [0.001, 3.61] | 0.184 |
| (Intercept) x Most | 1.22 | 2.03 | 3.39 | [0.06, 181.30] | 0.548 |
| Age x Intermediate | 0.04 | 0.03 | 1.04 | [0.98, 1.12] | 0.212 |
| Age x Most | 0 | 0.03 | 1 | [0.93, 1.06] | 0.899 |
| Grit x Intermediate | 0.01 | 0.03 | 1.01 | [0.96, 1.06] | 0.769 |
| Grit x Most | 0 | 0.03 | 1 | [0.95, 1.05] | 0.999 |
| Ambition x Intermediate | 0.02 | 0.03 | 1.02 | [0.96, 1.08] | 0.566 |
| Ambition x Most | –0.03 | 0.03 | 0.97 | [0.92, 1.03] | 0.338 |
| Extraversion x Intermediate | –0.03 | 0.02 | 0.97 | [0.95, 1.00] | 0.098 |
| Extraversion x Most | –0.03 | 0.01 | 0.97 | [0.94, 1.00] | 0.032* |
| Agreeableness x Intermediate | 0.03 | 0.02 | 1.03 | [0.99, 1.08] | 0.119 |
| Agreeableness x Most | 0.01 | 0.02 | 1.01 | [0.97, 1.05] | 0.584 |
| Emotional Stability x Intermediate | 0 | 0.02 | 1 | [0.97, 1.04] | 0.791 |
| Emotional Stability x Most | 0.01 | 0.02 | 1.01 | [0.97, 1.04] | 0.671 |
| Openness x Intermediate | –0.05 | 0.02 | 0.95 | [0.91, 0.99] | 0.021* |
| Openness x Most | –0.01 | 0.02 | 0.99 | [0.95, 1.03] | 0.491 |
| Conscientiousness x Intermediate | 0.04 | 0.02 | 1.04 | [1.00, 1.09] | 0.072 |
| Conscientiousness x Most | 0.02 | 0.02 | 1.02 | [0.98, 1.07] | 0.279 |
| Cognitive Failures x Intermediate | 0 | 0.05 | 1 | [0.91, 1.11] | 0.92 |
| Cognitive Failures x Most | –0.14 | 0.05 | 0.87 | [0.79, 0.96] | 0.008* |
| SES x Intermediate | 0.07 | 0.09 | 1.07 | [0.89, 1.29] | 0.448 |
| SES x Most | 0.08 | 0.1 | 1.08 | [0.89, 1.31] | 0.417 |
| Exercise x Intermediate | 0.23 | 0.17 | 1.26 | [0.90, 1.76] | 0.171 |
| Exercise x Most | 0.15 | 0.17 | 1.16 | [0.83, 1.63] | 0.389 |
| Education (Secondary) x Intermediate | 1.06 | 0.74 | 2.89 | [0.68, 12.24] | 0.149 |
| Education (Secondary) x Most | 1.47 | 0.81 | 4.33 | [0.89, 21.02] | 0.069 |
| Education (Advanced) x Intermediate | 0.55 | 0.64 | 1.74 | [0.49, 6.11] | 0.391 |
| Education (Advanced) x Most | 1.46 | 0.67 | 4.32 | [1.16, 16.12] | 0.029* |
| Age x Cognitive Failures x Intermediate | 0 | 0 | 1 | [0.98, 1.12] | 0.952 |
| Age x Cognitive Failures x Most | 0 | 0 | 1 | [0.93, 1.06] | 0.017* |
| Age x SES x Intermediate | 0 | 0 | 1 | [0.98, 1.12] | 0.498 |
| Age x SES x Most | 0 | 0 | 1 | [0.93, 1.06] | 0.296 |
| Age x Exercise x Intermediate | –0.01 | 0 | 0.99 | [0.98, 1.12] | 0.092 |
| Age x Exercise x Most | 0 | 0 | 1 | [0.93, 1.06] | 0.572 |
| Age x Education (Secondary) x Intermediate | –0.03 | 0.02 | 0.97 | [0.95, 1.12] | 0.092 |
| Age x Education (Secondary) x Most | –0.03 | 0.02 | 0.97 | [0.93, 1.07] | 0.038* |
| Age x Education (Advanced) x Intermediate | –0.02 | 0.01 | 0.98 | [0.96, 1.12] | 0.208 |
| Age x Education (Advanced) x Most | –0.03 | 0.01 | 0.97 | [0.93, 1.06] | 0.028* |
| Self-report measures model: χ2(24) = 61.93, p = .004, McFadden’s pseudo R2 = 0.04; N = 755 | |||||
[i] Note: Unstandardized beta coefficients (b), the standard error (SE), Odds Ratio (OR), the 95% confidence intervals [lower limit, upper limit], and p-value are presented by model (i.e., first logistic regression with observed predictors on top and second logistic regression with self-report measures on the bottom. Model chi-square test, McFadden’s pseudo R2, and sample size are also presented. Socioeconomic Status (SES).
Table 5
Logistic regression summary of predictors for most completed sessions by model.
| NAME | b | SE | OR | OR 95% CI | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Intercept) | –0.32 | 1.34 | 0.72 | [0.05, 10.20] | 0.81 |
| Age | 0.02 | 0.03 | 1.03 | [0.98, 1.08] | 0.33 |
| Female (YES) | 0.05 | 0.31 | 1.05 | [0.57, 1.91] | 0.865 |
| Matrix Reasoning | 0.01 | 0.02 | 1.01 | [0.96, 1.06] | 0.737 |
| n-back | 0.06 | 0.34 | 1.06 | [0.55, 2.08] | 0.853 |
| Age x Matrix Reasoning | 0 | 0 | 1 | [0.99, 1.00] | 0.998 |
| Age x n-back | 0 | 0.01 | 1 | [0.99, 1.01] | 0.935 |
| Observed measures model: χ2(6) = 8.74, p = .189, McFadden’s pseudo R2 = 0.03; N = 318 | |||||
| (Intercept) | 6.26 | 3.69 | 525.54 | [0.41, 867756.75] | 0.09 |
| Age | –0.04 | 0.06 | 0.96 | [0.85, 1.08] | 0.485 |
| Grit | 0.04 | 0.05 | 1.04 | [0.95, 1.15] | 0.37 |
| Ambition | –0.04 | 0.05 | 0.96 | [0.87, 1.06] | 0.433 |
| Extraversion | –0.03 | 0.03 | 0.97 | [0.92, 1.02] | 0.223 |
| Agreeableness | –0.03 | 0.04 | 0.97 | [0.90, 1.04] | 0.378 |
| Conscientiousness | 0.02 | 0.04 | 1.02 | [0.95, 1.10] | 0.582 |
| Neurotic | –0.02 | 0.03 | 0.98 | [0.92, 1.04] | 0.554 |
| Openness | –0.02 | 0.04 | 0.98 | [0.91, 1.05] | 0.63 |
| Cognitive Failures | –0.06 | 0.09 | 0.94 | [0.79, 1.12] | 0.477 |
| SES | –0.14 | 0.15 | 0.87 | [0.65, 1.18] | 0.362 |
| Exercise | –0.04 | 0.29 | 0.96 | [0.54, 1.69] | 0.877 |
| Education (Secondary) | 0.21 | 1.45 | 1.24 | [0.07, 21.62] | 0.883 |
| Education (Advanced) | –2.01 | 1.2 | 0.13 | [0.01, 1.31] | 0.095 |
| Age x Cognitive Failures | 0 | 0 | 1 | [1.00, 1.00] | 0.866 |
| Age x SES | 0 | 0 | 1 | [1.00, 1.01] | 0.269 |
| Age x Exercise | 0 | 0.01 | 1 | [0.99, 1.01] | 0.709 |
| Age x Education (Secondary) | –0.02 | 0.03 | 0.98 | [0.93, 1.04] | 0.548 |
| Age x Education (Advanced) | 0.04 | 0.02 | 1.04 | [0.99, 1.09] | 0.112 |
| Self-report measures model: χ2(18) = 26.02, p = .099, McFadden’s pseudo R2 = 0.13; N = 309 | |||||
[i] Note: Unstandardized beta coefficients (b), the standard error (SE), Odds Ratio (OR), the 95% confidence intervals [lower limit, upper limit], and p-value are presented by model (i.e., first logistic regression with observed predictors on top and second logistic regression with self-report measures on the bottom. Model chi-square test, McFadden’s pseudo R2, and sample size are also presented.
Figure 4
Aggregated performance trajectory across the entire sample (N = 263). Means and standard errors for each training session’s n-back level are illustrated.
Figure 5
Statistical models of latent growth curve models are divided into two aspects: spacing (A; left) and consistency (B; right) in engagement with the working memory paradigm. The left-most rectangles in each model represent the model predictors, which were used to investigate their relationship with learning curve attributes, including the intercept, slope, and log base 2 portions of the logarithmic curve. The rightmost squares represent performance across sessions 1 through 20, which contribute to the latent variable curve attributes.