Training and transfer effects of response inhibition training with online feedback on adolescents and adults’ executive function

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2020.01212

Abstract

Abstract:

The plasticity of executive function (EF) has been discussed as a core topic in the recent cognitive development research. However, inhibition training research remains inadequate. According to dimensional overlap theory, inhibition has two types: interference and response. The neural networks of the brain that respond to conflicts do not mature until early adulthood. By conducting a comparison of the plasticity of response inhibition between adolescents and adults, the applicable age group for response inhibition training is explored. Introducing online feedback as reinforcement improves the training effects and helps individuals to balance further accuracy and speed. Therefore, we added online feedback in the training groups but used the original Stop Signal task in the active control groups to investigate the training and transfer effects of this task with online feedback.

This study included 194 participants (134 adults and 60 adolescents) that were divided into five groups: adult training group (N = 47), adult active control group (N = 45), adolescent training group (N = 30), adolescent active control group (N = 30), and passive control group (N = 42). The response inhibition training consisted of nine sessions, and it was held three times a week. In each training session of the adult and adolescent training groups, participants were guided to finish eight blocks (100 trials in each block) of the Stop Signal task with online feedback. In the adult and adolescent active control groups, participants completed the same amount of the Stop Signal task without online feedback. The passive control group received no training. The participants’ inhibition, working memory, and fluid intelligence were measured before and after training through six tasks (e.g., Inhibition: Stop Signal Task, Go/No-go Task, and Stroop Task; Working memory: 2-back Task and 3-back Task; and Fluid intelligence: Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices).

A 9 (all training sessions) × 2 (training group, active control group) × 2 (adult, adolescent) repeated measure ANOVA was used to test the training effects. Both age groups exhibited improved performances with the continuation of the training sessions. However, the adults performed significantly faster and more accurate than the adolescents. Next, four 2 (pretest, posttest) × 5 (all five groups) repeated measure ANOVA were conducted to test the transfer effects. The transfer effect results revealed that (1) on the Go/No-go task, both training groups showed significant improvement; (2) on the Stroop task, only the adolescent training group showed significant improvement; (3) on the 2-back task, both training groups and the adult active control group improved significantly; (4) on the 3-back task, only the adolescent training group gained significant transfer effects; and (5) on the Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices, no group showed significant improvement.

To sum up, the results suggest that the Stop Signal training task with online feedback has produced training effects on both age groups, and the transfer effects are influenced by the age difference of cognitive plasticity and the nature of the task. Thus, adding online feedback to computerized training can effectively improve the training and the transfer effects. Finally, inhibition training has a more formative effect on the pre-adult age.

Key words: response inhibition training, executive function, adolescents, online feedback

WANG Yuan, LI Ke, GAI Xiaosong, CAO Yifei. (2020). Training and transfer effects of response inhibition training with online feedback on adolescents and adults’ executive function. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 52(10), 1212-1223.

Figures/Tables 5

References 64

[1]	Ambrosi, S., Lemaire, P., & Blaye, A. (2016). Do young children modulate their cognitive control? Sequential congruency effects across three conflict tasks in 5-to-6 year-olds. Experimental Psychology, 63(2), 117-126. doi: 10.1027/1618-3169/a000320 URL pmid: 27221602
[2]	Ambrosi, S., Servant, M., Blaye, A., & Burle, B. (2019). Conflict processing in kindergarten children: New evidence from distribution analyses reveals the dynamics of incorrect response activation and suppression. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 177(1), 36-52. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2018.06.006 URL
[3]	Anderson, P. (2002). Assessment and development of executive function (EF) during childhood. Child Neuropsychology, 8(2), 71-82. doi: 10.1076/chin.8.2.71.8724 URL pmid: 12638061
[4]	Anderson, V. A., Anderson, P., Northam, E., Jacobs, R., & Catroppa, C. (2001). Development of executive functions through late childhood and adolescence in an Australian sample. Developmental Neuropsychology, 20(1), 385-406. doi: 10.1207/S15326942DN2001_5 URL pmid: 11827095
[5]	Bellaj, T., Salhi, I., le Gall, D., & Roy, A. (2015). Development of executive functioning in school-age Tunisian children. Child Neuropsychology, 22(8), 1-36. doi: 10.1080/09297049.2014.969694 URL
[6]	Best, J. R., & Miller, P. H. (2010). A developmental perspective on executive function. Child Development, 81(6), 1641-1660. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01499.x URL pmid: 21077853
[7]	Boehler, C. N., Appelbaum, L. G., Krebs, R. M., Hopf, J. M., & Woldorff, M. G. (2012). The influence of different stop-signal response time estimation procedures on behavior-behavior and brain-behavior correlations. Behavioural Brain Research, 229(1), 123-130. doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2012.01.003 URL
[8]	Boot, W. R., Kramer, A. F., Simons, D. J., Fabiani, M., & Gratton, G. (2008). The effects of video game playing on attention, memory, and executive control. Acta Psychologica, 129(3), 387-398. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2008.09.005 URL pmid: 18929349
[9]	Brodeur, D. A., & Pond, M. (2001). The development of selective attention in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 29(3), 229-239. doi: 10.1023/A:1010381731658 URL
[10]	Conway, A. R. A., Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2003). Working memory capacity and its relation to general intelligence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(12), 547-552. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2003.10.005 URL pmid: 14643371
[11]	Dahlin, K. I. E. (2013). Working memory training and the effect on mathematical achievement in children with attention deficits and special needs. Journal of Education & Learning, 2(1), 118-133.
[12]	de Jong, R., Coles, M. G. H., & Logan, G. D. (1995). Strategies and mechanisms in nonselective and selective inhibitory motor control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21(3), 498-511. doi: 10.1037//0096-1523.21.3.498 URL pmid: 7790830
[13]	Denckla, M. B.(1996). A theory and model of executive function: A neuropsychological perspective Baltimore, MD, US: Paul H Brookes Publishing, 263-278.
[14]	Diamond, A.(1985). Development of the ability to use recall to guide action, as indicated by infants’ performance on ab?. Child Development, 56(4), 868-883. URL pmid: 4042750
[15]	Diamond, A.(1996). Evidence for the importance of dopamine for prefrontal cortex functions early in life. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 351(1346), 1483-1494. doi: 10.1098/rstb.1996.0134 URL
[16]	Diamond, A.(2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64(1), 135-168. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750 URL
[17]	Diamond, A., & Lee, K. (2011). Interventions shown to aid executive function development in children 4 to 12 years old. Science, 333(6045), 959-964. doi: 10.1126/science.1204529 URL pmid: 21852486
[18]	Diamond, A., & Ling, D. S. (2015). Conclusions about interventions, programs, and approaches for improving executive functions that appear justified and those that, despite much hype, do not. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(4), 34-48. doi: 10.1016/j.dcn.2015.11.005 URL
[19]	Dowsett, S. M., & Livesey, D. J. (2015). The development of inhibitory control in preschool children: Effects of "executive skills" training. Developmental Psychobiology, 36(2), 161-174. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1098-2302(200003)36:2<161::aid-dev7>3.0.co;2-0 URL pmid: 10689286
[20]	Enge, S., Behnke, A., Fleischhauer, M., Küttler, L., Kliegel, M., & Strobel, 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(4), 987-1001. doi: 10.1037/a0036165 URL
[21]	Eriksen, B. A., & Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception & Psychophysics, 16(1), 143-149.
[22]	Friedman, N. P., & Miyake, A. (2004). The relations among inhibition and interference control functions: A latent- variable analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133(1), 101-135. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.133.1.101 URL
[23]	Gaultney, J. F., Bjorklund, D. F., & Goldstein, D. (1996). To be young, gifted, and strategic: Advantages for memory performance. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 61(1), 43-66. doi: 10.1006/jecp.1996.0002 URL
[24]	Gray, J. R., Chabris, C. F., & Braver, T. S. (2003). Neural mechanisms of general fluid intelligence. Nature Neuroscience, 6(3), 316-322. doi: 10.1038/nn1014 URL pmid: 12592404
[25]	Guerrieri, R., Nederkoorn, C., & Jansen, A. (2008). The interaction between impulsivity and a varied food environment: Its influence on food intake and overweight. International journal of obesity, 32(4), 708-714. doi: 10.1038/sj.ijo.0803770 URL pmid: 18059403
[26]	Hare, T. A.,& Casey, B. J. (2005). The neurobiology and development of cognitive and affective control. Brain, IX(3), 273-286.
[27]	Jaeggi, S. M., Buschkuehl, M., Jonides, J., & Perrig, W. J. (2008). Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(19), 6829-6833. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0801268105 URL
[28]	Ji, Y., Wang, J., Chen, T., Du, X., & Zhan, Y. (2016). Plasticity of inhibitory processes and associated far-transfer effects in older adults. Psychology & Aging, 31(5), 415-429. doi: 10.1037/pag0000102 URL pmid: 27243762
[29]	Johnstone, S. J., Dimoska, A., Smith, J. L., Barry, R., Pleffer, C. B., Chiswick, D., & Clarke, A. R. (2007). The development of stop-signal and Go/Nogo response inhibition in children aged 7-12 years: Performance and event-related potential indices. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 63(1), 25-38. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2006.07.001 URL pmid: 16919346
[30]	Jongen, E. M. M., & Jonkman, L. M. (2008). The developmental pattern of stimulus and response interference in a color-object Stroop task: An ERP study. BMC Neuroscience, 9(1), 1-24. doi: 10.1186/1471-2202-9-1 URL
[31]	Karatekin, C.(2004). Development of attentional allocation in the dual task paradigm. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 52(1), 7-21. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2003.12.002 URL pmid: 15003369
[32]	Karatekin, J., & Kray, J. (2010). How useful is executive control training? Age differences in near and far transfer of task-switching training. Developmental Science, 12(6), 978-990. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2009.00846.x URL pmid: 19840052
[33]	Kohls, G., Peltzer, J., Herpertz-dahlmann, B., & Konrad, K. (2010). Differential effects of social and non-social reward on response inhibition in children and adolescents. Developmental Science, 12(4), 614-625. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2009.00816.x URL pmid: 19635087
[34]	Kornblum, S. (1992). Dimensional overlap and dimensional relevance in stimulus-response and stimulus-stimulus compatibility. In G. E. Stelmach & J. Requin (Eds.), Tutorials in motor behavior(Vol. 2, pp. 743-777). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
[35]	Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility--a model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97(2), 253-270. doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.97.2.253 URL pmid: 2186425
[36]	Kornblum, S., Stevens, G. T., Whipple, A., & Requin, J. (1999). The effects of irrelevant stimuli: The time course of stimulus-stimulus and stimulus-response consistency effects with Stroop-like stimuli, Simon-like tasks, and their factorial combinations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25(3), 688-714. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.25.3.688 URL
[37]	Leotti, L.A., & Wager, T. D. (2010). Motivational influences on response inhibition measures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36(2), 430-447. doi: 10.1037/a0016802 URL pmid: 20364928
[38]	Littman, K. L. (2015). Reinforcement learning improves behaviour from evaluative feedback. Nature, 521(7553), 445-451. doi: 10.1038/nature14540 URL pmid: 26017443
[39]	Liu, X. Y., Liu, T. R., Shangguan, F. F., Sørensen, T. A., Liu, Q., & Shi, J. (2018). Neurodevelopment of conflict adaptation: Evidence from event-related potentials. Developmental Psychology, 54(7), 1347-1362. doi: 10.1037/dev0000524 URL pmid: 29756794
[40]	Logan, G. D., & Cowan, W. B. (1984). On the ability to inhibit thought and action: A theory of an act of control. Psychological Review, 91(3), 295-327. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.91.3.295 URL
[41]	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(3), 453-467. doi: 10.1017/S1041610215001519 URL pmid: 26478277
[42]	Maraver, M. J., Bajo, M. T., & Gomez-Ariza, C. J. (2016). Training on working memory and inhibitory control in young adults. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10(11), 1-18.
[43]	Melanko, S., & Larkin, K. T. (2013). Preference for immediate reinforcement over delayed reinforcement: Relation between delay discounting and health behavior. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 36(1), 34-43. doi: 10.1007/s10865-012-9399-z URL pmid: 22311103
[44]	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(4), 512-534. doi: 10.1177/1745691616635612 URL pmid: 27474138
[45]	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(1), 49-100. doi: 10.1006/cogp.1999.0734 URL pmid: 10945922
[46]	Mnih, V., Kavukcuoglu, K., Silver, D., Rusu, A. A., Veness, J., Bellemare, M., … Hassabis, D. (2015). Human-level control through deep reinforcement learning. Nature, 518(7540), 529-533. doi: 10.1038/nature14236 URL pmid: 25719670
[47]	Moffitt, T. E., Arseneault, L., Belsky, D., Dickson, N., Hancox, R. J., Harrington, H., … Caspi, A. (2011). A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth, and public safety. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(7), 2693-2698. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1010076108 URL
[48]	Monk, C. S., Mcclure, E. B., Nelson, E. E., Zarahn, E., Bilder, R. M., Leibenluft, E., … Pin, D. S. (2003). Adolescent immaturity in attention-related brain engagement to emotional facial expressions. Neuroimage, 20(1), 420-428. doi: 10.1016/s1053-8119(03)00355-0 URL pmid: 14527602
[49]	Morrison, A. B., & Chein, J. M. (2011). Does working memory training work? the promise and challenges of enhancing cognition by training working memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18(1), 46-60. doi: 10.3758/s13423-010-0034-0 URL pmid: 21327348
[50]	Nee, D. E., Wager, T. D., & Jonides, J. (2007). Interference resolution: Insights from a meta-analysis of neuroimaging tasks. Cognitive, Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, 7(1), 1-17. doi: 10.3758/cabn.7.1.1 URL pmid: 17598730
[51]	Raven, J., Raven, J. C., & Court, J. H. (2000) Standard progressive matrices. Oxford: Psychology Press.
[52]	Rueda, M. R., Rothbart, M. K., Mccandliss, B. D., Saccomanno, L., & Posner, M. I. (2005). Training, maturation, and genetic influences on the development of executive attention. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(41), 14931-14936. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0506897102 URL
[53]	Shilling, V. M., Chetwynd, A., & Rabbitt, P. M. A. (2002). Individual inconsistency across measures of inhibition: An investigation of the construct validity of inhibition in older adults. Neuropsychologia, 40(6), 605-619. doi: 10.1016/s0028-3932(01)00157-9 URL pmid: 11792402
[54]	Spierer, L., Chavan, C. F., & Manuel, A. L. (2013). Training- induced behavioral and brain plasticity in inhibitory control. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 427. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00427 URL pmid: 23914169
[55]	Strobach, T., Salminen, T., Karbach, J., & Schubert, T. (2014). Practice-related optimization and transfer of executive functions: A general review and a specific realization of their mechanisms in dual tasks. Psychological Research, 78(6), 836-851. doi: 10.1007/s00426-014-0563-7 URL pmid: 24668506
[56]	Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 18(6), 643-662.
[57]	Thorell, L. B., Lindqvist, S., Nutley, S. B., Bohlin, G., & Klingberg, T. (2009). Training and transfer effects of executive functions in preschool children. Developmental Science, 12(1), 106-113. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00745.x URL pmid: 19120418
[58]	van Boxtel, G. J. M., van der Molen, M. W., Jennings, J. R., & Brunia, C. H. M. (2001). A psychophysiological analysis of inhibitory motor control in the stop-signal paradigm. Biological Psychology, 58(3), 229-262. doi: 10.1016/s0301-0511(01)00117-x URL pmid: 11698116
[59]	Verbruggen, F., Liefooghe, B., & Vandierendonck, A. (2004). The interaction between stop signal inhibition and distractor interference in the flanker and stroop task. Acta Psychologica, 116(1), 21-37. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2003.12.011 URL pmid: 15111228
[60]	Verbruggen, F., & Logan, G. D. (2008). Automatic and controlled response inhibition: Associative learning in the go/no-go and stop-signal paradigms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137(4), 649-672. doi: 10.1037/a0013170 URL
[61]	Wilkinson, A. J., & Yang, L. X. (2012). Plasticity of inhibition in older adults: Retest practice and transfer effects. Psychology and Aging, 27(3), 606-615. doi: 10.1037/a0025926 URL pmid: 22182362
[62]	Williams, B. R. G., Ponesse, J. S., Schachar, R. J., Logan, G. D., & Tannock, R. (1999). Development of inhibitory control across the life span. Developmental Psychology, 35(1), 205-213. doi: 10.1037//0012-1649.35.1.205 URL pmid: 9923475
[63]	Zhao, X., Chen, L., & Maes, J. H. R. (2018). Training and transfer effects of response inhibition training in children and adults. Developmental Science, 21(1), e12511. doi: 10.1111/desc.12511 URL
[64]	Zhao, X., & Jia, L. (2019). Training and transfer effects of interference control training in children and young adults. Psychological Research, 83(7), 1519-1530. doi: 10.1007/s00426-018-1007-6 URL pmid: 29691649

Days of training	Adult training Group		Adult active control group		Experimental group for adolescents		Youth active group
Days of training	SSRT (MS)	Accuracy (%)	SSRT (MS)	Accuracy (%)	SSRT (MS)	Accuracy (%)	SSRT (MS)	Accuracy (%)
D1	156.09 (30.00)	0.58 (0.08)	156.88 (29.35)	0.58 (0.07)	161.28 (24.51)	0.53 (0.06)	166.35 (23.49)	0.51 (0.07)
D2	146.40 (24.64)	0.62 (0.10)	145.50 (26.40)	0.63 (0.09)	158.78 (20.38)	0.55 (0.08)	163.32 (17.41)	0.52 (0.06)
D3	140.15 (23.16)	0.66 (0.11)	136.39 (20.08)	0.64 (0.10)	156.75 (10.49)	0.59 (0.08)	162.76 (20.90)	0.53 (0.07)
D4	134.66 (20.17)	0.67 (0.13)	133.41 (19.71)	0.67 (0.10)	150.52 (22.73)	0.65 (0.07)	158.45 (22.29)	0.52 (0.07)
D5	126.56 (19.21)	0.69 (0.10)	130.40 (19.36)	0.67 (0.10)	142.43 (17.80)	0.76 (0.09)	160.78 (19.99)	0.55 (0.08)
D6	123.12 (16.30)	0.72 (0.10)	132.49 (19.03)	0.64 (0.09)	141.25 (22.66)	0.74 (0.09)	155.28 (21.63)	0.59 (0.09)
D7	119.79 (21.32)	0.73 (0.10)	126.86 (25.74)	0.65 (0.09)	140.56 (25.29)	0.77 (0.09)	160.55 (19.88)	0.61 (0.07)
D8	116.74 (16.12)	0.75 (0.10)	122.79 (23.14)	0.66 (0.11)	134.10 (25.97)	0.78 (0.06)	162.68 (17.82)	0.57 (0.08)
D9	109.49 (20.65)	0.78 (0.10)	124.24 (19.66)	0.65 (0.11)	125.94 (24.90)	0.82 (0.08)	162.94 (19.15)	0.54 (0.08)

Days of training	Adult training Group		Adult active control group		Experimental group for adolescents		Youth active group
Days of training	SSRT (MS)	Accuracy (%)	SSRT (MS)	Accuracy (%)	SSRT (MS)	Accuracy (%)	SSRT (MS)	Accuracy (%)
D1	156.09 (30.00)	0.58 (0.08)	156.88 (29.35)	0.58 (0.07)	161.28 (24.51)	0.53 (0.06)	166.35 (23.49)	0.51 (0.07)
D2	146.40 (24.64)	0.62 (0.10)	145.50 (26.40)	0.63 (0.09)	158.78 (20.38)	0.55 (0.08)	163.32 (17.41)	0.52 (0.06)
D3	140.15 (23.16)	0.66 (0.11)	136.39 (20.08)	0.64 (0.10)	156.75 (10.49)	0.59 (0.08)	162.76 (20.90)	0.53 (0.07)
D4	134.66 (20.17)	0.67 (0.13)	133.41 (19.71)	0.67 (0.10)	150.52 (22.73)	0.65 (0.07)	158.45 (22.29)	0.52 (0.07)
D5	126.56 (19.21)	0.69 (0.10)	130.40 (19.36)	0.67 (0.10)	142.43 (17.80)	0.76 (0.09)	160.78 (19.99)	0.55 (0.08)
D6	123.12 (16.30)	0.72 (0.10)	132.49 (19.03)	0.64 (0.09)	141.25 (22.66)	0.74 (0.09)	155.28 (21.63)	0.59 (0.09)
D7	119.79 (21.32)	0.73 (0.10)	126.86 (25.74)	0.65 (0.09)	140.56 (25.29)	0.77 (0.09)	160.55 (19.88)	0.61 (0.07)
D8	116.74 (16.12)	0.75 (0.10)	122.79 (23.14)	0.66 (0.11)	134.10 (25.97)	0.78 (0.06)	162.68 (17.82)	0.57 (0.08)
D9	109.49 (20.65)	0.78 (0.10)	124.24 (19.66)	0.65 (0.11)	125.94 (24.90)	0.82 (0.08)	162.94 (19.15)	0.54 (0.08)

Tasks and targets	Measuring time point	Adult training group	Adult active control group	Adolescent training group	Adolescent active control group	Negative control group
Go/No-go reaction time	Pretest	340.33 (19.49)	341.51 (41.78)	348.60 (36.95)	349.92 (52.99)	340.44 (26.82)
Go/No-go reaction time	Posttest	316.94 (26.35)	337.39 (37.57)	323.91 (49.64)	337.23 (39.88)	338.43 (26.95)
Go/No-go accuracy	Pretest	0.89 (0.07)	0.85 (0.11)	0.79 (0.11)	0.77 (0.09)	0.87 (0.11)
Go/No-go accuracy	Posttest	0.97 (0.02)	0.87 (0.09)	0.92 (0.44)	0.80 (0.05)	0.88 (0.11)
Go/No-go d′	Pretest	0.83 (0.15)	0.84 (0.14)	0.75 (0.12)	0.73 (0.08)	0.83 (0.06)
Go/No-go d′	Posttest	0.91 (0.06)	0.86 (0.11)	0.87 (0.05)	0.77 (0.06)	0.81 (0.04)
Stroop effect	Pretest	32.83 (24.06)	32.54 (26.10)	65.16 (28.95)	69.07 (24.65)	33.42 (28.13)
Stroop effect	Posttest	30.04 (28.99)	34.50 (33.25)	44.81 (19.08)	66.54 (23.40)	32.01 (27.33)
2-Back accuracy	Pretest	0.71 (0.06)	0.71 (0.06)	0.63 (0.05)	0.61 (0.04)	0.71 (0.03)
2-Back accuracy	Posttest	0.73 (0.05)	0.75 (0.05)	0.77 (0.04)	0.63 (0.04)	0.72 (0.06)
3-Back accuracy	Pretest	0.61 (0.07)	0.63 (0.08)	0.53 (0.04)	0.52 (0.05)	0.63 (0.03)
3-Back accuracy	Posttest	0.64 (0.05)	0.65 (0.06)	0.59 (0.04)	0.55 (0.04)	0.64 (0.03)
Raven’s reasoning test accuracy	Pretest	0.80 (0.11)	0.83 (0.10)	0.82 (0.10)	0.85 (0.09)	0.78 (0.11)
Raven’s reasoning test accuracy	Posttest	0.80 (0.11)	0.81 (0.10)	0.79 (0.09)	0.79 (0.10)	0.79 (0.10)

Tasks and targets	Measuring time point	Adult training group	Adult active control group	Adolescent training group	Adolescent active control group	Negative control group
Go/No-go reaction time	Pretest	340.33 (19.49)	341.51 (41.78)	348.60 (36.95)	349.92 (52.99)	340.44 (26.82)
Go/No-go reaction time	Posttest	316.94 (26.35)	337.39 (37.57)	323.91 (49.64)	337.23 (39.88)	338.43 (26.95)
Go/No-go accuracy	Pretest	0.89 (0.07)	0.85 (0.11)	0.79 (0.11)	0.77 (0.09)	0.87 (0.11)
Go/No-go accuracy	Posttest	0.97 (0.02)	0.87 (0.09)	0.92 (0.44)	0.80 (0.05)	0.88 (0.11)
Go/No-go d′	Pretest	0.83 (0.15)	0.84 (0.14)	0.75 (0.12)	0.73 (0.08)	0.83 (0.06)
Go/No-go d′	Posttest	0.91 (0.06)	0.86 (0.11)	0.87 (0.05)	0.77 (0.06)	0.81 (0.04)
Stroop effect	Pretest	32.83 (24.06)	32.54 (26.10)	65.16 (28.95)	69.07 (24.65)	33.42 (28.13)
Stroop effect	Posttest	30.04 (28.99)	34.50 (33.25)	44.81 (19.08)	66.54 (23.40)	32.01 (27.33)
2-Back accuracy	Pretest	0.71 (0.06)	0.71 (0.06)	0.63 (0.05)	0.61 (0.04)	0.71 (0.03)
2-Back accuracy	Posttest	0.73 (0.05)	0.75 (0.05)	0.77 (0.04)	0.63 (0.04)	0.72 (0.06)
3-Back accuracy	Pretest	0.61 (0.07)	0.63 (0.08)	0.53 (0.04)	0.52 (0.05)	0.63 (0.03)
3-Back accuracy	Posttest	0.64 (0.05)	0.65 (0.06)	0.59 (0.04)	0.55 (0.04)	0.64 (0.03)
Raven’s reasoning test accuracy	Pretest	0.80 (0.11)	0.83 (0.10)	0.82 (0.10)	0.85 (0.09)	0.78 (0.11)
Raven’s reasoning test accuracy	Posttest	0.80 (0.11)	0.81 (0.10)	0.79 (0.09)	0.79 (0.10)	0.79 (0.10)