Fig 1.
A demonstration of two trials in the training task, each trial including the presentation of a task cue (indicating which task to perform), fixation and a target stimulus.
The current figure demonstrates a condition of N = 1, requiring participants to respond according to the task cue (panel A) or the target (panel B) presented in the previous trial (i.e., N = 1)
Fig 2.
The mean level in each training session, calculated across participants.
Bars represent 95% confidence intervals [79].
Table 1.
Group Differences in Transfer Measurements.
Table 2.
Pre-Post Performance Measurements for the Training and Control Groups.
Fig 3.
Mean RT (in ms) for the two measurement sessions (pre vs. post), the shape classification (i.e., arbitrary mapping) and the digit classification (i.e., non-arbitrary mapping) tasks.
Error bars reflect 95% confidence intervals [82].
Fig 4.
Pre-post differences for the training and control groups in each of the three ex-Gaussian parameters, estimated for the arbitrary mapping choice reaction task (i.e., shape classification).
Error bars reflect 95% confidence intervals [82].
Fig 5.
Group differences (training vs. control) in RT-means and the three ex-Gaussian parameters for each of the three tasks types performed in the follow-up session: simple reaction time and 2-alternative choice reaction with arbitrary mapping or with non-arbitrary mapping.
Results demonstrate that group differences were found in the arbitrary mapping condition and only in the τ parameter, which is in line with the hypothesis that these differences are related to working memory abilities. Error bars reflect confidence intervals [82].