Experience with instances that vary in their surface features helps individuals to form abstract task knowledge, leading to transfer of that knowledge to novel contexts. The current study sought to examine the role of this variability effect in how adults and school-aged children learn to engage cognitive control. We focused on the engagement of cognitive control in advance (proactive control) and in response to conflicts (reactive control) in a cued task-switching paradigm, and conducted four preregistered online experiments with adults (Experiment 1A: N = 100, Experiment 1B: N = 105) and 9- to 10-year-olds (Experiment 2A: N = 98, Experiment 2B: N = 97). It was shown that prior task experience of engaging reactive control makes both adults and 9- to 10-year-olds respond more slowly in a subsequent similar-structured condition with different stimuli in which proactive control could have been engaged. 9- to 10-year-olds (Experiment 2B) exhibited more negative transfer of a reactive control mode when uninformative cue and pre-target stimuli, which do not convey task-relevant information, were changed in each block, compared with when they were fixed. Furthermore, adults showed suggestive evidence of the variability effect both when cue and target stimuli were varied (Experiment 1A) and when uninformative cue and pre-target stimuli were varied (Experiment 1B). The collective findings of these experiments provide important insights into the contribution of stimulus variability to the engagement of cognitive control.
BadreD.FrankM. J. (2012). Mechanisms of hierarchical reinforcement learning in cortico–striatal circuits 2: Evidence from fMRI. Cerebral Cortex, 22, 527–536. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhr117
BatesD.MaechlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4 (R Package Version 1.1-9). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4
BraemS.BuggJ. M.SchmidtJ. R.CrumpM. J.WeissmanD. H.NotebaertW.EgnerT. (2019). Measuring adaptive control in conflict tasks. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23, 769–783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.07.002
10.
BraverT. S. (2012). The variable nature of cognitive control: A dual mechanisms framework. Trends in Cognitive Science, 16, 106–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2011.12.010
11.
BrysbaertM.StevensM. (2018). Power analysis and effect size in mixed effect models: A tutorial. Journal of Cognition, 1(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.10
12.
CatalanoJ. F.KleinerB. M. (1984). Distant transfer in coincident timing as a function of variability of practice. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 58, 851–856. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1984.58.3.851
13.
CepedaN. J.KramerA. F.Gonzalez de SatherJ. (2001). Changes in executive control across the life span: Examination of task-switching performance. Developmental Psychology, 37, 715–730. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.37.5.715
ChathamC. H.FrankM. J.MunakataY. (2009). Pupillometric and behavioral markers of a developmental shift in the temporal dynamics of cognitive control. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106, 5529–5533. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0810002106
16.
ChenO.Castro-AlonsoJ. C.PaasF.SwellerJ. (2018). Undesirable difficulty effects in the learning of high-element interactivity materials. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 1483. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01483
17.
ChenZ.MoL. (2004). Schema induction in problem solving: A multidimensional analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 583–600. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.30.3.583
18.
ChevalierN. (2015). Executive function development: Making sense of the environment to behave adaptively. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24, 363–368. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721415593724
19.
ChevalierN.MartisS. B.CurranT.MunakataY. (2015). Metacognitive processes in executive control development: The case of reactive and proactive control. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 27, 1125–1136.
20.
ChevalierN.MeaneyJ. A.TrautH. J.MunakataY. (2020). Adaptiveness in proactive control engagement in children and adults. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 46, 100870. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00782
21.
ColeM. W.EtzelJ. A.ZacksJ. M.SchneiderW.BraverT. S. (2011). Rapid transfer of abstract rules to novel contexts in human lateral prefrontal cortex. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 5, Article 142. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2011.00142
22.
CollinsA. G. E.FrankM. J. (2013). Cognitive control over learning: Creating, clustering, and generalizing task-set structure. Psychological Review, 120, 190–229. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0030852
ElchleppH.LavricA.MonsellS. (2015). A change of task prolongs early processes: Evidence from ERPs in lexical tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(2), 299–325. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038740
26.
FellmanD.JylkkäJ.WarisO.SoveriA.RitakallioL.HagaS.SalmiJ.NymanT. J.LaineM. (2020). The role of strategy use in working memory training outcomes. Journal of Memory and Language, 110, 104064. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2019.104064
27.
GathercoleS. E.DunningD. L.HolmesJ.NorrisD. (2019). Working memory training involves learning new skills. Journal of Memory and Language, 105, 19–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2018.10.003
GonthierC.AmbrosiS.BlayeA. (2021). Learning-based before intentional cognitive control: Developmental evidence for a dissociation between implicit and explicit control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 47, 1660–1685. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001005
31.
GonthierC.MacnamaraB. N.ChowM.ConwayA. R.BraverT. S. (2016). Inducing proactive control shifts in the AX-CPT. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, Article 1822. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01822
32.
GreenP.MacLeodC. J. (2016). SIMR: An R package for power analysis of generalized linear mixed models by simulation. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 7(4), 493–498. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12504
HolmesJ.WoolgarF.HampshireA.GathercoleS. E. (2019). Are working memory training effects paradigm-specific?Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 1103. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.0110
35.
JinX.AuyeungB.ChevalierN. (2020). Positive emotion and reward motivation promote different cognitive control engagement strategies in children. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 44, 100806. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2020.100806
36.
KarbachJ.KrayJ. (2009). How useful is executive control training? Age differences in near and far transfer of task-switching training. Developmental Science, 12, 978–990. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2009.00846.x
KharitonovaM.ChienS.ColungaE.MunakataY. (2009). More than a matter of getting ‘unstuck’: flexible thinkers use more abstract representations than perseverators. Developmental Science, 12(4), 662–669. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00799.x
39.
KharitonovaM.MunakataY. (2011). The role of representations in executive function: Investigating a developmental link between flexibility and abstraction. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, Article 347. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00347
40.
KieselA.SteinhauserM.WendtM.FalkensteinM.JostK.PhilippA. M.KochI. (2010). Control and interference in task switching—A review. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 849–874. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019842
LevineM.EnsomM. H. (2001). Post hoc power analysis: An idea whose time has passed?Phamacotherapy: The Journal of Human Pharmacology and Drug Therapy, 21(4), 405–409. https://doi.org/10.1592/phoco.21.5.405.34503
43.
LeysC.LeyC.KleinO.BernardP.LicataL. (2013). Detecting outliers: Do not use standard deviation around the mean, use absolute deviation around the median. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 764–766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.03.013
44.
LikourezosV.KalyugaS.SwellerJ. (2019). The variability effect: When instructional variability is advantageous. Educational Psychology Review, 31, 479–497. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09462-8
MeiranN. (2000). Reconfiguration of stimulus task sets and response task sets during task switching. In DriverJ.MonsellS. (Eds.), Control of cognitive processes: Attention and performance XVIII (pp. 377–399). MIT Press.
48.
MiyakeA.FriedmanN. P.EmersonM. J.WitzkiA. H.HowerterA.WagerT. 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
MonsellS.MizonG. A. (2006). Can the task-cuing paradigm measure an endogenous task-set reconfiguration process?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 493–516.
51.
MunakataY.SnyderH. R.ChathamC. H. (2012). Developing cognitive control: Three key transitions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 71–77.
52.
NiebaumJ. C.ChevalierN.GuildR. M.MunakataY. (2019). Adaptive control and the avoidance of cognitive control demands across development. Neuropsychologia, 123, 152–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2018.04.029
53.
NiebaumJ. C.ChevalierN.GuildR. M.MunakataY. (2021). Developing adaptive control: Age-related differences in task choices and awareness of proactive and reactive control demands. Cognition, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 21, 561–572. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-020-00832-2
54.
O’LearyA. P.SloutskyV. M. (2017). Carving metacognition at its joints: Protracted development of component processes. Child Development, 88, 1015–1032. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12644
55.
PeirceJ.GrayJ. R.SimpsonS.MacAskillM.HöchenbergerR.SogoH.. . . LindeløvJ. K. (2019). PsychoPy2: Experiments in behavior made easy. Behavior Research Methods, 51, 195–203. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-01193-y
56.
PeregM.HarpazD.SabahK.Ben-ShacharM. S.AmirI.DreisbachG.MeiranN. (2021). Learning the abstract general task structure in a rapidly changing task content. Journal of Cognition, 4(1), 31. https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.176
57.
PosnerM. I.KeeleS. W. (1968). On the genesis of abstract ideas. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 77, 353–363. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025953
58.
RavivL.LupyanG.GreenS. C. (2022). How variability shapes learning and generalization. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 26, 462–483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2022.03.007
59.
R Core Team. (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
60.
RestleF. (1961). Psychology of judgment and choice. Wiley.
SabahK.DolkT.MeiranN.DreisbachG. (2019). When less is more: Costs and benefits of varied vs. fixed content and structure in short-term task switching training. Psychological Research, 83, 1531–1542. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-1006-7
63.
SabahK.DolkT.MeiranN.DreisbachG. (2021). Correction to: Enhancing task-demands disrupts learning but enhances transfer gains in short-term task-switching training. Psychological Research, 85, 1473–1487. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-021-01557-8
64.
SalaG.GobetF. (2017). Working memory training in typically developing children: A meta-analysis of the available evidence. Developmental Psychology, 53, 671–685. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000265
SchankR.AbelsonR. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding. Lawrence Erlbaum.
67.
SchmidtR. A. (1975). A schema theory of discrete motor skill learning. Psychological Review, 82, 225–260. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076770
68.
SchmidtR. A.BjorkR. A. (1992). New conceptualizations of practice: Common principles in three paradigms suggest new concepts for training. Psychological Science, 3, 207–218. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00029.x
69.
ShaharN.PeregM.TeodorescuA. R.MoranR.Karmon-PresserA.MeiranN. (2018). Formation of abstract task representations: Exploring dosage and mechanisms of working memory training effects. Cognition, 181, 151–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.08.007
70.
ShapiroD. C.SchmidtR. A. (1982). The schema theory: Recent evidence and developmental limitations. In KelsoJ. A. S.ClarkJ. E. (Eds.), The development of movement control and coordination (pp. 113–150). Wiley.
71.
SmidC. R.KarbachJ.SteinbeisN. (2020). Toward a science of effective cognitive training. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 29(6), 531–537. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0963721420951599
72.
StokesP. D.LaiB.HoltzD.RigsbeeE.CherrickD. (2008). Effects of practice on variability, effects of variability on transfer. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 640–659. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.34.3.640
73.
TaatgenN. A. (2013). The nature and transfer of cognitive skills. Psychological Review, 120, 439–471. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033138
74.
ThorellL. B.LindqvistS.BergmanNutley, S.BohlinG.KlingbergT. (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
75.
TrautH. J.ChevalierN.GuildR. M.MunakataY. (2021a). Understanding and supporting inhibitory control: Unique contributions from proactive monitoring and motoric stopping to children’s improvements with practice. Child Development, 92, e1290–e1307. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13614
76.
TrautH. J.GuildR. M.MunakataY. (2021b). Why does cognitive training yield inconsistent benefits? A meta-analysis of individual differences in baseline cognitive abilities and training outcomes. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 662139. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.662139
77.
VakilE.HeledE. (2016). The effect of constant versus varied training on transfer in a cognitive skill learning task: The case of the Tower of Hanoi Puzzle. Learning and Individual Differences, 47, 207–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.02.009
78.
VergutsT.NotebaertW. (2008). Hebbian learning of cognitive control: Dealing with specific and nonspecific adaptation. Psychological Review, 115, 518–525. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.115.2.518
WerchanD. M.CollinsA. G.FrankM. J.AmsoD. (2016). Role of prefrontal cortex in learning and generalizing hierarchical rules in 8-month-old infants. Journal of Neuroscience, 36, 10314–10322. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1351-16.2016
81.
WulfG.SchmidtR. A. (1988). Variability in practice: Facilitation in retention and transfer through schema formation or context effects?Journal of Motor Behavior, 20, 133–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222895.1988.10735438
82.
WulfG.SchmidtR. A. (1989). The learning of generalized motor programs: Reducing the relative frequency of knowledge of results enhances memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 748–757. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.15.4.748
83.
YanJ. H.ThomasJ. R.ThomasK. T. (1998). Children’s age moderates the effect of practice variability: A quantitative review. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 69, 210–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.1998.10607686
84.
YanaokaK.van’tWoutF.SaitoS.JarroldC. (2022). Prior task experience increases five-year-old children’s use of proactive control: Behavioral and pupillometric evidence. Developmental Science, 25, Article e13181. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.13181
85.
YanaokaK.van‘tWoutF.SaitoS.JarroldC. (2024). Evidence for positive and negative transfer of abstract task knowledge in adults and school-aged children. Cognition, 242, 105650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2023.105650
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
