Effectiveness of Response Inhibition Training and Its Long-Term Effects in Healthy Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Level 1 - systematic review of randomized trials
Systematic review and meta-analysis of 10 trials
PubMed 35712455 · doi:10.3389/fnins.2022.813975
What was done
A systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis evaluated the immediate and long-term effects of response inhibition training on cognitive function in healthy adults. Six databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang, and VIP) were searched. Two authors independently extracted data. Quality of included trials was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool. Ten eligible trials across nine articles comparing response inhibition training against a control group were included.
What was found
Across 10 trials totaling 490 participants: - Overall cognitive function improved significantly with response inhibition training versus control (SMD = -0.93; 95% CI, -1.56 to -0.30; Z = 2.88, P = 0.004). - Subgroup analysis showed immediate benefits for Go/No-Go (GNG) training alone (SMD = -2.27; 95% CI, -3.33 to -1.21; P < 0.0001) and combined SST plus GNG training (SMD = -0.94; 95% CI, -1.33 to -0.56; P < 0.0001), but not for Stop-Signal Task (SST) training alone (SMD = -0.15; 95% CI, -0.76 to 0.47; P = 0.64). - Overall long-term effects were not statistically significant (SMD = -0.29; 95% CI, -0.68 to 0.10; Z = 1.45, P = 0.15). - In long-term subgroup analyses, neither GNG alone (SMD = -0.25; 95% CI, -0.75 to 0.24; P = 0.32) nor SST alone (SMD = 0.03; 95% CI, -0.42 to 0.48; P = 0.89) was effective, whereas combined GNG and SST training retained a significant long-term benefit (SMD = -0.95; 95% CI, -1.46 to -0.45; Z = 3.68, P = 0.0002).
Why it matters
This review suggests that cognitive benefits from response inhibition training depend on the specific training paradigm, with combined GNG and SST protocols showing the only durable long-term cognitive enhancements in healthy adults.
Limits
The total sample size was modest (490 participants across 10 trials). The abstract does not specify the cognitive assessment instruments used, training dosages, duration of follow-up defining 'long-term', or heterogeneity statistics across the pooled trials.