When scientists ask about generalization, they are asking whether the beneficial effects can be seen in measures that are not directly related to the task trained. For example, if I work on my golf swing, does my tennis game improve? Generalization is important because it shows that participants can reasonably expect to improve their cognition rather than just improve at a strategy that compensates for a cognitive deficiency. For example, using mnemonic strategies can help people remember lists but does not “generalize” to improvements in other memory tasks. Using “standard measures” is important because it shows that the generalization occurs with the kinds of measures that scientists know are useful and appropriate in the study of aging.
Participants in our studies get better at the activities on which they have trained. This is not surprising as people improve at most skills at which they practice. For example, we see a 131% improvement in auditory processing speed in a recent study as measured by a test that corresponds to the training task. In the past, this has been where most studies have started and ended. People got better at the task at which they trained and it is assumed that has some value in everyday life.
One exciting aspect of our research is that we have seen generalization such that people notice differences in their everyday lives. Studies show: improvements in standardized measures of memory and attention, in standard measures of health-related quality of life, in standard measures of everyday function, and in various measures of driving ability.