School of Psychology.
Am Psychol. 2022 Nov;77(8):966-967. doi: 10.1037/amp0001075.
In a commentary on Moreau (2022), Kira (2023) emphasizes the importance of clarifying the conceptual basis of cognitive interventions and discusses a number of adverse circumstances known to impair cognitive function. In this reply, I focus on three points of clarification. First, I contend that one needs to make a distinction between interventions focusing on healthy individuals and those targeting clinical populations, as the postulated mechanisms of improvement in typical settings may differ from those underlying impairment. I further argue that with this conceptual distinction in mind, evidence still suggests no plausible mechanistic explanation for the improvements discussed in Moreau (2022) and that the appeal of more holistic approaches remains. Finally, I propose that a lack of clarity around issues such as construct validity and measurement impedes progress in this research area and that important insight could be gained from a more systematic exploration of the mechanisms underlying cognitive improvement. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
在对莫罗（2022）的评论中，基拉（2023）强调了澄清认知干预的概念基础的重要性，并讨论了一些已知会损害认知功能的不利情况。在这个回复中，我集中讨论三个澄清点。首先，我认为需要区分针对健康个体的干预和针对临床人群的干预，因为在典型环境中假设的改善机制可能与导致损伤的机制不同。我进一步认为，考虑到这种概念上的区别，仍然没有证据表明莫罗（2022）中讨论的改善有合理的机制解释，整体方法的吸引力仍然存在。最后，我提出，在构念效度和测量等问题上缺乏清晰性阻碍了该研究领域的进展，并且从更系统地探索认知改善背后的机制中可以获得重要的见解。（《心理科学信息数据库记录》（c）2022 APA，保留所有权利）。
