Cited by 318Cognitive Abilities and TestingCognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skillsCognitive Functions and Memory

Effects and mechanisms of working memory training: a review

Open access
von Bastian, Claudia C., Oberauer, Klaus·2014·Psychological Research

Abstract

Can cognitive abilities such as reasoning be improved through working memory training? This question is still highly controversial, with prior studies providing contradictory findings. The lack of theory-driven, systematic approaches and (occasionally serious) methodological shortcomings complicates this debate even more. This review suggests two general mechanisms mediating transfer effects that are (or are not) observed after working memory training: enhanced working memory capacity, enabling people to hold more items in working memory than before training, or enhanced efficiency using the working memory capacity available (e.g., using chunking strategies to remember more items correctly). We then highlight multiple factors that could influence these mechanisms of transfer and thus the success of training interventions. These factors include (1) the nature of the training regime (i.e., intensity, duration, and adaptivity of the training tasks) and, with it, the magnitude of improvements during training, and (2) individual differences in age, cognitive abilities, biological factors, and motivational and personality factors. Finally, we summarize the findings revealed by existing training studies for each of these factors, and thereby present a roadmap for accumulating further empirical evidence regarding the efficacy of working memory training in a systematic way.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00426-013-0524-6

Cites

147 of 147 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • For the five largest effect sizes, all comparisons used only one test to measure nonverbal ability.

    “and (b) used only one test to measure nonverbal ability (in contrast to multiple indicators of the intended nonverbal ability construct; Shipstead et al., 2012; von Bastian & Oberauer, 2014).”
  • A genuine improvement in underlying working memory components, such as updating flexibility and storage capacity, should yield broad transfer across different measures.

    “An actual improvement in the effectiveness of the underlying WM components such as flexibility of updating and storage capacity, on the other hand, should result in broad transfer effects to different kinds of measures (von Bastian & Oberauer, 2014).”

    From Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies (2017) · cites this paper as von Bastian & Oberauer, 2014

  • Transfer from WMT may reflect working memory's close interdependence with other cognitive domains and partial overlap of their functional substrates.

    “Such transfer may reflect working memory’s close interdependence with other cognitive domains and the partial overlap of their functional substrates, allowing working-memory-focused training to generalise—at least in part—to broader and more complex cognitive outcomes16,17.”
  • The pattern of greater attenuation for trained tasks is compatible with closer alignment of trained probes with training content, which may preferentially tune task-specific representations, whereas untrained tasks likely place broader demands on control and strategy implementation.

    “This pattern is compatible with the closer alignment of trained probes with the training content, which may preferentially tune task-specific representations, whereas untrained tasks likely place broader demands on control and strategy implementation16,17.”
  • Only an active control group accounts for non-specific training effects such as engaging regularly in a computerized task, expectancy, and placebo effects.

    “Whereas a passive (or no-contact) control group accounts for test-retest effects, only an active control group accounts for non-specific training effects such as engaging regularly in a computerized task, expectancy, and placebo effects [7].”

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
von Bastian, C. C., & Oberauer, K.
Affiliations
University of Zurich (CH)
Venue
Psychological Research
Published
2013-11-10
Volume
78
Issue
6
Pages
803-820
ISSN
  • 0033-3026 (ISSN-L)
  • 0340-0727
  • 1430-2772
OpenAlex
W2031909134
Cited by
318
References
147
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 39 · 2019: 36 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 30 · 2016: 28 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 1
FWCI
2.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychological Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • reroDoc Digital Library (submittedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Cognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skills
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
Keywords
working memory training, transfer of training, working memory capacity, chunking, exercise intensity, individual differences, motivation, personality factors, age differences, cognitive ability, training effectiveness
MeSH terms
Aging, Attention, Humans, Learning, Memory, Short-Term, Neuropsychological Tests, Transfer, Psychology

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review