Cited by 55Cognitive Abilities and TestingNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesCognitive Functions and Memory

Working memory training improves visual short-term memory capacity

Schwarb, Hillary, Nail, Jayde, Schumacher, Eric H.·2016·Psychological Research

Abstract

Since antiquity, philosophers, theologians, and scientists have been interested in human memory. However, researchers today are still working to understand the capabilities, boundaries, and architecture. While the storage capabilities of long-term memory are seemingly unlimited (Bahrick, J Exp Psychol 113:1-2, 1984), working memory, or the ability to maintain and manipulate information held in memory, seems to have stringent capacity limits (e.g., Cowan, Behav Brain Sci 24:87-185, 2001). Individual differences, however, do exist and these differences can often predict performance on a wide variety of tasks (cf. Engle What is working-memory capacity? 297-314, 2001). Recently, researchers have promoted the enticing possibility that simple behavioral training can expand the limits of working memory which indeed may also lead to improvements on other cognitive processes as well (cf. Morrison and Chein, Psychol Bull Rev 18:46-60 2011). However, initial investigations across a wide variety of cognitive functions have produced mixed results regarding the transferability of training-related improvements. Across two experiments, the present research focuses on the benefit of working memory training on visual short-term memory capacity-a cognitive process that has received little attention in the training literature. Data reveal training-related improvement of global measures of visual short-term memory as well as of measures of the independent sub-processes that contribute to capacity (Awh et al., Psychol Sci 18(7):622-628, 2007). These results suggest that the ability to inhibit irrelevant information within and between trials is enhanced via n-back training allowing for selective improvement on untrained tasks. Additionally, we highlight a potential limitation of the standard adaptive training procedure and propose a modified design to ensure variability in the training environment.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00426-015-0648-y

Cites

92 of 92 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schwarb, H., Nail, J., & Schumacher, E. H.
Affiliations
  • University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
  • Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
Corresponding author
Schwarb, Hillary
Venue
Psychological Research
Published
2015-02-06
Volume
80
Issue
1
Pages
128-148
ISSN
  • 0033-3026 (ISSN-L)
  • 0340-0727
  • 1430-2772
OpenAlex
W2060962062
Cited by
55
References
92
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 5
FWCI
6.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
Keywords
working memory training, visual short-term memory, memory capacity, individual differences, transfer of training, inhibition of irrelevant information
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Attention, Cognition, Female, Humans, Learning, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Photic Stimulation, Task Performance and Analysis, Transfer, Psychology, Visual Perception, Young Adult

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