Cited by 74Cognitive Abilities and TestingCognitive Functions and MemoryNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

N-back Versus Complex Span Working Memory Training

Open access
Blacker, Kara J., Negoita, Serban, Ewen, Joshua B., Courtney, Susan M.·2017·Journal of Cognitive Enhancement

Abstract

Working memory (WM) is the ability to maintain and manipulate task-relevant information in the absence of sensory input. While its improvement through training is of great interest, the degree to which WM training transfers to untrained WM tasks (near transfer) and other untrained cognitive skills (far transfer) remains debated and the mechanism(s) underlying transfer are unclear. Here we hypothesized that a critical feature of dual n-back training is its reliance on maintaining relational information in WM. In Experiment 1, using an individual differences approach, we found evidence that performance on an n-back task was predicted by performance on a measure of relational WM (i.e., WM for vertical spatial relationships independent of absolute spatial locations); whereas the same was not true for a complex span WM task. In Experiment 2, we tested the idea that reliance on relational WM is critical to produce transfer from n-back but not complex span task training. Participants completed adaptive training on either a dual n-back task, a symmetry span task, or on a non-WM active control task. We found evidence of near transfer for the dual n-back group; however, far transfer to a measure of fluid intelligence did not emerge. Recording EEG during a separate WM transfer task, we examined group-specific, training-related changes in alpha power, which are proposed to be sensitive to WM demands and top-down modulation of WM. Results indicated that the dual n-back group showed significantly greater frontal alpha power after training compared to before training, more so than both other groups. However, we found no evidence of improvement on measures of relational WM for the dual n-back group, suggesting that near transfer may not be dependent on relational WM. These results suggest that dual n-back and complex span task training may differ in their effectiveness to elicit near transfer as well as in the underlying neural changes they facilitate.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s41465-017-0044-1

Cites

90 of 90 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Transfer to sequencing and/or complex WM tasks has been reported by some N-back training studies but not others.

    “Transfer to sequencing and/or complex WM tasks has been reported by some57–63, but not other N-back training studies58,64–70.”

    From Near transfer to an unrelated N-back task mediates the effect of N-back working memory training on matrix reasoning (2022) · cites this paper as [65]

    Experiment 2’s Results and General Discussion (page unavailable) report no significant transfer from dual n-back training to the Ospan complex-span task, supporting the ‘not others’ portion. The paper discusses cross-modality transfer in prior work, but the passages do not establish that other N-back training studies found transfer to sequencing or complex WM tasks. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Training on a specific working memory task can improve performance on untrained working memory tasks.

    “WM training on a given task can transfer to improvements in untrained working memory tasks (Blacker et al. 2017; Lilienthal et al. 2013; Chein and Morrison 2010; Borella et al. 2010)”

    From Divergent Research Methods Limit Understanding of Working Memory Training (2020) · cites this paper as Blacker et al. 2017

  • Only three studies have tested transfer from complex span training to n-back.

    “Only three studies have tested transfer from complex span training to n-back.”

    From Are Working Memory Training Effects Paradigm-Specific? (2019) · cites this paper as Blacker et al. (2017)

  • Blacker et al. (2017) found that training on a symmetry span task did not improve performance on an object n-back task.

    “Blacker et al. (2017) found that training on a symmetry span task did not improve performance on an object n-back task.”

    From Are Working Memory Training Effects Paradigm-Specific? (2019) · cites this paper as Blacker et al. (2017)

  • The present findings add to evidence for lack of transfer across complex span tasks and contrast with reports of transfer across different memory items and distraction activities.

    “The present findings both add to other evidence for lack of transfer across complex span tasks (Minear et al., 2016; Blacker et al., 2017) and stand in contrast to other reports of transfer across different memory items and interpolated distraction activities (e.g., Harrison et al., 2013; von Bastian et al., 2013; Henry et al., 2014; Richmond et al., 2014).”

    From Are Working Memory Training Effects Paradigm-Specific? (2019) · cites this paper as Blacker et al., 2017

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Blacker, K. J., Negoita, S., Ewen, J. B., & Courtney, S. M.
Affiliations
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • Kennedy Krieger Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Blacker, Kara J.
Venue
Journal of Cognitive Enhancement
Published
2017-10-16
Volume
1
Issue
4
Pages
434-454
ISSN
  • 2509-3290 (ISSN-L)
  • 2509-3304
OpenAlex
W2766802499
Cited by
74
References
90
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 1
FWCI
10.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Cognitive Enhancement (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Johns Hopkins Science of Learning Institute (Fellowship)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01 MH082957)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (K23 NS073626)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
working memory training, complex span, near transfer, far transfer, fluid intelligence, alpha power, top-down modulation, individual differences

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