Divergent Research Methods Limit Understanding of Working Memory Training
Open accessAbstract
Working memory training has been a hot topic over the last decade. Although studies show benefits in trained and untrained tasks as a function of training, there is an ongoing debate on the efficacy of working memory training. There have been numerous meta-analyses put forth to the field, some finding overall broad transfer effects while others do not. However, discussion of this research typically overlooks specific qualities of the training and transfer tasks. As such, there has been next to no discussion in the literature on what training and transfer tasks features are likely to mediate training outcomes. To address this gap, here, we characterized the broad diversity of features employed in N-back training tasks and outcome measures in published working memory training studies. Extant meta-analyses have not taken into account the diversity of methodology at this level, primarily because there are too few studies using common methods to allow for a robust meta-analysis. We suggest that these limitations preclude strong conclusions from published data. In order to advance research on working memory training, and in particular, N-back training, more studies are needed that systematically compare training features and use common outcome measures to assess transfer effects.
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This qualitative review argues that working memory training research, especially N-back training, is limited by highly divergent training protocols and transfer outcome measures. The authors conclude that current evidence cannot support strong conclusions about transfer because too few studies use common methods.
Key findings
- Across 51 studies and 57 experiments, only 8 experiments relied on the same training method, while 49 experiments had unique training conditions.
- The review identified 122 different transfer tasks; transfer within WM was assessed with 31 different tasks, and transfer beyond WM, especially fluid intelligence, with 27 different tasks.
- Training features varied widely: 30 experiments used single N-back and 27 used dual N-back; 26 used auditory stimuli, 13 visual, and 18 spatial; 46 reported long ISIs (1800–2500 ms), 9 short ISIs (500–1800 ms), and 2 did not report ISI.
- Feedback was employed in 25 experiments, while 32 either did not provide feedback or did not explicitly report it; 47 experiments used 10 or more training sessions, and 10 used fewer than 10.
Methods
- Qualitative review of published N-back training studies identified through Google Scholar, Google, and PubMed, searching 2008–2018 with terms including “N-back training” and “updating training.”
- Inclusion criteria required cognitive training with single or dual N-back, at least one training group, healthy adults (mean age range 19–69 years), N-back training of at least 3 sessions, and assessment of transfer to WM and/or other cognitive domains.
- The search yielded 51 studies; 5 studies included more than one N-back training group, giving 57 experiments. The authors characterized training task features, transfer task features, and control groups.
Limitations
- The authors state that small sample sizes for certain training features and extensive methodological variability mean they can only speculate whether these factors are meaningful mediators or moderators.
- The authors state that extant meta-analyses cannot robustly compare methods because too few studies use common methods, and that many procedural details are not reported.
- The text makes evident additional constraints: the review is qualitative rather than a quantitative synthesis, is limited to N-back training and healthy adults, and screened only the first 150 ranked hits per database.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
0 of 42 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged
- Findingnone given
The procedural details of each training study, including features of trained and transfer tasks that may mediate learning, have been largely ignored.
“While these moderators are certainly relevant, the details of procedures employed in each training study, such as trained and transfer tasks features, which may mediate learning, have been largely ignored.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Across the reviewed experiments, 31 different tasks assessed aspects of working memory and short-term memory.
“For example, across these experiments, 31 different tasks assess aspects of WM and short-term memory (STM), including N-back and other updating tasks, simple span tasks, and various complex WM tasks.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Studies using the N-back task vary widely in methodology.
“However, with as many studies using the N-back task, there are as many variants in methodology.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
In many cases, important procedural details are not reported.
“Note that in many cases, details of the procedures that might be important are simply not reported (see Table S1, Supplemental Material).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingnone given
Six training task attributes commonly vary across N-back training implementations: N-back task type and stimulus modality, task timing, adaptive threshold, feedback, and intervention length.
“We highlight six training task attributes (types of N-back task and stimulus modality, task timing, adaptive threshold, feedback, and intervention length) that commonly vary across implementations of N-back training studies.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
- Findingcitation
Some studies included training procedures beyond the N-back task, targeting additional cognitive processes.
“Another source of variation is the inclusion of training procedures that go beyond the N-back task, thereby targeting additional cognitive processes.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Transfer within working memory was assessed with 31 different tasks, including simple span, complex span, updating, and other working memory tasks.
“Transfer within the domain of WM was assessed with 31 different tasks, including various simple span measures (Corsi block, digit span, grid span) and complex span tasks (operation span, symmetry span, etc.), updating tasks (N-back, running span, numerical updating, etc.), and other types of WM tasks such as delayed match to sample tasks and sequencing tasks.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Despite feedback's importance, the majority of studies (N=32) do not describe whether or what type of feedback was used.
“Thus, despite the critical role of feedback in motivation and learning (Burgers et al. 2015), the majority of studies (N = 32) do not describe whether or what type of feedback was employed.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Burgers et al. 2015 source
Not checked in the free run.
- Premisecitation
There is also substantial evidence that transfer fails to occur.
“While there are numerous reports of transfer in the literature, there is also substantial evidence for failure of transfer (Thompson et al. 2013; Jackson et al. 2012).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked - Interpretationreasoning
Different training protocols and transfer tasks may have different effects on training efficacy and transfer results.
“The novelty of this review is to highlight the fact that different training protocols and transfer tasks might differentially affect training efficacy and transfer results.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
Single N-back training appears to be as effective as dual N-back training.
“This may explain why single N-back training seems to be as effective as dual N-back training (Jaeggi et al. 2008; Jaeggi et al. 2010a).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Jaeggi et al. 2008 source
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Jaeggi et al. 2010a
Not checked in the free run.
- Premisecitation
Meta-analytic discussions of transfer effects in healthy adults have considered moderators such as demographics, training dose, training type, task, modality, stimulus content, transfer task type, design, control group, attrition, location, supervision, instructional support, feedback, and publication bias.
“To date, discrepant findings regarding transfer effects reported by meta-analytic studies, focusing primarily on healthy adults, have been discussed in regard to important moderators such as population demographics, training dose, training type (e.g., single task, multiple tasks), training task (e.g., single N-back, dual N-back), training modality (visual, auditory, both), stimulus content (verbal”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked- cites Au et al. 2015
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Soveri et al. 2017a, b
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Melby-Lervåg and Hulme 2013 source
Not checked in the free run.
- Interpretationcitation
In four studies, participants trained on other updating working memory tasks in addition to N-back, which prevents understanding the separate contributions of these tasks to transfer.
“In four studies, participants trained on other types of updating WM tasks in addition to the N-back, which precludes understanding of the individual contributions of these training tasks to transfer (Maraver et al. 2016; Waris et al. 2015; Kühn et al. 2013; Loosli et al. 2016).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked - Interpretationreasoning
The variance of methods produces inferential problems when making comparisons across studies.
“However, this variance of methods produces the inferential problems in making comparisons across studies.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
The sheer number of transfer tasks used to assess working memory and other cognitive functions further complicates the matter.
“The sheer number of transfer tasks used to assess working memory and other cognitive functions further complicates the matter.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
The features and effects of control conditions are likely more nuanced than a simple active versus passive distinction.
“A simple reason for this is that the features and the effects of the control condition are likely to be more nuanced than what can be captured by simple distinction into active or passive controls.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
The lack of clarity about transfer mechanisms is due to the variety of training procedures used and the selection of transfer measures used to gauge training outcomes.
“We suggest that this lack of clarity is due to the variety of training procedures implemented and the selection of transfer measures gauging training outcomes.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationcitation
The degree to which training adapts to participants' abilities can substantially affect learning and transfer.
“The extent to which training adapts to participants’ abilities is another factor that can have a substantial impact on learning and transfer.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Premisecitation
Despite numerous meta-analyses on the effectiveness of N-back training, there is still disagreement about the extent of transfer after N-back training.
“Despite numerous meta-analyses aimed to understand the effectiveness of N-back training (Au et al. 2015; Soveri et al. 2017a, b; Melby-Lervåg and Hulme 2013; Melby-Lervåg et al. 2016; Schwaighofer et al. 2015), there is still disagreement about the extent of transfer after N-back training.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked- cites Au et al. 2015
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Soveri et al. 2017a, b
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Melby-Lervåg and Hulme 2013 source
Not checked in the free run.
- Interpretationreasoning
Large variability in training features, transfer tasks, and individual differences is a severe issue that limits quantitative conclusions.
“Furthermore, training features, transfer tasks, and individual differences need to be systematically addressed, as the large variability represents a severe issue that limits quantitative conclusions.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
Different training approaches, even if related to the underlying construct, may lead to distinct transfer outcomes because of task-specific learning.
“Thus, different training approaches, even if related to the underlying construct, may lead to distinct transfer outcomes due to task specific learning.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: All tests used to investigate cognitive constructs are only partially correlated with the underlying construct.
- Premisecitation
Task reliability, especially test-retest reliability, is an important factor that may affect transfer.
“An important factor that might impact transfer is task reliability, especially test-retest reliability (Jaeggi et al. 2014).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Jaeggi et al. 2014 source
Not checked in the free run.
- Interpretationreasoning
Comparing transfer effects on tasks that differ substantially in reliability may be misleading if reliability is not taken into account.
“Comparing transfer effects on tasks that differ substantially in their reliability may be misleading if this factor is not taken into account.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
N-back training tasks use a variety of stimuli in different modalities, which can make cross-study comparisons of transfer effects problematic.
“Overall, N-back training tasks implement a variety of stimuli (shapes, objects, letters, numbers, etc.) in different modalities (visual, auditory, with or without a spatial component) (see Fig. 1), which can be problematic for cross-study comparisons of transfer effects.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationnone given
Using only one or a few outcome measures can limit the ability to estimate latent factors.
“However, using only one or a few outcome measures can limit opportunity to estimate latent factors.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
Participant recruitment and population, engagement, and self-perceived improvements may substantially affect how expectations influence training outcomes.
“Participant recruitment and population, as well as other factors like engagement and self-perceived improvements might considerably contribute to the extent to which expectations may impact training outcomes.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
To whatever extent existing tests of cognitive functions predict cognitive functions in daily life, this relationship may not hold after training on task structures that specifically resemble the cognitive tests.
“To whatever extent existing tests of cognitive functions predict cognitive functions in daily life, this relationship may not hold after training on task structures that specifically resemble the cognitive tests.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: If performance on two tasks is correlated but the tasks do not rely on the exact same mechanisms, then a change in one may not predict a change in the other.
- May combine two claims. 37
- Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 8
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataAcross 57 experiments from 51 studies, more than 120 different transfer tasks were used, and transfer tasks were rarely consistent from one study to the next.
“to the transfer tasks that are rarely consistent from one study to the next with over 120 different transfer tasks used across the 57 experiments reviewed in 51 studies”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataIn the reviewed sample, 30 of 57 experiments used single N-back training and 27 used dual N-back training, with varying transfer outcomes.
“In the current sample, 30 out of the 57 experiments adopted single N-back training (13 reporting transfer within WM, 11 reporting transfer beyond WM, and 6 reporting no transfer1) and 27 experiments employed dual N-back training (8 reporting transfer within WM, 9 reporting transfer beyond WM, and 10 reporting no transfer).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The reviewed set of 57 experiments is representative of published N-back working memory training studies.
- Rests on an assumption: The transfer outcomes reported by the original studies are valid enough to be counted as evidence of transfer or no transfer.
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataIn the reviewed sample, training task modalities varied widely: 26 used auditory stimuli, 13 used visual non-spatial stimuli, and 18 used spatial stimuli, with varying transfer outcomes.
“In our sample, we find that training task modalities vary widely, with 26 using auditory stimuli (7 reporting transfer within WM, 11 reporting transfer beyond WM, and 8 reporting no transfer), 13 using visual stimuli (non-spatial) (5 reporting transfer within WM, 6 reporting transfer beyond WM, and 2 reporting no transfer), and 18 using spatial stimuli (9 reporting transfer within WM, 3 reporting”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The reviewed set of 57 experiments is representative of published N-back working memory training studies.
- Rests on an assumption: The transfer outcomes reported by the original studies are valid enough to be counted as evidence of transfer or no transfer.
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataOnly 8 experiments used the same training method, while 49 experiments had unique training conditions.
“Interestingly, only 8 experiments relied on the same training method, whereas 49 experiments had unique training conditions (Fig. 1).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingnone givenAbout half of the meta-analyses in the field report evidence of transfer, while the other half do not.
“The field has reached a point in which there is a battle of meta-analyses lingering with roughly half of them finding evidence of transfer while the others do not (see Table 1 for variety of individual studies upon which these meta-analyses are based).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataFor most of the 122 tasks used, no reliability measures are reported, and it is unclear whether standard or custom forms were used, making reliability information difficult to find.
“However, for most of the 122 of tasks used, no reliability measures are reported, and it is unclear whether standard forms or custom forms of the tasks are employed, making it difficult to find information on the reliability in the extant literature.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataOut of 57 reviewed experiments, 25 employed some type of feedback and 32 either did not provide feedback or did not explicitly report it, with varying transfer outcomes.
“Out of the 57 experiments reviewed, 25 experiments employed some type of feedback (11 reporting transfer to untrained WM tasks, 6 reporting transfer beyond WM, and 8 reporting no transfer) while 32 experiments either did not provide feedback or did not explicitly report the use of feedback (16 reporting transfer within WM, 9 reporting transfer beyond WM, and 7 reporting no transfer).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The reviewed set of 57 experiments is representative of published N-back working memory training studies.
- Rests on an assumption: The transfer outcomes reported by the original studies are valid enough to be counted as evidence of transfer or no transfer.
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataIn the reviewed sample, 52 experiments included at least one control group, with 22 having only an active control, 17 having only a passive control, and 13 having both.
“In our sample, 52 experiments included at least one control group: 22 experiments included only an active control group, 17 experiments included only a passive control group, and 13 experiments included both.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataN-back training studies, while seemingly similar, employ a wide variety of training features and assess transfer effects with a large and diverse selection of outcome measures.
“Here we show that N-back training studies, while seemingly similar, employ a wide variety of training features, and in addition, they assess transfer effects with a large and diverse selection of outcome measures.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataThe review included 51 studies, and because 5 studies had more than one N-back training group considered separately, the total number of experiments was 57.
“In total, our research resulted in 51 studies (excluding the number of overlapping studies) (Fig. 2). Of these 51 studies, 5 studies included more than one N-back training group, which we considered separately, giving rise to a total of 57 experiments.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataIn the reviewed experiments, 12 used a threshold below 90% to advance, while 34 used a 90% correct threshold, with varying transfer outcomes.
“Of 46 experiments, 12 adopted a threshold lower than 90% to achieve the next level (7 reporting transfer within WM, 1 reporting transfer beyond WM, and 4 reporting no transfer), while 34 adopted a threshold of 90% correct (16 reporting transfer within WM, 10 reporting transfer beyond WM, and 8 reporting no transfer).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The reviewed set of 57 experiments is representative of published N-back working memory training studies.
- Rests on an assumption: The transfer outcomes reported by the original studies are valid enough to be counted as evidence of transfer or no transfer.
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataAcross 57 experiments, 122 different transfer tasks were used, and the number of outcome measures per study ranged from 1 to 20.
“Across 57 experiments, 122 different transfer tasks were employed (see Table 2), which speaks to the issue of variability in transfer tasks. The number of outcome measures per study ranged from 1 to as many as 20.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The reviewed set of 57 experiments is representative of published N-back working memory training studies.
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataIn the reviewed sample, 47 of 57 experiments used training equal to or longer than 10 sessions, and 10 used fewer than 10 sessions, with varying transfer outcomes.
“In our sample, of the 57 experiments that measured both transfer to WM and beyond WM, 47 used training equal or longer than 10 sessions (29 reporting transfer within WM, 12 reporting transfer beyond WM, and 6 reporting no transfer), and 10 experiments used fewer than 10 sessions (5 reporting transfer within WM, 2 reporting transfer beyond WM, and 3 reporting no transfer).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The reviewed set of 57 experiments is representative of published N-back working memory training studies.
- Rests on an assumption: The transfer outcomes reported by the original studies are valid enough to be counted as evidence of transfer or no transfer.
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataTransfer beyond working memory, particularly to fluid intelligence, was assessed with 27 different tasks, and 48 of 57 experiments reported assessing fluid intelligence.
“Transfer beyond WM, in particular to fluid intelligence, was assessed with 27 different tasks. Forty-eight out of fifty-seven experiments reported assessing fluid intelligence.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataIn the reviewed experiments, 46 reported long inter-stimulus intervals (1800-2500 ms), 9 used short intervals (500-1800 ms), and 2 did not report interval information.
“In the papers that we reviewed, we screened 57 experiments across single and dual N-back training and found 46 experiments that reported long ISIs (between 1800 and 2500 ms; 18 reporting transfer within WM, 14 reporting transfer beyond WM and 14reporting no transfer), 9 that used short ISIs (between 500 and 1800 ms; 8 reporting transfer within WM, and 1 reporting transfer beyond WM), while 2”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The reviewed set of 57 experiments is representative of published N-back working memory training studies.
- Rests on an assumption: The transfer outcomes reported by the original studies are valid enough to be counted as evidence of transfer or no transfer.
May combine two claims.
Interpretationown dataThe pattern may suggest that dual N-back training is more likely to yield transfer within and beyond working memory, while single N-back training is more likely to show transfer within working memory, but not all studies assessed both types of transfer.
“While this may suggest that dual N-back training is more likely to yield transfer within and beyond WM, as compared with single N-back, which seems more likely to show transfer within WM, it should be noted that not all studies assessed both types of transfer.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The reviewed set of 57 experiments is representative of published N-back working memory training studies.
- Rests on an assumption: The transfer outcomes reported by the original studies are valid enough to be counted as evidence of transfer or no transfer.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationTraining 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)”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checkedMay combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningThe absence of an explanation for this variability undermines confidence in working memory training research and makes it harder to judge the effectiveness of training.
“The lack of explanation regarding this variability not only casts a shadow on WM training research but also poses a significant hurdle when evaluating the effectiveness of WM training.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
PremisecitationDual N-back tasks produce longer reaction times and more errors than single N-back tasks.
“For example, Jaeggi et al. (2003) showed that single and dual N-back tasks differ at the behavioral level with longer reaction times and more errors on dual N-back tasks compared with single N-back.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Jaeggi et al. (2003) source
Not checked in the free run.
May combine two claims.
PremisecitationSingle and dual N-back tasks do not differ at the neural level; prefrontal activation increases with higher load regardless of task type.
“On the other hand, no differentiation between single and dual N-back tasks was observed at the neural level: prefrontal activation increased with higher load irrespective of task type.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Jaeggi et al. (2003) source
Not checked in the free run.
Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
PremisecitationThe N-back task is a common working memory measure; it is an updating task requiring storage, maintenance, and manipulation, and it predicts individual differences in higher cognitive functions.
“One of the most common measures of WM is the N-back task, an updating task that requires multiple processes (storage, maintenance, and manipulation of information) and is predictive of inter-individual differences in higher cognitive functions (Jaeggi et al. 2010a, b).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Jaeggi et al. 2010a, b
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationWorking memory training can also transfer to tasks in other cognitive domains, such as fluid intelligence.
“as well as tasks pertaining to other cognitive domains such as fluid intelligence (Jaeggi et al. 2008; Heinzel et al. 2017; Chein and Morrison 2010; Borella et al. 2010)”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checkedProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationThere is a long-running debate about whether training can improve basic cognitive functions.
“A longstanding debate has regarded the extent to which training can improve our basic cognitive functions (Katz et al. 2018).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Katz et al. 2018 source
Not checked in the free run.
May combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningEven though the single versus dual N-back comparison is the most powered available, differences between study methodologies largely prevent strong meta-analytic conclusions.
“Even though the single vs dual N-back dichotomy is the most powered of available comparisons, the differences between study methodologies, as described below, largely preclude strong meta-analytic conclusions.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The reviewed set of 57 experiments is representative of published N-back working memory training studies.
- Rests on an assumption: The transfer outcomes reported by the original studies are valid enough to be counted as evidence of transfer or no transfer.
May combine two claims.
PremisereasoningAlthough reports on N-back training are increasing, the mechanisms of transfer and the factors that might affect them remain unclear.
“Although reports on N-back training are steadily increasing, the mechanisms of transfer and the factors that might impact them are still unclear.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked- cites Au et al. 2015
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Soveri et al. 2017a, b
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Melby-Lervåg and Hulme 2013 source
Not checked in the free run.
May combine two claims.
PremisecitationPerformance on N-back tasks correlates only weakly with performance on complex span tasks, so updating and span tasks should be considered separately.
“Performance on N-back tasks only correlates weakly with performance on complex span tasks (Redick and Lindsey 2013) therefore it makes sense to consider updating and span tasks separately.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Redick and Lindsey 2013 source
Not checked in the free run.
May combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningAlthough matrix reasoning was the most common fluid intelligence test, using only one type of test is not enough to estimate fluid intelligence at the latent level.
“While matrix reasoning was the most common type of test used to assess fluid intelligence, which allows for a certain level of comparison across experiments, using just one type of test is not sufficient to estimate fluid intelligence at the latent level.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningCategorizing working memory tasks only by type and domain does not capture the full range of cognitive demands and may hide improvements in a subgroup of tasks.
“While some distinctions have been made in terms of task type (untrained N-back vs. WM tasks in Soveri et al. 2017a, b) and task domain (verbal vs. visuospatial WM in Melby-Lervåg and Hulme 2013; Melby-Lervåg et al. 2016; Schwaighofer et al. 2015), such categorization does not capture the full range of cognitive demands imposed by different WM tasks and may even mask improvements in a subgroup of”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checkedMay combine two claims.
PremisecitationEvidence on whether adaptivity improves working memory training gains is mixed: one study found greater gains for adaptive training, while others found no effect.
“Moreover, Holmes et al. (2009) showed that WM training gains were significantly greater for an adaptive training group compared with a non-adaptive training group, although others have failed to observe any effects of adaptivity on learning outcome (von Bastian and Eschen 2016).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checkedMay combine two claims.
PremisecitationThe working memory training literature is mixed about what control conditions are used and how much control type alters transfer magnitude.
“However, literature on WM training is mixed both in regard to what control conditions are employed, some using active controls and others passive controls, and also the extent to which the control type seems to alter the magnitude of observed transfer (Au et al. 2015).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Au et al. 2015
Not checked in the free run.
May combine two claims.
Interpretationown dataThe diversity of transfer tasks across studies raises serious questions about whether the same underlying cognitive outcomes are measured and limits interpretation of the literature.
“Overall, this diversity of transfer tasks measured across studies raises serious issues of the extent to which the same underlying cognitive outcomes are assessed across studies and thus, limits the interpretation of the extant literature.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The reviewed set of 57 experiments is representative of published N-back working memory training studies.
Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
PremisecitationThe type of control group plays a significant role in whether transfer is observed, and its impact relates to similarity between N-back training and control interventions, participant engagement, motivation, and expectations.
“It has also been argued that the type of control group plays a significant role in whether transfer is observed. The impact of control groups is related to the degree of similarity between the N-back training and the control interventions, and/or to the differential participant engagement and motivation, and/or participant expectations (Green et al. 2019).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Green et al. 2019
Not checked in the free run.
May combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningSeveral factors lead to the diversity of methods in the field, and this diversity limits progress.
“We suggest that there are several factors that are leading to this diversity of methods, which we argue limit progress in the field.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).
Interpretationnone givenThe conceptual understanding of working memory or fluid intelligence as domain-general processes leads researchers to overlook the importance of domain and task specificity.
“First, there is the conceptual understanding of WM or fluid intelligence as domain-general processes. This view presumably leads researchers to overlook the importance of domain and task specificity, assuming that it does not matter how a specific exercise or test on WM is given (type, modality, etc.), as all approaches would impact the same cognitive process.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
PremisecitationThere is evidence that longer training produces more learning, reflected in more pronounced changes in brain regions involved in working memory, and that training duration affects results, though the appropriate amount is not well established.
“There is evidence that longer training leads to more learning in terms of more pronounced changes in brain regions involved in WM function (Dahlin et al. 2008; Lövdén et al. 2010).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Dahlin et al. 2008 source
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Lövdén et al. 2010
Not checked in the free run.
May combine two claims.
PremisecitationLarge test batteries can cause participant fatigue and reduced engagement, and can create multiple comparison problems.
“Using large test batteries can give rise to participant fatigue and decreased participant engagement (Ackerman and Kanfer 2009), and it can also lead to issues with multiple comparison.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Ackerman and Kanfer 2009
Not checked in the free run.
May combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningThe diversity of transfer tests and batteries across studies is challenging because outcome measures vary in similarity to the trained task and their reliability and validity are often unclear.
“Overall, the diversity of transfer tests and batteries used across studies poses a challenge as these outcome measures vary in their degree of similarity with the trained task, and furthermore, their reliability and their validity in measuring the factor of interest are often unclear.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductreasoningBecause certain training task features had small sample sizes and the literature shows extensive variability, the authors can only speculate whether these factors are meaningful mediators and moderators.
“Given the small sample size of certain training task features and the extensive variability of methods in the literature, we can only speculate whether these factors are meaningful mediators and moderators.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
PremisecitationFeedback is important for learning, especially in complex cognitive tasks and for monitoring goal progress, and it can facilitate learning.
“Feedback plays an important role in the process of learning, particularly in complex cognitive tasks and in monitoring goal progress (West et al. 2001).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites West et al. 2001
Not checked in the free run.
May combine two claims.
PremisecitationMost N-back training studies use adaptive training by adjusting difficulty based on individual performance, and adapting difficulty is engaging for participants.
“Most N-back training studies utilize adaptive training by adjusting the level of task difficulty based on individual performance, and it has been shown that adapting the difficulty level of the task is engaging for the participant (Jaeggi et al. 2014).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Jaeggi et al. 2014 source
Not checked in the free run.
May combine two claims.
Interpretationown dataActive control conditions differ in their cognitive and perceptual demands, in their similarity to the experimental condition, and likely in the expectations they induce about training-related improvement, which makes it difficult to compare results across studies.
“These active control conditions differ in their cognitive and perceptual demands and similarity to the experimental condition, as well as most likely in the induced expectations about performance improvement due to training, again making it difficult to compare results across studies.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
PremisecitationInter-stimulus intervals can affect the time available to process each stimulus and to use strategies such as rehearsal or grouping and comparison, and these strategies can change performance and likely affect learning outcomes.
“Inter-stimulus intervals (ISI) can have an important impact on the time available to process each stimulus and to engage in strategies such as rehearsal or grouping and comparison. The use of these strategies can modify performance levels, give rise to very different experiences during training, and thus likely impact learning outcomes (Laine et al. 2018).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Laine et al. 2018 source
Not checked in the free run.
The paper relies on this without support.
The reviewed set of 57 experiments is representative of published N-back working memory training studies.
“In the current sample, 30 out of the 57 experiments adopted single N-back training”
The paper relies on this without support.
The transfer outcomes reported by the original studies are valid enough to be counted as evidence of transfer or no transfer.
“13 reporting transfer within WM, 11 reporting transfer beyond WM, and 6 reporting no transfer”
The paper relies on this without support.
All tests used to investigate cognitive constructs are only partially correlated with the underlying construct.
“Although there is still an ongoing debate about the relationship between specificity of cognitive functions and domain-general processes, emphasis should be given to the fact that all the tests used to investigate these constructs are only partially correlated with the underlying construct.”
The paper relies on this without support.
If performance on two tasks is correlated but the tasks do not rely on the exact same mechanisms, then a change in one may not predict a change in the other.
“For example, if performance on two tasks is correlated, but they do not rely upon the exact same mechanisms, then a change in one may not predict a change in the other.”
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?
In another meta-analysis of N-back training studies, only 37% reported using N-back tasks as an outcome measure.
“In another meta-analysis of N-back training studies, only 37% of N-back training studies reported using N-back tasks as an outcome measure19”
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 [19]
The Introduction and Transfer Task Features sections say that N-back tasks were among the outcome measures used in the reviewed training studies. They do not report that 37% used N-back outcome tasks. The paper also describes itself as a qualitative review, not a meta-analysis. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredTransfer to untrained N-back tasks is often not reported, so information about what participants learned is often missing.
“Transfer to untrained N-back tasks is often not reported therefore information is often missing about what participants learned, and thus, the extent of learning on measures of transfer remains unknown.”
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 [19]
The Training Task Features section says that important procedural details are often unreported, and the Discussion and Future Directions section says the mechanisms and extent of transfer after N-back training remain unclear. The paper also notes that not all studies assessed both types of transfer, but the passages do not establish that transfer to specifically untrained N-back tasks is often unreported or that this omission is why information about participants’ learning is missing. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Two different counts of fluid-intelligence transfer tasks
MinorThe introduction counts 29 tasks assessing aspects of fluid intelligence, but the transfer-task section counts 27.
“Another 29 tasks assess aspects of fluid intelligence”
“Transfer beyond WM, in particular to fluid intelligence, was assessed with 27 different tasks.”
Dual N-back transfer comparison reverses the reported proportions
MinorThe reported counts give dual N-back a lower proportion of experiments reporting transfer beyond WM (9/27) than single N-back (11/30). They also give dual N-back a lower proportion reporting transfer within WM (8/27 versus 13/30), contrary to the stated comparative suggestion.
“While this may suggest that dual N-back training is more likely to yield transfer within and beyond WM, as compared with single N-back, which seems more likely to show transfer within WM”
“30 out of the 57 experiments adopted single N-back training (13 reporting transfer within WM, 11 reporting transfer beyond WM, and 6 reporting no transfer1) and 27 experiments employed dual N-back training (8 reporting transfer within WM, 9 reporting transfer beyond WM, and 10 reporting no transfer).”
Cites
Working memory: Looking back and looking forward
Baddeley, A. (2003) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn1201 · Cited by 5,200 · see citing works
Working Memory: Theories, Models, and Controversies
Baddeley, A. (2012) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100422 · Cited by 4,271 · see citing works
N-back working memory paradigm: a meta-analysis of normative functional neuroimaging studies.
Owen, A. M., McMillan, K. M., Laird, A. R., & Bullmore, E. (2005) · Human Brain Mapping · doi:10.1002/hbm.20131 · Cited by 3,560 · see citing works
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance.
Intons-Peterson, M. J. (1981) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · doi:10.1037/h0078016 · Cited by 3,261 · see citing works
Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory
Jaeggi, S. M., Buschkuehl, M., Jonides, J., & Perrig, W. J. (2008) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0801268105 · Cited by 2,187 · see citing works
Self-citationIs working memory training effective? A meta-analytic review
Melby-Lervåg, M., & Hulme, C. (2013) · Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0028228 · Cited by 1,782 · see citing works
Kane, M. J., Hambrick, D. Z., Tuholski, S. W., Wilhelm, O., Payne, T. W., & Engle, R. W. (2004) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.133.2.189 · Cited by 1,679 · see citing works
The concurrent validity of the <i>N</i> -back task as a working memory measure
Jaeggi, S. M., Buschkuehl, M., Perrig, W. J., & Meier, B. (2010) · Memory · doi:10.1080/09658211003702171 · Cited by 981 · see citing works
Self-citationAdaptive training leads to sustained enhancement of poor working memory in children
Holmes, J., Gathercole, S. E., & Dunning, D. L. (2009) · Developmental Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2009.00848.x · Cited by 961 · see citing works
Melby-Lervåg, M., Redick, T. S., & Hulme, C. (2016) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691616635612 · Cited by 910 · see citing works
Transfer of Learning After Updating Training Mediated by the Striatum
Dahlin, E., Neely, A. S., Larsson, A., Bäckman, L., & Nyberg, L. (2008) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1155466 · Cited by 892 · see citing works
Task difficulty and the specificity of perceptual learning
Ahissar, M., & Hochstein, S. (1997) · Nature · doi:10.1038/387401a0 · Cited by 823 · see citing works
Morrison, A. B., & Chein, J. M. (2011) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-010-0034-0 · Cited by 723 · see citing works
Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis
Au, J., Sheehan, E., Tsai, N., Duncan, G. J., Buschkuehl, M., & Jaeggi, S. M. (2015) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-014-0699-x · Cited by 671 · see citing works
Self-citationRedick, T. S., Shipstead, Z., Harrison, T. L., Hicks, K. L., Fried, D. E., Hambrick, D. Z., Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2013) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/a0029082 · Cited by 617 · see citing works
Jaeggi, S. M., Studer-Luethi, B., Buschkuehl, M., Su, Y.-F., Jonides, J., & Perrig, W. J. (2010) · Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.intell.2010.09.001 · Cited by 509 · see citing works
Self-citationThe role of individual differences in cognitive training and transfer
Jaeggi, S. M., Buschkuehl, M., Shah, P., & Jonides, J. (2014) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/s13421-013-0364-z · Cited by 432 · see citing works
Self-citationWorking memory plasticity in old age: practice gain, transfer, and maintenance
Li, S.-C., Schmiedek, F., Huxhold, O., Röcke, C., Smith, J., & Lindenberger, U. (2008) · Psychology and Aging · doi:10.1037/a0014343 · Cited by 369 · see citing works
Chein, J. M., & Morrison, A. B. (2010) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/pbr.17.2.193 · Cited by 362 · see citing works
Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies
Soveri, A., Antfolk, J., Karlsson, L., Salo, B., & Laine, M. (2017) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-016-1217-0 · Cited by 350 · see citing works
Does Working Memory Training Transfer? A Meta-Analysis Including Training Conditions as Moderators
Schwaighofer, M., Fischer, F., & Bühner, M. (2015) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520.2015.1036274 · Cited by 332 · cited 3× · see citing works
“Despite numerous meta-analyses aimed to understand the effectiveness of N-back training (Au et al. 2015; Soveri et al. 2017a, b; Melby-Lervåg and Hulme 2013; Melby-Lervåg et al. 2016; Schwaighofer et al. 2015), there is still disagreement about the extent of transfer after N-back training.”
BackgroundWorking memory training in older adults: Evidence of transfer and maintenance effects.
Borella, E., Carretti, B., Riboldi, F., & De Beni, R. (2010) · Psychology and Aging · doi:10.1037/a0020683 · Cited by 328 · see citing works
Effects and mechanisms of working memory training: a review
von Bastian, C. C., & Oberauer, K. (2014) · Psychological Research · doi:10.1007/s00426-013-0524-6 · Cited by 318 · see citing works
Reward Improves Long-Term Retention of a Motor Memory through Induction of Offline Memory Gains
Abe, M., Schambra, H., Wassermann, E. M., Luckenbaugh, D., Schweighofer, N., & Cohen, L. G. (2011) · Current Biology · doi:10.1016/j.cub.2011.02.030 · Cited by 313 · see citing works
Complex span and n-back measures of working memory: A meta-analysis
Redick, T. S., & Lindsey, D. R. B. (2013) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-013-0453-9 · Cited by 305 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Performance on Nback tasks only correlates weakly with performance on complex span tasks (Redick and Lindsey 2013) therefore it makes sense to consider updating and span tasks separately.”
BackgroundAckerman, P. L., & Kanfer, R. (2009) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied · doi:10.1037/a0015719 · Cited by 288 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Using large test batteries can give rise to participant fatigue and decreased participant engagement (Ackerman and Kanfer 2009), and it can also lead to issues with multiple comparison.”
BackgroundJackson, J. J., Hill, P. L., Payne, B. R., Roberts, B. W., & Stine-Morrow, E. A. L. (2012) · Psychology and Aging · doi:10.1037/a0025918 · Cited by 265 · see citing works
How feedback boosts motivation and play in a brain-training game
Burgers, C., Eden, A., van Engelenburg, M. D., & Buningh, S. (2015) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.038 · Cited by 245 · see citing works
Crottaz‐Herbette, S., Anagnoson, R., & Menon, V. (2003) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2003.09.019 · Cited by 245 · see citing works
Improving Methodological Standards in Behavioral Interventions for Cognitive Enhancement
Green, C. S., Bavelier, D., Kramer, A. F., Vinogradov, S., Ulrich Ansorge, A., Ball, K., Bingel, U., Chein, J. M., Colzato, L. S., Edwards, J. D., et al. (2019) · Journal of Cognitive Enhancement · doi:10.1007/s41465-018-0115-y · Cited by 236 · cited 1× · see citing works
“The impact of control groups is related to the degree of similarity between the N-back training and the control interventions, and/or to the differential participant engagement and motivation, and/or participant expectations (Green et al. 2019).”
BackgroundSelf-citationSimen, P., Contreras, D., Buck, C. L., Hu, P. T., Holmes, P. J., & Cohen, J. D. (2009) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · doi:10.1037/a0016926 · Cited by 224 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Feedback is usually delivered based on participants’ accuracy and/or response speed and is typically designed to encourage participants to optimize their performance to achieve better learning and/or greater reward (Simen et al. 2009).”
BackgroundJaeggi, S. M., Seewer, R., Nirkko, A. C., Eckstein, D., Schroth, G., Groner, R., & Gutbrod, K. (2003) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/s1053-8119(03)00098-3 · Cited by 211 · see citing works
Self-citationWorking memory training does not improve intelligence in healthy young adults
Chooi, W.-T., & Thompson, L. A. (2012) · Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.intell.2012.07.004 · Cited by 209 · see citing works
Failure of Working Memory Training to Enhance Cognition or Intelligence
Thompson, T. W., Waskom, M. L., Garel, K.-L. A., Cardenas-Iniguez, C., Reynolds, G. O., Winter, R., Chang, P., Pollard, K., Lala, N., Alvarez, G. A., et al. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0063614 · Cited by 208 · see citing works
Schweizer, S., Hampshire, A., & Dalgleish, T. (2011) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0024372 · Cited by 198 · see citing works
Plasticity of cortical activation related to working memory during training
Hempel, A., Giesel, F. L., Garcia Caraballo, N. M., Amann, M., Meyer, H., Wüstenberg, T., Essig, M., & Schröder, J. (2004) · American Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.161.4.745 · Cited by 177 · see citing works
Models of Working Memory: An Introduction
Shah, P., & Miyake, A. (1999) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139174909.004 · Cited by 167 · cited 1× · see citing works
“WM isimportant for a wide range of complex cognitive activities, such as reading or problem solving (Shah and Miyake 1999).”
BackgroundKundu, B., Sutterer, D. W., Emrich, S. M., & Postle, B. R. (2013) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.5565-12.2013 · Cited by 161 · see citing works
On the impacts of working memory training on executive functioning
Salminen, T., Strobach, T., & Schubert, T. (2012) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2012.00166 · Cited by 148 · see citing works
Bürki, C. N., Ludwig, C., Chicherio, C., & de Ribaupierre, A. (2014) · Psychological Research · doi:10.1007/s00426-014-0559-3 · Cited by 131 · see citing works
Prolonged Training at Threshold Promotes Robust Retinotopic Specificity in Perceptual Learning
Hung, S.-C., & Seitz, A. R. (2014) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.0745-14.2014 · Cited by 130 · see citing works
Self-citationHeinzel, S., Schulte, S., Onken, J., Duong, Q.-L., Riemer, T., Heinz, A., Kathmann, N., & Rapp, M. A. (2013) · Aging Neuropsychology and Cognition · doi:10.1080/13825585.2013.790338 · Cited by 129 · see citing works
Implications of short-term retest effects for the interpretation of longitudinal change.
Salthouse, T. A., & Tucker–Drob, E. M. (2008) · Neuropsychology · doi:10.1037/a0013091 · Cited by 118 · see citing works
Neural effects of short-term training on working memory
Buschkuehl, M., Hernandez-Garcia, L., Jaeggi, S. M., Bernard, J. A., & Jonides, J. (2014) · Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.3758/s13415-013-0244-9 · Cited by 117 · see citing works
Self-citationThe effects of working memory resource depletion and training on sensorimotor adaptation
Anguera, J. A., Bernard, J. A., Jaeggi, S. M., Buschkuehl, M., Benson, B. L., Jennett, S., Humfleet, J., Reuter-Lorenz, P. A., Jonides, J., & Seidler, R. D. (2012) · Behavioural Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2011.11.040 · Cited by 115 · see citing works
Self-citationNeural correlates of training and transfer effects in working memory in older adults
Heinzel, S., Lorenz, R. C., Pelz, P., Heinz, A., Walter, H., Kathmann, N., Rapp, M. A., & Stelzel, C. (2016) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.03.068 · Cited by 113 · see citing works
Colom, R., Román, F. J., Abad, F. J., Shih, P. C., Privado, J., Froufe, M., Escorial, S., Martínez, K., Burgaleta, M., Quiroga, M. A., et al. (2013) · Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.intell.2013.09.002 · Cited by 112 · see citing works
Self-citationDual n-back training increases the capacity of the focus of attention
Lilienthal, L., Tamez, E., Shelton, J. T., Myerson, J., & Hale, S. (2013) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-012-0335-6 · Cited by 112 · see citing works
Stepankova, H., Lukavsky, J., Buschkuehl, M., Kopecek, M., Ripova, D., & Jaeggi, S. M. (2014) · Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0034913 · Cited by 101 · see citing works
Self-citationTraining on Working Memory and Inhibitory Control in Young Adults
Maraver, M. J., Bajo, M. T., & Gomez-Ariza, C. J. (2016) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2016.00588 · Cited by 96 · see citing works
Improved matrix reasoning is limited to training on tasks with a visuospatial component
Stephenson, C. L., & Halpern, D. F. (2013) · Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.intell.2013.05.006 · Cited by 95 · see citing works
Rudebeck, S. R., Bor, D., Ormond, A., O’Reilly, J. X., & Lee, A. C. H. (2012) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0050431 · Cited by 95 · see citing works
Vartanian, O. A., Jobidon, M.-E., Bouak, F., Nakashima, A., Smith, I., Lam, Q., & Cheung, B. (2013) · Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2012.12.060 · Cited by 92 · see citing works
A simultaneous examination of two forms of working memory training: Evidence for near transfer only
Minear, M., Brasher, F., Guerrero, C. B., Brasher, M., Moore, A., & Sukeena, J. (2016) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/s13421-016-0616-9 · Cited by 85 · see citing works
Does working memory training have to be adaptive?
von Bastian, C. C., & Eschen, A. (2016) · Psychological Research · doi:10.1007/s00426-015-0655-z · Cited by 83 · see citing works
The dynamics of change in striatal activity following updating training
Kühn, S., Schmiedek, F., Noack, H., Wenger, E., Bodammer, N., Lindenberger, U., & Lövdén, M. (2012) · Human Brain Mapping · doi:10.1002/hbm.22007 · Cited by 80 · see citing works
Beauducel, A., Brocke, B., & Liepmann, D. (2001) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/s0191-8869(00)00087-8 · Cited by 74 · see citing works
Lawlor-Savage, L., & Goghari, V. M. (2016) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0151817 · Cited by 74 · see citing works
N-back Versus Complex Span Working Memory Training
Blacker, K. J., Negoita, S., Ewen, J. B., & Courtney, S. M. (2017) · Journal of Cognitive Enhancement · doi:10.1007/s41465-017-0044-1 · Cited by 74 · see citing works
The early effects of external and internal strategies on working memory updating training
Laine, M., Fellman, D., Waris, O., & Nyman, T. J. (2018) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-018-22396-5 · Cited by 71 · see citing works
Mohammed, S., Flores, L., Deveau, J., Hoffing, R. C., Phung, C., Parlett, C., Sheehan, E., Lee, D. M., Au, J., Buschkuehl, M., et al. (2017) · Journal of Cognitive Enhancement · doi:10.1007/s41465-017-0047-y · Cited by 67 · see citing works
Self-citationWest, R. L., Welch, D. C., & Thorn, R. M. (2001) · Psychology and Aging · doi:10.1037/0882-7974.16.2.240 · Cited by 66 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Feedback Feedback plays an important role in the process of learning, particularly in complex cognitive tasks and in monitoring goal progress (West et al. 2001).”
BackgroundP300 and slow wave from oddball and single-stimulus visual tasks: inter-stimulus interval effects
Strüber, D., & Polich, J. M. (2002) · International Journal of Psychophysiology · doi:10.1016/s0167-8760(02)00071-5 · Cited by 62 · see citing works
Two cases requiring external reinforcement in perceptual learning
Seitz, A. R., Náñez, J. E., Holloway, S. R., Tsushima, Y., & Watanabe, T. (2006) · Journal of Vision · doi:10.1167/6.9.9 · Cited by 58 · see citing works
Self-citationWorking memory training improves visual short-term memory capacity
Schwarb, H., Nail, J., & Schumacher, E. H. (2016) · Psychological Research · doi:10.1007/s00426-015-0648-y · Cited by 55 · see citing works
Memory and language improvements following cognitive control training.
Hussey, E. K., Harbison, J. I., Teubner-Rhodes, S. E., Mishler, A., Velnoskey, K. R., & Novick, J. M. (2016) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/xlm0000283 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
Functional brain activation associated with working memory training and transfer
Clark, C. M., Lawlor‐Savage, L., & Goghari, V. M. (2017) · Behavioural Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2017.07.030 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
Age-specific differences of dualn-back training
Salminen, T. M., Frensch, P. A., Strobach, T., & Schubert, T. (2015) · Aging Neuropsychology and Cognition · doi:10.1080/13825585.2015.1031723 · Cited by 48 · see citing works
Transfer after working memory updating training
Waris, O., Soveri, A., & Laine, M. (2015) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0138734 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
Heinzel, S., Rimpel, J., Stelzel, C., & Rapp, M. A. (2017) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2017.00085 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
(Un)Great Expectations: The Role of Placebo Effects in Cognitive Training
Tsai, N., Buschkuehl, M., Kamarsu, S., Shah, P., Jonides, J. J., & Jaeggi, S. M. (2018) · Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2018.06.001 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
Self-citationLövdén, M., Schaefer, S., Noack, H., Kanowski, M., Kaufmann, J., Tempelmann, C., Bodammer, N., Kühn, S., Heinze, H., Lindenberger, U., et al. (2010) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhq230 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
Validation of a matrix reasoning task for mobile devices
Pahor, A., Stavropoulos, T., Jaeggi, S. M., & Seitz, A. R. (2019) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-018-1152-2 · Cited by 36 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Recent efforts to develop multiple parallel reasoning tests may mitigate these types of problems in future intervention studies (Pahor et al. 2018; Kyllonen et al. 2018).”
BackgroundSelf-citationPattern of Near Transfer Effects Following Working Memory Training With a Dual <i>N</i>-Back Task
Soveri, A., Karlsson, E. P. A., Waris, O., Grönholm-Nyman, P., & Laine, M. (2017) · Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1027/1618-3169/a000370 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
Küper, K., & Karbach, J. (2016) · Journal of Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1080/20445911.2015.1118106 · Cited by 33 · see citing works
Clark, C. M., Lawlor‐Savage, L., & Goghari, V. M. (2017) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0177707 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
The effect of monetary compensation on cognitive training outcomes
Katz, B., Jaeggi, S. M., Buschkuehl, M., Shah, P., & Jonides, J. (2018) · Learning and Motivation · doi:10.1016/j.lmot.2017.12.002 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
Self-citationExploring the effectiveness of commercial and custom-built games for cognitive training
Smith, S. P., Stibric, M., & Smithson, D. (2013) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.05.014 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
Is working memory capacity fixed?
Klingberg, T. (2012) · Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2012.07.004 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
Zając-Lamparska, L., & Trempała, J. (2016) · Health Psychology Report · doi:10.5114/hpr.2016.56846 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
General fluid/inductive reasoning battery for a high-ability population
Kyllonen, P. C., Hartman, R. O., Sprenger, A. M., Weeks, J. P., Bertling, M., McGrew, K. S., Kriz, S., Bertling, J., Fife, J. H., & Stankov, L. (2018) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-018-1098-4 · Cited by 24 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Recent efforts to develop multiple parallel reasoning tests may mitigate these types of problems in future intervention studies (Pahor et al. 2018; Kyllonen et al. 2018).”
BackgroundJonasson, C. (2013) · Journal of Education and Work · doi:10.1080/13639080.2013.787483 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Nagle, A., Riener, R., & Wolf, P. (2015) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01774 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Zhao, X., Xu, Y., Fu, J., & Maes, J. H. R. (2017) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/s13421-017-0773-5 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Urbánek, T., & Marček, V. (2015) · Psychological Research · doi:10.1007/s00426-015-0687-4 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
Shahar, N., & Meiran, N. (2015) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0119992 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Loosli, S. V., Falquez, R., Unterrainer, J. M., Weiller, C., Rahm, B., & Kaller, C. P. (2015) · International Psychogeriatrics · doi:10.1017/s1041610215001519 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Study on Improving Fluid Intelligence through Cognitive Training System Based on Gabor Stimulus
Qiu, F., Wei, Q., Zhao, L., & Lin, L. (2009) · International Conference on Information Science and Engineering · doi:10.1109/icise.2009.1124 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Hogrefe, A. B., Studer-Luethi, B., Kodzhabashev, S. T., & Perrig, W. J. (2017) · Journal of Cognitive Enhancement · doi:10.1007/s41465-017-0042-3 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Contribution of human cone photoreceptors to the photopic 30-Hz flicker electroretinogram
Verma, R., & Pianta, M. J. (2010) · Journal of Vision · doi:10.1167/6.13.9 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Clouter, A. (2013) · Library and Archives Canada (Government of Canada) · Cited by 7 · see citing works
The Effect of Working Memory (n-back) Training on Fluid Intelligence
Preece, D. A. (2012) · Australasian Journal of Paramedicine · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
4 of the 96 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Marček, V. (2015). Effectiveness of n-back cognitive training: quantitative and qualitative aspects (Doctoral dissertation, Masarykova univerzita, Fakulta sociálních studií).
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Cognitive Training: A Field in Search of a Phenomenon
Gobet, F. R., & Sala, G. (2022) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/17456916221091830 · Cited by 149 · see citing works
Working memory training in typically developing children: A multilevel meta-analysis
Sala, G., & Gobet, F. (2020) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-019-01681-y · Cited by 131 · see citing works
“According to Pergher et al. (2019), the diversity of features in the training tasks (e.g., single vs. dual tasks) and the transfer tasks (e.g., numerical vs. verbal tasks) may make any metaanalytic synthesis on the topic essentially meaningless.”
BackgroundResultInfluentialSala, G., Aksayli, N. D., Tatlidil, K. S., Gondo, Y., & Gobet, F. (2019) · Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.intell.2019.101386 · Cited by 63 · see citing works
Expectation effects in working memory training
Parong, J. A., Seitz, A. R., Jaeggi, S. M., & Green, C. S. (2022) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2209308119 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
Self-citationIs working memory domain-general or domain-specific?
Nozari, N., & Martin, R. C. (2024) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2024.06.006 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
Narrowing the achievement gap in low-achieving children by targeted executive function training
Wang, C., Jaeggi, S. M., Yang, L., Zhang, T., He, X., Buschkuehl, M., & Zhang, Q. (2019) · Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2019.06.002 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
Self-citationPahor, A., Seitz, A. R., & Jaeggi, S. M. (2022) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-022-01384-w · Cited by 34 · see citing works
Self-citationN-Back Related ERPs Depend on Stimulus Type, Task Structure, Pre-processing, and Lab Factors
Shalchy, M. A., Pergher, V., Pahor, A., Hulle, M. M. V., & Seitz, A. R. (2020) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2020.549966 · Cited by 33 · see citing works
Self-citationSalmi, J., Soveri, A., Salmela, V. R., Alho, K., Leppämäki, S., Tani, P., Koski, A., Jaeggi, S. M., & Laine, M. (2020) · Human Brain Mapping · doi:10.1002/hbm.25164 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
“adults with ADHD when compared to active controls, and furthermore, using an intervention task (n-back) that has been widely used in cognitive training studies (Pergher et al., 2020).”
BackgroundMethodSelf-citationAnxiety-reducing effects of working memory training: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Wang, Y., Wen, B., Wei, J., & Hu, S. (2023) · Journal of Affective Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jad.2023.03.045 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Assessing the Impact of Expectations in Cognitive Training and Beyond
Denkinger, S., Spano, L. P., Bingel, U., Witt, C. M., Bavelier, D., & Green, C. S. (2021) · Journal of Cognitive Enhancement · doi:10.1007/s41465-021-00206-7 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Individual Differences in Cognitive Training Research
Katz, B., Jones, M. R., Shah, P., Buschkuehl, M., & Jaeggi, S. M. (2020) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-39292-5_8 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
Self-citationPergher, V., Vanbilsen, N., & Hulle, M. M. V. (2021) · Neural Plasticity · doi:10.1155/2021/6612805 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Self-citationde Larrea-Mancera, E. S. L., Stavropoulos, T., Carrillo, A. A., Cheung, S., He, Y. J., Eddins, D. A., Molis, M. R., Gallun, F. J., & Seitz, A. R. (2022) · The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · doi:10.1121/10.0013221 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Self-citationRoberts, H., Mostazir, M., Moberly, N. J., Watkins, E. R., & Adlam, A. (2021) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.brat.2021.103871 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
“There is evidence that this is critical to triggering cognitive plasticity and enabling change to fluid abilities (Klingberg, 2010; Lövdén, Bäckman, Lindenberger, Schaefer, & Schmiedek, 2010; Pergher et al., 2019)).”
BackgroundJia, L., Shan, J., Xu, G., & Jin, H. (2020) · Journal of Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1080/20445911.2020.1800019 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Training with an auditory perceptual learning game transfers to speech in competition
de Larrea-Mancera, E. S. L., Philipp, M. A., Stavropoulos, T., Carrillo, A. A., Cheung, S., Koerner, T. K., Molis, M. R., Gallun, F. J., & Seitz, A. R. (2021) · Journal of Cognitive Enhancement · doi:10.1007/s41465-021-00224-5 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Self-citationStuder-Luethi, B., Törmänen, M. R. K., Margelisch, K., Hogrefe, A. B., & Perrig, W. J. (2022) · Journal of Cognitive Enhancement · doi:10.1007/s41465-022-00242-x · Cited by 19 · see citing works
Multisensory Facilitation of Working Memory Training
Pahor, A., Collins, C., Smith-Peirce, R. N., Moon, A., Stavropoulos, T., Silva, I., Peng, E., Jaeggi, S. M., & Seitz, A. R. (2021) · Journal of Cognitive Enhancement · doi:10.1007/s41465-020-00196-y · Cited by 17 · see citing works
Self-citationExploring Individual Differences as Predictors of Performance Change During Dual-N-Back Training
Ørskov, P. T., Norup, A., Beatty, E. L., & Jaeggi, S. M. (2021) · Journal of Cognitive Enhancement · doi:10.1007/s41465-021-00216-5 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
“In recent years, numerous studies using variants of the n-back task as an intervention have been conducted (Pergher et al. 2019).”
BackgroundSelf-citationKnöbel, S., & Lautenbach, F. (2023) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1026017 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
“In this context, it has been shown that information reception as well as memorizing of stimuli is facilitated by longer presentation through repeated recall (Inglis and Gilmore, 2013; Pergher et al., 2020).”
BackgroundApplication of Machine Learning Models for Tracking Participant Skills in Cognitive Training
Sandeep, S., Shelton, C. R., Pahor, A., Jaeggi, S. M., & Seitz, A. R. (2020) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01532 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Self-citationInvestigating the Role of Individual Differences in Adherence to Cognitive Training
Tullo, D., Feng, Y., Pahor, A., Cote, J. M., Seitz, A. R., & Jaeggi, S. M. (2023) · Journal of Cognition · doi:10.5334/joc.315 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Self-citationEdwards, G., Contò, F., Bucci, L. K., et al. (2020) · Cerebral Cortex Communications · doi:10.1093/texcom/tgaa069 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
“Our data are in line with previous studies which demonstrate multiple sessions of training can improve cognitive performance (Jaggi et al. 2008; Herpich et al. 2019; Pergher et al. 2020).”
Doma, K. M., Lewis, E. D., Barracato, J., Brink, L., Gratson, A. A., Pandey, N., Crowley, D. C., & Evans, M. (2023) · Neurology and Therapy · doi:10.1007/s40120-023-00454-z · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Zhu, D., Jing, Y., Huang, R., Gao, Y. F., Liu, Y., Zou, Z., & Liu, W. (2022) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su142114152 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Studer-Luethi, B., & Meier, B. (2020) · Journal of Cognitive Enhancement · doi:10.1007/s41465-020-00202-3 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Ramme, R. A., Neumann, D. L., & Donovan, C. L. (2022) · Learning and Motivation · doi:10.1016/j.lmot.2022.101782 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Sala, G., Aksaylı, N. D., Semir, K., et al. (2018) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/5frzb · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Zuber, P., Geiter, E., de Quervain, D. J. ‐., & Magon, S. (2021) · Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnagi.2021.682474 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Single-Trial EEG Responses Classified Using Latency Features
Hardiansyah, I., Pergher, V., & Hulle, M. M. V. (2020) · International Journal of Neural Systems · doi:10.1142/s0129065720500331 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Self-citationWorking Memory Training in Typically Developing Children: A Multilevel Meta-AnalysisPreprint
Sala, G., & Gobet, F. R. (2019) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/p3vku · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Adolphe, M., Pech, M., Sawayama, M., Maurel, D., Delmas, A., Oudeyer, P., & Sauzeon, H. (2025) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0316860 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
“Among the salient factors identified, the lack of standardization of the content used is highlighted by recent SRs [51].”
Mazo, G., Pantaléo, S. M., van der Oord, A., Picq, J., Hertz‐Pannier, L., Brunet-Gouet, É., Azouvi, P., & Vallat‐Azouvi, C. (2024) · Neuropsychological Rehabilitation · doi:10.1080/09602011.2024.2319909 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
“The training and rehabilitation methods were indeed quite different from one study to the other, making comparisons between studies difficult, which is a general problem in the field (Pergher et al., 2020).”
Cognitive training: A Field in Search of a PhenomenonPreprint
Gobet, F. R., & Sala, G. (2020) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/vxzq9 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
The near- and far-transfer effects of cognitive training on attentional networks in women and men
Bednarek, H., Przedniczek, M., Olszewska, J. M., Niewiarowski, J., & Orzechowski, J. (2021) · Journal of Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1080/20445911.2021.1916508 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Impact of strategy use during N-Back training in older adults
Pergher, V., Vanbilsen, N., Tournoy, J., Schoenmakers, B., & Hulle, M. M. V. (2020) · Journal of Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1080/20445911.2020.1833891 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Self-citationPollé, S., Sankalaite, S., Huizinga, M., McClelland, M. M., Spilt, J. L., & Baeyens, D. (2025) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2025.1528805 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Cáceres, N. A., Yu, Q., Capaldi, J. M., Diniz, M. A., Raynor, H. A., Foster, G. D., Seitz, A. R., & Salvy, S. (2022) · Contemporary Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/j.cct.2022.106844 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Self-citationAdolphe, M., Pech, M., Sawayama, M., Maurel, D., Delmas, A., Oudeyer, P., & Sauzeon, H. (2023) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/2wg59 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Pappa, K., Flegal, K. E., Baylan, S., & Evans, J. J. (2021) · Applied Neuropsychology Adult · doi:10.1080/23279095.2021.1904243 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Komarudin, K., & Wali, C. N. (2022) · Advances in health sciences research/Advances in Health Sciences Research · doi:10.2991/ahsr.k.220106.012 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
“The training method is also defined as a method used by coaches to train athletes to gain accuracy, speed, agility, skill and endurance [20], [21].”
MethodVanbilsen, N., Pergher, V., & Hulle, M. M. V. (2023) · Current Psychology · doi:10.1007/s12144-023-04347-0 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Self-citationTurnbull, A. G., Seitz, A. R., & Lin, F. V. (2023) · Alzheimer s & Dementia Translational Research & Clinical Interventions · doi:10.1002/trc2.12405 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Self-citationRetraining Dorsal Visual Pathways Improves Cognitive Skills After a Mild Traumatic Brain Injury
Lawton, T. B., Shelley-Tremblay, J. F., Lee, R. R., & Huang, M. (2025) · Journal of Clinical Medicine · doi:10.3390/jcm14072273 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
“The ReCollect task is one of the most frequently used WM paradigms [50] to investigate the neural basis of WM processes.”
Edwards, G., Contò, F., Bucci, L. K., et al. (2020) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2020.01.06.896357 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Training with an auditory perceptual learning game transfers to speech in competitionPreprint
de Larrea-Mancera, E. S. L., Philipp, M. A., Stavropoulos, T., et al. (2021) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2021.01.26.428343 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
“We used an n-back tasks (Kircher, 1958), where participants are required to report what they saw n-items back in a continuous presentation, that has been widely used with different types of stimuli, and task parameters (see Pergher et al., 2020).”
MethodSelf-citationIs working memory domain-general or domain-specific? Implications for theory and practicePreprint
Nozari, N., & Martin, R. C. (2024) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/d7a6j · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Zhong, L.-A., Chen, K.-Y., Hsieh, M.-J., & Ho, M.-C. (2025) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.105499 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
QUESTIONÁRIO DE LEVANTAMENTO DE ESTRATÉGIAS PARA TREINOS COGNITIVOS
Barbosa‐Pereira, D., Rabelo, I. N., Pinheiro, I. F., & Mansur‐Alves, M. (2024) · Recital - Revista de Educação Ciência e Tecnologia de Almenara/MG · doi:10.46636/recital.v5i3.487 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Is working memory training efficient? Effects on IQ and school performance in Brazilian children
Barbosa‐Pereira, D., Martins, P. S. R., Ferreira‐Junior, L. A., da Costa, M. F. A., Paixão, J. P. C., Costa, R. R., Saldanha‐Silva, R., & Mansur‐Alves, M. (2022) · Applied Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1002/acp.3921 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Barroso, S. M., Longo, M. G. F., de Sousa, A. L. D., et al. (2021) · Revista Família Ciclos de Vida e Saúde no Contexto Social · doi:10.18554/refacs.v9i1.5112 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Ørskov, P. T., Norup, A., Beatty, E. L., & Jaeggi, S. M. (2021) · Journal of Cognitive Enhancement · doi:10.1007/s41465-021-00221-8 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Self-citationGetting at Underlying Mechanisms of Far Transfer - the Mediating Role of Near TransferPreprint
Pahor, A., Seitz, A. R., & Jaeggi, S. M. (2021) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/q5xmp · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Self-citationDoes Emotional Working Memory Training Ameliorate Anxiety and Depression? A Meta-Analytic ReviewPreprint
Ou, J., Mou, H., Zhou, T., et al. (2025) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-7409661/v1
Lawton, T. B., Shelley-Tremblay, J. F., Lee, R. R., & Huang, M. (2025) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2025.1698605
“The N-back paradigm specifically targets dorsal lateral PreFrontal Cortex (dlPFC) (Pahor et al., 2020), and represents one of the most frequently used working memory training protocols (Pergher et al., 2019).”
Feng, Y., DePascale, M., Ramani, G. B., & Jaeggi, S. M. (2026) · Journal of Cognitive Enhancement · doi:10.1007/s41465-026-00364-6
“…for the inconsistencies between studies, including the frequent use of underpowered samples, variability in inter - vention procedures (e.g., dosage, setting, or types of outcome measures), and/or the inadequate implementation of controls (e.g., Birtwistle et al., 2025; Pergher et al., 2020).”
Self-citationPadulo, C., Cascone, A., Crescenzo, F. D., Gigliotta, O., & Fairfield, B. (2026) · Journal of Intelligence · doi:10.3390/jintelligence14070124
From Memory to Strategy: Exploring Strategy Use During Working Memory Training in Brazilian Children
Barbosa‐Pereira, D., Martins, P. S. R., & Mansur‐Alves, M. (2026) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1177/17470218261477569
Dissociating stimulus and task effects on neural oscillations during n-back tasks
Munneke, J., Vafaei, E., Osborne, J. B., Shalchy, M. A., Jaeggi, S. M., & Seitz, A. R. (2026) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2026.1883989
Self-citation
- Authors
- Pergher, V., Shalchy, M. A., Pahor, A., Van Hulle, M. M., Jaeggi, S. M., & Seitz, A. R.
- Affiliations
- KU Leuven (BE)
- University of California, Riverside (US)
- University of California, Irvine (US)
- Corresponding author
- Pergher, Valentina
- Venue
- Journal of Cognitive Enhancement
- Published
- 2019-05-09
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 100-120
- ISSN
- 2509-3290 (ISSN-L)
- 2509-3304
- PMC
- PMC8336689
- OpenAlex
- W2943834229
- Semantic Scholar
- e538216d7fe895e4fded29c819139676cf7c505d
- Cited by
- 56
- References
- 96
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 2
- FWCI
- 10.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Journal of Cognitive Enhancement (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Lirias (KU Leuven) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- NIMH R01 (MH111742)
- NIH/NIA 1K02 (AG054665)
- the Belgian Fund for Scientific Research-Flanders (G088314N)
- Financing program (PFV/10/008)
- interdisciplinary research project (IDO/12/007)
- industrial research fund project (IOF/HB/12/021)
- special research fund project Ku Leuven (C24/18/098)
- Belgian Fund for Scientific Research – Flanders (G0A0914N, G0A4118N)
- Interuniversity Attraction Poles Programme – Belgian Science Policy (IUAP P7/11)
- Flemish Regional Ministry of Education (GOA 10/019)
- Hercules Foundation (AKUL 043)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Cognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skills
- Keywords
- working memory training, transfer effects, outcome measures, methodological heterogeneity, meta-analysis limitations
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.
Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-08.
Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-08.
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