Cited by 2Cognitive Abilities and TestingCognitive Functions and MemoryCognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skills

Near and far transfer effects of working memory training: A preregistered, double-blind, randomized-controlled study

Open access
Zhong, Li-An, Chen, Kuan-Yu, Hsieh, Min-Jung, Ho, Ming-Chou·2025·Acta Psychologica

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Previous research indicates near transfer effects of working memory (WM) training on updating, shifting, and inhibition tasks, although findings vary. Regarding fluid intelligence (Gf), studies yield conflicting results on the far transfer effects of WM training. The current study investigates whether different styles of adaptive visuospatial N-back WM training produce near and far transfer effects and whether individual differences moderate these effects. METHODS: We conducted a preregistered, double-blind, randomized controlled trial to mitigate potential biases from both participants and researchers. Participants were assigned to either a training or active control group, with one of three training styles: long (20 × 30-min sessions), medium (5 × 30-min sessions), or intense (5 × 15-min sessions). Cognitive performance was assessed at three time points: pretest, posttest, and one-month follow-up. RESULTS: The results showed that longer training led to greater gains, reflected by an increase in the N-level-that is, how many steps back participants had to remember and compare in the N-back task. However, the training group did not show near and far transfer effects after WM training. Moreover, individual differences in cognitive ability, need for cognition, and beliefs about intelligence malleability did not moderate the transfer effects. CONCLUSIONS: While training gains increased with longer training, these improvements did not generalize to untrained cognitive tasks. These findings underscore the limited transferability of WM training effects despite increased training dosage.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.105499

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Kao, 1994, The concept and measurement of need for cognition, Chinese Journal of Psychology, 36, 1
  2. Liu, 2013, The influence of the fear of being laughed at on challenge-confronting tendencies among junior high school students: The moderating effect of self-theories of intelligence, Bulletin of Educational Psychology, 44, 691
  3. NIMH, 2010, Research domain criteria workshop on working memory

Authors
Zhong, L.-A., Chen, K.-Y., Hsieh, M.-J., & Ho, M.-C.
Affiliations
  • Kaohsiung Veterans General Hospital (TW)
  • Chung Shan Medical University Hospital (TW)
Corresponding author
Ho, Ming-Chou
Venue
Acta Psychologica
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2025-10
Volume
260
Pages
105499
ISSN
0001-6918 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4414005927
Cited by
1
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 1
FWCI
1.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Acta Psychologica (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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, near transfer, far transfer, fluid intelligence, training dose, individual differences, need for cognition, cognitive flexibility
MeSH terms
Cognitive Training, Adult, Double-Blind Method, Female, Humans, Individuality, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Transfer, Psychology

About these checks

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

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

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

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

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