Computerized working memory training: Can it lead to gains in cognitive skills in students?
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The follow-up arithmetic effect seems driven by three comparisons across two studies where the control group shows decreases between pretest and posttest.
“Unfortunately, once again this effect seems to be driven by three comparisons across two studies (Nussbaumer et al., 2013; Alloway et al., 2013) where the control group shows decreases in performance between pretest and posttest.”
From Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer” (2016) · cites this paper as Alloway et al., 2013
Traditional non-digital WMT formats are limited by standardisation, objective dose quantification, and long-term adherence over extended periods and at scale.
“Traditional non-digital formats are often limited by standardisation, objective dose quantification, and long-term adherence over extended periods and at scale18.”
From Meta-analysis of computerised working memory training: behavioural gains, training parameters, transfer mechanisms, and neural correlates (2026) · cites this paper as [18]
Alloway et al. found that a group trained four times a week for 8 weeks (massed distribution) outperformed a group trained once a week for 8 weeks (spaced distribution), but this may have been due to the different amount of practice involved.
“A different pattern emerged in a study by Alloway et al.[43], in which a group trained four times a week for 8 weeks (massed distribution) outperformed another group trained with the same WM tasks only once a week for 8 weeks (spaced distribution), but this may have been due to the different amount of practice involved (one group attended 28 sessions, the other only 8).”
From Nearest transfer effects of working memory training: A comparison of two programs focused on working memory updating (2019) · cites this paper as [43]
In WM training studies, evidence of the practice distribution effect is scarce and inconsistent.
“In the context of WM training studies, however, evidence of the practice distribution effect is scarce and inconsistent.”
From Nearest transfer effects of working memory training: A comparison of two programs focused on working memory updating (2019) · cites this paper as [43]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 48 · Cited by 193
- Authors
- Alloway, T. P., Bibile, V., & Lau, G.
- Affiliations
- University of North Florida (US)
- University of Stirling (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Alloway, Tracy Packiam
- Venue
- Computers in Human Behavior
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2013-05
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 632-638
- ISSN
- 0747-5632 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2057564797
- Semantic Scholar
- 5b8d7170b47e5595ab6433e183d01c3841c9b297
- Cited by
- 193
- References
- 48
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 27.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Update notices
- erratum (2014-05-01)
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Computers in Human Behavior (publishedVersion)
- University of North Florida Digital Commons (University of North Florida) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Cognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skills
- Keywords
- working memory training, computer-based training, far transfer, near transfer, exercise frequency, maintenance effects, verbal ability, nonverbal ability, spelling, academic performance, struggling students, cognitive skills
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
