The DOI matches its Crossref record; 76 of the 77 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 40 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
The cognitive and academic benefits of Cogmed: A meta-analysis
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Cogmed Working Memory Training (CWMT) is a commercial cognitive-training program designed to foster working-memory capacity. Enhanced working-memory capacity is then supposed to increase one's overall cognitive function and academic achievement. This meta-analysis investigates the effects of CWMT on cognitive and academic outcomes. The inclusion criteria were met by 50 studies (637 effect sizes). Highly consistent near-zero effects were estimated in far-transfer measures of cognitive ability (e.g., attention and intelligence) and academic achievement (language ability and mathematics). By contrast, slightly heterogeneous small to medium effects were observed in memory tasks (i.e., near transfer). Moderator analysis showed that these effects were weaker for near-transfer measures not directly related to the trained tasks. These results highlight that, while near transfer occurs regularly, far transfer is rare or, possibly, inexistent. Transfer thus appears to be a function of the degree of overlap between trained tasks and outcome tasks.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This meta-analysis of 50 studies (637 effect sizes; 3,059 participants) finds that Cogmed Working Memory Training produces near-zero far-transfer effects on cognitive ability and academic achievement, while producing small-to-medium near-transfer effects on memory tasks. The authors conclude that transfer depends on overlap between trained and outcome tasks, and that CWMT cannot be recommended as an educational tool.
Key findings
- Far transfer was consistently near zero: immediate post-test \( \bar{g} = 0.048 \), 95% CI [-0.017; 0.113], \( p = .135 \); follow-up \( \bar{g} = 0.051 \), 95% CI [-0.018; 0.119], \( p = .131 \).
- Near transfer was significant: immediate post-test \( \bar{g} = 0.444 \), 95% CI [0.337; 0.551], \( p < .001 \); follow-up \( \bar{g} = 0.365 \), 95% CI [0.242; 0.487], \( p < .001 \).
- Effects were larger for very-near-transfer memory tasks (\( \bar{g} = 0.566 \) immediate; \( \bar{g} = 0.487 \) follow-up) than for lesser-near-transfer tasks (\( \bar{g} = 0.246 \) immediate; \( \bar{g} = 0.176 \) follow-up).
- Baseline differences and task similarity (Criterion) were the main moderators; far-transfer models showed no true heterogeneity after controlling for baseline differences.
Methods
- Systematic search following PRISMA across MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Science Direct, and ProQuest Dissertation & Theses, using Boolean terms for Cogmed/working-memory/cognitive training; 2,761 records retrieved, yielding 50 studies from 2005–2017 that met five inclusion criteria.
- Effect sizes were Hedges’s \( g \), analyzed with robust variance estimation (RVE) with hierarchical weights and small-sample corrections in Robumeta; near transfer was defined as memory tasks (Gsm) and far transfer as all other cognitive/academic measures.
- Moderators included allocation, control-group type, baseline difference, age, population, measure type, and criterion (very near vs. lesser near transfer); sensitivity analyses used influential-case diagnostics and publication-bias analyses (funnel plots, trim-and-fill, PET-PEESE).
Limitations
- The paper states that the sampling-error variance formula used is an approximation because pre-post-test correlations were rarely reported in primary studies (only Honoré & Noël, 2017, reported them).
- The paper notes that follow-up analyses were based on a subsample of studies, and post-test-to-follow-up attrition may affect comparisons.
- The paper states that future studies should test effects on latent factors rather than observed variables; evident from the text, the meta-analysis is limited to CWMT and cannot directly establish effects of other commercial training programs.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
54 Own result · 32 Own interpretation · 26 Not checked yet · 8 No basis given · 4 Own method
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The significant moderators were Baseline (b = -0.487,SE = 0.137, p = .002)and Criterion (b = 0.330, SE = 0.054, p < .001).”
§ The cognitive and academic benefits of Cogmed: A meta-analysis > 4.2. Near transfer 4.2.1. Immediate post-test
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By contrast, slightly heterogeneous small to medium effects were observed in memory tasks (i.e., near transfer).”
§ The cognitive and academic benefits of Cogmed: A meta-analysis > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moderator analysis showed that these effects were weaker for near-transfer measures not directly related to the trained tasks.”
§ The cognitive and academic benefits of Cogmed: A meta-analysis > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The overall effect size was g ¯ = 0.246, SE = 0.069, 95% CI [0.102; 0.391], m = 33, k = 93, df = 19.49,p = .002,ω 2 = 0.000, τ 2 = 0.091.”
§ The cognitive and academic benefits of Cogmed: A meta-analysis > 4.2.1.1. Analysis of criterion moderator.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The degree of overlap between the training tasks of CWMT and the memory tasks was a significant moderator.”
§ The cognitive and academic benefits of Cogmed: A meta-analysis > 4.2.1.1. Analysis of criterion moderator.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The overall effect size was g ¯= 0.566, SE = 0.046, 95% CI [0.472; 0.660], m = 42, k = 154, df = 23.81,p < .001,ω 2 = 0.061, τ 2 = 0.040.”
§ The cognitive and academic benefits of Cogmed: A meta-analysis > 4.2.1.1. Analysis of criterion moderator.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The only significant moderator was Baseline (b = -0.345,SE = 0.082, p = .001,ω 2 = 0.000, τ 2 = 0.000).”
§ The cognitive and academic benefits of Cogmed: A meta-analysis > 4.1.1. Immediate post-test
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The overall effect size was g ¯= 0.051, SE = 0.031, 95% CI [-0.018; 0.119], m = 22, k = 91, df = 11.40,p = .131,ω 2 = 0.001, τ 2 = 0.000.”
§ The cognitive and academic benefits of Cogmed: A meta-analysis > 4.1.2. Follow-up
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The overall effect size was g ¯= 0.444, SE = 0.052, 95% CI [0.337; 0.551], m = 44, k = 247, df = 24.46,p < .001,ω 2 = 0.046, τ 2 = 0.071.”
§ The cognitive and academic benefits of Cogmed: A meta-analysis > 4.2. Near transfer 4.2.1. Immediate post-test
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Highly consistent near-zero effects were estimated in far-transfer measures of cognitive ability (e.g., attention and intelligence) and academic achievement (language ability and mathematics).”
§ The cognitive and academic benefits of Cogmed: A meta-analysis > Abstract
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 37
- Probably not a substantial claim. 20
- The quote only partly states this claim. 3
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Baseline was a significant moderator (b = -0.598,SE = 0.169, p = .006).Also, Age was a significant moderator, with the effect of the training significantly higher in the children than in the adults and older adults (b = 0.318, SE = 0.117, p = .018).”
§ The cognitive and academic benefits of Cogmed: A meta-analysis > 4.2.1.1. Analysis of criterion moderator.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In total, we found 50 studies, conducted from 2005 to 2017, that met all the inclusion criteria.These studies included 637 effect sizes and a total of 3059 participants.”
§ The cognitive and academic benefits of Cogmed: A meta-analysis > 3.2. Inclusion criteria
plainn = 3,059- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While the training regimen increased the performance on memory tasks, no appreciable effect was found in far-transfer tasks (no estimate significantly different from zero).”
§ The cognitive and academic benefits of Cogmed: A meta-analysis > 5. Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We found one influential case (g = -0.235,ID = 551).”
§ The cognitive and academic benefits of Cogmed: A meta-analysis > 4.2.2.1. Analysis of criterion moderator.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The PET estimate was g ¯= 0.089 (SE = 0.078, p = .270),and the PEESE estimate was g ¯= 0.154 (SE = 0.044, p = .004).”
§ The cognitive and academic benefits of Cogmed: A meta-analysis > 4.2.2.1. Analysis of criterion moderator.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The trim-and-fill estimates were g ¯= 0.189 (SE = 0.047, p < .001),g ¯= 0.149 (SE = 0.043, p < .001),and g ¯= 0.178 (SE = 0.046, p < .001)with the L0, R0, and Q0 estimators, respectively.”
§ The cognitive and academic benefits of Cogmed: A meta-analysis > 4.2.2.1. Analysis of criterion moderator.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We found one influential case (g = 1.998,ID = 99) and another effect was excluded because, like in the previous model, it was a considered an outlier (g = 3.062, ID = 553).”
§ The cognitive and academic benefits of Cogmed: A meta-analysis > 4.2.2.1. Analysis of criterion moderator.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Again, since no true heterogeneity was observed, no moderator was significant.”
§ The cognitive and academic benefits of Cogmed: A meta-analysis > 4.2.2.1. Analysis of criterion moderator.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Baseline and Criterion were significant moderators (b = -0.398,SE = 0.181, p < .050and b = 0.359, SE = 0.085, p = .001).Also, Age was a significant moderator, with the children performing worse than the adults and older adults (b = -0.298,SE = 0.099, p = .029).”
§ The cognitive and academic benefits of Cogmed: A meta-analysis > 4.2.2. Follow-up
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“After excluding these effects, the overall effect size was g ¯= 0.445, SE = 0.072, 95% CI [0.290; 0.600], m = 21, k = 58, df = 13.48,p < .001,ω 2 = 0.047, τ 2 = 0.038.”
§ The cognitive and academic benefits of Cogmed: A meta-analysis > 4.2.2.1. Analysis of criterion moderator.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The PET estimate was g ¯= 0.239 (SE = 0.134, p = .090),and the PEESE estimate was g ¯= 0.326 (SE = 0.076, p < .001).”
§ The cognitive and academic benefits of Cogmed: A meta-analysis > 4.2.2.1. Analysis of criterion moderator.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While the corrected estimates were about g ¯= 0.450 at immediate post-test, they ranged between g ¯= 0.234 and g ¯= 0.380 at follow-up.”
§ The cognitive and academic benefits of Cogmed: A meta-analysis > 4.2.2.1. Analysis of criterion moderator.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The trim-and-fill estimates were g ¯= 0.380 (SE = 0.060, p < .001),g ¯= 0.295 (SE = 0.068, p < .001),and g ¯= 0.234 (SE = 0.068, p < .001)with the L0, R0, and Q0 estimators, respectively.”
§ The cognitive and academic benefits of Cogmed: A meta-analysis > 4.2.2.1. Analysis of criterion moderator.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The results at follow-up were very similar to the ones observed immediately after the post-test.Once again, the only difference was represented by the size of the effects.”
§ The cognitive and academic benefits of Cogmed: A meta-analysis > 4.2.2.1. Analysis of criterion moderator.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Once again, the effect sizes at follow-up were smaller than the ones obtained at immediate post-test.This applied both to the uncorrected estimates (g ¯= 0.171 and g ¯= 0.248, respectively) and publication-bias-corrected estimates (approximatively g ¯ = 0.150-0.160and g ¯= 0.250-0260, respectively).”
§ The cognitive and academic benefits of Cogmed: A meta-analysis > 4.2.2.1. Analysis of criterion moderator.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The funnel plot looked slightly asymmetrical (Fig. 7).”
§ The cognitive and academic benefits of Cogmed: A meta-analysis > 4.2.2.1. Analysis of criterion moderator.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The funnel plot looked slightly asymmetrical (Fig. 6).”
§ The cognitive and academic benefits of Cogmed: A meta-analysis > 4.2.2.1. Analysis of criterion moderator.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The quote only partly states this claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, the effect sizes observed in lesser-near-transfer measures are quite small and tend to diminish a few months after the end of the training.”
§ The cognitive and academic benefits of Cogmed: A meta-analysis > 5.1. Does CWMT enhance working memory?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The training program increased performance on memory tasks immediately after post-test (g ¯= 0.444) and this improvement remained significant after several months, although it slightly decreased (g ¯= 0.365 at follow-up).”
§ The cognitive and academic benefits of Cogmed: A meta-analysis > 5. Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nevertheless, some evidence of publication bias was found at follow-up (e.g., the PET estimate was g ¯= 0.089).”
§ The cognitive and academic benefits of Cogmed: A meta-analysis > 5. Discussion
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The overall effect sizes were small but significantly different from zero; they remained significantly different from zero for a few months after the end of the training, although some decrease was observed (g ¯= 0.246, p = .002and g ¯= 0.176, p = .005,at post-test and follow-up, respectively; see also Tables S1-S4 in the Supplemental material available online).”
§ The cognitive and academic benefits of Cogmed: A meta-analysis > 5. Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The overall effect sizes were small but significantly different from zero; they remained significantly different from zero for a few months after the end of the training, although some decrease was observed (g ¯= 0.246, p = .002and g ¯= 0.176, p = .005,at post-test and follow-up, respectively; see also Tables S1-S4 in the Supplemental material available online).”
§ The cognitive and academic benefits of Cogmed: A meta-analysis > 5. Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While the very-near-transfer overall effect was medium (about g ¯ = 0.450 at least), the lesser-near-transfer effect was significantly smaller (about g ¯= 0.250 at most).”
§ The cognitive and academic benefits of Cogmed: A meta-analysis > 4.2.1.1. Analysis of criterion moderator.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The studies investigating the effects of CWMT are undoubtedly the most numerous and best designed (e.g., often including active controls) in this category (Simons et al., 2016, pp. 143-148).”
§ The cognitive and academic benefits of Cogmed: A meta-analysis > 1. Cogmed Working Memory Training
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Simons et al., 2016 source
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Two authors coded each effect size independently and reached 100% agreement.”
§ The cognitive and academic benefits of Cogmed: A meta-analysis > 3.3. Meta-analytic models
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The lack of active controls (or any controls), non-random allocation of the participants to the groups, and small sample sizes are some of the major flaws that may bias the results of CWMT studies and introduce spurious variability in the pool of data.”
§ The cognitive and academic benefits of Cogmed: A meta-analysis > 1. Cogmed Working Memory Training
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Simply put, no difference with the follow-up assessment was observed (no appreciable effect or true heterogeneity).”
§ The cognitive and academic benefits of Cogmed: A meta-analysis > 4.1.2. Follow-up
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These results highlight that, while near transfer occurs regularly, far transfer is rare or, possibly, inexistent.”
§ The cognitive and academic benefits of Cogmed: A meta-analysis > Abstract
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“We employed robust variance estimation (RVE) with hierarchical weights and small-sample corrections to calculate the overall effect size and perform meta-regression analysis (Hedges, Tipton, & Johnson, 2010;Tanner-Smith & Tipton, 2014;Tanner-Smith, Tipton, & Polanin, 2016).”
§ The cognitive and academic benefits of Cogmed: A meta-analysis > 3.6. Modeling approach
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“As in most cognitive-training programs, the findings regarding CWMT have been mixed, which has kept researchers from reaching a definite conclusion on the topic.”
§ The cognitive and academic benefits of Cogmed: A meta-analysis > 1. Cogmed Working Memory Training
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Shinaver, Entwistle, & Söderqvist, 2014
- Not checked yetcites Simons et al., 2016 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“To test the robustness of the results, we performed Viechtbauer and Cheung's (2010) influential case analysis (run with Metafor R package; Viechtbauer, 2010).”
§ The cognitive and academic benefits of Cogmed: A meta-analysis > 3.7. Sensitivity analysis
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Viechtbauer and Cheung's (2010)
- Not checked yetcites Viechtbauer, 2010
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“A systematic search strategy was employed to find the relevant studies (PRISMA statement; Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, & Altman, 2009).”
§ The cognitive and academic benefits of Cogmed: A meta-analysis > 3.1. Literature search
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, & Altman, 2009 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, the effect was consistent.In fact, most of the observed true heterogeneity was accounted for by a few influential/extreme effects, the Baseline moderator (i.e., regression to the mean), and the degree of overlap between the trained task and the transfer task (moderator Criterion).”
§ The cognitive and academic benefits of Cogmed: A meta-analysis > 4.2. Near transfer 4.2.1. Immediate post-test
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The first two authors coded each effect size for moderator variables independently.The Cohen's kappa was κ = 0.98.”
- Also stated in: § 3.4. Moderators · plain
“The first two authors coded each effect size for moderator variables independently.The inter-rater agreement was 98%.”
§ The cognitive and academic benefits of Cogmed: A meta-analysis > 3.4. Moderators
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 3.4. Moderators · plain
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In turn, improving fluid intelligence would benefit other cognitive and academic skills.”
§ The cognitive and academic benefits of Cogmed: A meta-analysis > Abstract
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Second, our inclusion criteria are stricter and have led to the exclusion of those studies whose experimental design does not meet a minimum standard of quality (e.g., inclusion of a control group and exclusion of subjective measures of cognitive/academic skill).”
§ The cognitive and academic benefits of Cogmed: A meta-analysis > 5. Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The pattern of results regarding near-transfer effects at follow-up was thus the same as that at immediate post-test: significant overall effects and some true heterogeneity mainly explained by Baseline and Criterion moderators.”
§ The cognitive and academic benefits of Cogmed: A meta-analysis > 4.2.2. Follow-up
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“If WM capacity is increased, then an improvement in such tasks is expected to occur (Jaeggi et al., 2008).”
§ The cognitive and academic benefits of Cogmed: A meta-analysis > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Jaeggi et al., 2008 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Another complementary explanation of the presumed broad generalization of skills following WM training refers to the role played by attentional processes in both fluid intelligence and working memory tasks (Engle, 2018;Gray, Chabris, & Braver, 2003).”
§ The cognitive and academic benefits of Cogmed: A meta-analysis > Abstract
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The inclusion of the most recent studies has increased the precision of the estimated effects and corrected the early optimistic findings.”
§ The cognitive and academic benefits of Cogmed: A meta-analysis > 5. Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The hypothesis underlying this claim is that WM and fluid intelligence have a shared capacity constraint (Halford, Cowan, & Andrews, 2007).”
§ The cognitive and academic benefits of Cogmed: A meta-analysis > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Halford, Cowan, & Andrews, 2007 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The performance on fluid intelligence tasks (e.g., Raven's progressive matrices) is constrained by the amount of information (i.e., number of items) that can be manipulated by WM.”
§ The cognitive and academic benefits of Cogmed: A meta-analysis > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As seen above, the PET estimator overcorrected (one-tailed p < .100).Thus, the PEESE estimator was more trustworthy.”
§ The cognitive and academic benefits of Cogmed: A meta-analysis > 4.2.2.1. Analysis of criterion moderator.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Enhanced WM capacity is supposed to make information processing more efficient, which, in turn, should bring a wide set of benefits in academic, professional, and social contexts (see Pearson, 2016).”
§ The cognitive and academic benefits of Cogmed: A meta-analysis > 5.1. Does CWMT enhance working memory?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Pearson, 2016
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“As pointed out by some scholars (e.g., Engle, 2015), human cognition is the product of a biological system.”
§ The cognitive and academic benefits of Cogmed: A meta-analysis > 5. Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Engle, 2015
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The findings regarding far-transfer and very-near-transfer effects are easily interpretable: far-transfer does not exist with CWMT and very-near transfer indicates that the acquired skills can be used in highly similar tasks.”
§ The cognitive and academic benefits of Cogmed: A meta-analysis > 5.1. Does CWMT enhance working memory?
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“In line with Shipstead et al. (2012a, b), our opinion is that CWMT does not foster WM capacity, any other core cognitive mechanism, or academic skills.”
§ The cognitive and academic benefits of Cogmed: A meta-analysis > 5.1. Does CWMT enhance working memory?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Shipstead et al. (2012a, b)
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Improvements on a latent factor extracted from a broad set of memory tasks would represent far more compelling evidence of cognitive enhancement than that often provided in the reviewed primary studies, which are based on few observed measures.”
§ The cognitive and academic benefits of Cogmed: A meta-analysis > 5.1. Does CWMT enhance working memory?
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, people undergoing CWMT training may simply acquire the ability to perform such tasks slightly more efficiently than controls.That would explain the small observed effect sizes in the near-transfer measures and the concurrent absence of far transfer.”
§ The cognitive and academic benefits of Cogmed: A meta-analysis > 5.1. Does CWMT enhance working memory?
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, if CWMT training program were enhancing the participants' WM capacity, improvements in other cognitive and academic tasks should have been observed at either post-test assessment or follow-up assessment.However, this was not the case.”
§ The cognitive and academic benefits of Cogmed: A meta-analysis > 5.1. Does CWMT enhance working memory?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: WM capacity is a major predictor of academic achievement and is highly correlated with fluid intelligence.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“these effects should not be interpreted as evidence of memory enhancement.Rather, such effects denote improvement in the ability to perform the trained tasks.”
§ The cognitive and academic benefits of Cogmed: A meta-analysis > 5. Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Shipstead et al., 2012a, b
- Not checked yetcites Simons et al., 2016 source
- Not checked yetcites Brehmer, Westerberg, & Bäckman, 2012
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Cognitive skills are commonly defined as the shared variance between many different cognitive tasks (e.g., Strata II and III of the CHC model; McGrew, 2009).”
§ The cognitive and academic benefits of Cogmed: A meta-analysis > 5.1. Does CWMT enhance working memory?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites McGrew, 2009 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
The authors state this as an assumption.
If WM capacity could be enhanced by training, the benefits would spread across many other skills positively related to WM.
“Given these premises, it is natural to assume that if WM capacity could be enhanced by training, the benefits would spread across many other skills positively related to WM (Jaeggi et al., 2008).”
The authors state this as an assumption.
WM training fosters domain-general mechanisms such as WM capacity and attentional control, which in turn enhances other cognitive and academic skills.
“Therefore, like with the other cognitive-training programs, the essential assumption underlying these hypotheses is that WM training fosters domain-general mechanisms such as WM capacity and attentional control, which in turn enhances other cognitive and academic skills.”
The paper relies on this without support.
WM capacity is a major predictor of academic achievement and is highly correlated with fluid intelligence.
“Second, and most crucially, WM capacity is a major predictor of academic achievement and is highly correlated with fluid intelligence.”
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 source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“When present at all, true heterogeneity is accounted for by the type of control group used (active or non-active), statistical artifacts such as pre-post-test regression to the mean due to baseline differences between the experimental and control groups, and, to a lesser extent, a few extreme effect sizes.”
From Working memory training in typically developing children: A multilevel meta-analysis (2020) · cites this paper as Aksayli et al., 2019
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Similar findings were reported by Aksayli et al. [79], who evaluated the effects of adaptive Cogmed WM training, a commercial training programme, relative to non-adaptive Cogmed training. The authors reported a consistent lack of far transfer, small to medium effects sizes for near transfer and that these transfer effects depended on the similarity of the transfer tasks to the WM training paradigm”
From Adaptive working memory training does not produce transfer effects in cognition and neuroimaging (2022) · cites this paper as [79]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“WM training does not enhance children’s domain-general cognitive skills or academic achievement (Aksayli, Sala, & Gobet, 2019; Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016; Sala & Gobet, 2020).”
From Cognitive and academic benefits of music training with children: A multilevel meta-analysis (2020) · cites this paper as Aksayli, Sala, & Gobet, 2019
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Interestingly, several meta-analyses have estimated within-and between-study true heterogeneity in WM training to be null or low, both with near-transfer and far-transfer effects.”
From Working memory training in typically developing children: A multilevel meta-analysis (2020) · cites this paper as Aksayli et al., 2019
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“These results are also in line with Sala and Gobet (2017; a re-analysis with RVE of the data used in that study yields similar results; for the details, see the supplemental materials) and, more broadly, the conclusions of previous meta-analytic syntheses concerning WM training in the general population (Aksayli et al., 2019;Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016;Sala et al., 2019a).”
From Working memory training in typically developing children: A multilevel meta-analysis (2020) · cites this paper as Aksayli et al., 2019
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Furthermore, as the same pattern of results has been found in adults, older adults, and children with learning disabilities (Aksayli et al., 2019;Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016;Sala et al., 2019a), the most parsimonious and plausible conclusion is that WM training does not lead to far transfer.”
From Working memory training in typically developing children: A multilevel meta-analysis (2020) · cites this paper as Aksayli et al., 2019
Citations
Cites
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.
(2009) · PubMed Central · Cited by 44,859
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & the PRISMA Group* (2009) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135 · Cited by 37,554
Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor Package
Viechtbauer, W. (2010) · Journal of Statistical Software · doi:10.18637/jss.v036.i03 · Cited by 20,464 · cited 1×
“To test the robustness of the results, we performed Viechtbauer and Cheung's (2010) influential case analysis (run with Metafor R package; Viechtbauer, 2010).”
MethodDuval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000) · Biometrics · doi:10.1111/j.0006-341x.2000.00455.x · Cited by 14,099
Wasserman, S. S., Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1988) · Journal of Educational Statistics · doi:10.2307/1164953 · Cited by 10,377
Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2015) · doi:10.4135/9781483398105 · Cited by 5,542
Baddeley, A. (1992) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1736359 · Cited by 5,258
Outlier and influence diagnostics for meta-analysis
Viechtbauer, W., & Cheung, M. W.-L. (2010) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.11 · Cited by 2,949 · cited 1×
“To test the robustness of the results, we performed Viechtbauer and Cheung's (2010) influential case analysis (run with Metafor R package; Viechtbauer, 2010).”
MethodStatistical Methods for Meta-Analysis
(1985) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/c2009-0-03396-0 · Cited by 2,570
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
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Pearson
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Cognitive and academic benefits of music training with children: A multilevel meta-analysis
Sala, G., & Gobet, F. (2020) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/s13421-020-01060-2 · Cited by 235
Self-citationCognitive Training: A Field in Search of a Phenomenon
Gobet, F. R., & Sala, G. (2022) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/17456916221091830 · Cited by 166
“This outcome has been found for WM training (Aksayli et al., 2019; Sala, Aksayli, Tatlidil, Gondo, & Gobet, 2019; Sala & Gobet, 2020b), video-game playing (Sala et al., 2018), exergames (Sala et al., 2021), and music training (Sala & Gobet, 2017c, 2020a, 2020b). The exception is chess (Sala & Gobet, 2016), for which t…”
BackgroundMethodSelf-citationWorking 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 148
Self-citationHudson, K. N., Ballou, H. M., & Willoughby, M. T. (2020) · Developmental Science · doi:10.1111/desc.13071 · Cited by 99
Sala, G., Aksayli, N. D., Tatlidil, K. S., Gondo, Y., & Gobet, F. (2019) · Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.intell.2019.101386 · Cited by 72
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Aksayli, N. D., Sala, G., & Gobet, F.
- Affiliations
- The University of Osaka (JP)
- University of Liverpool (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Sala, Giovanni
- Venue
- Educational Research Review
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-06
- Volume
- 27
- Pages
- 229-243
- ISSN
- 1747-938X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2921463501
- Cited by
- 123
- References
- 75
- Citations by year
- 2026: 16 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 4
- FWCI
- 2.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Educational Research Review (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- London School of Economics and Political Science Research Online (London School of Economics and Political Science) (acceptedVersion)
- London School of Economics and Political Science Theses Online (London School of Economics and Political Science) (submittedVersion)
- PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
- PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Japan Society for the Promotion of Science
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Cognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skills
- Keywords
- Cogmed, working memory training, cognitive training, far transfer, near transfer, academic performance, attention, intelligence, memory tasks, language skills, mathematics achievement
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-08, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-08 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
