Cited by 205Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesCognitive Abilities and TestingAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

An investigation of working memory deficits in depression using the n-back task: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Nikolin, Stevan, Tan, Yi Yin, Schwaab, Andreas, Moffa, Adriano, Loo, Colleen K., Martin, Donel·2021·Journal of Affective Disorders

Abstract

Background Depression is associated with cognitive deficits across multiple domains, including working memory. The n-back task, a convenient psychometric tool capable of computerised delivery and concurrent use with neuroimaging, can provide enhanced insight into working memory dysfunction in depression. This meta-analysis sought to investigate the n-back task under varying cognitive load conditions (i.e. different levels of 'n') to clarify the pattern of working memory deficits in depression.Methods We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies involving unipolar depressed participants and matched controls utilising the n-back task. Meta-analyses were performed for accuracy and response times at four levels of cognitive load (0-, 1-, 2-, and 3-back).Results 31 studies (total 1,666 participants) met inclusion criteria and were included for quantitative analyses. Depressed individuals had significantly reduced accuracy compared to controls for 1-, 2-, and 3-back tasks, but not the attentional 0-back task. Likewise, response latencies were prolonged for all task levels (0-, 1-, 2-, and 3-back). Additional meta-regression analyses indicated that participant age and clinical status (i.e. inpatient/outpatient) may exacerbate working memory deficits associated with depression.Limitations Our results indicate high levels of heterogeneity between studies, particularly for response times.Conclusions Accuracy impairments were worse at higher levels of n, with the largest effect size obtained on the 2-back task, suggesting deficits to higher executive functions. Response times were consistently prolonged at all cognitive loads in agreement with a pattern of generalised psychomotor retardation.

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

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

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jad.2021.01.084

Cites

89 of 89 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

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

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

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Selective attention, interference processing, and working memory are cognitive domains all impacted in depression.

    “cognitive domains that are all impacted in depression [93–96]”

    From Personalized machine learning guided intervention for optimizing lifestyle behaviors in depression: a pilot study (2026) · cites this paper as [94]

    The Discussion (page not provided) reports working-memory deficits in depression at higher n-back task loads. It says attentional subprocesses were relatively preserved in this analysis, while acknowledging other meta-analyses that found attentional impairments. The paper does not establish an impairment in interference processing, so it does not support all three domains as stated. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Nikolin, S., Chand, N., Martin, D., Rushby, J., Loo, C., Boonstra, T., 2020a. EEG correlates of affective processing in major depressive disorder. medRxiv.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nikolin, S., Tan, Y. Y., Schwaab, A., Moffa, A., Loo, C. K., & Martin, D.
Affiliations
  • Black Dog Institute (AU)
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
Nikolin, Stevan
Venue
Journal of Affective Disorders
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-04
Volume
284
Pages
1-8
ISSN
0165-0327 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3127757974
Cited by
205
References
89
Citations by year
2026: 32 · 2025: 60 · 2024: 46 · 2023: 36 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 7
FWCI
4.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Affective Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UNSWorks (University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
depression, working memory deficits, n-back task, cognitive load, response latency, response accuracy, executive function, psychomotor retardation, major depressive disorder, age effects
MeSH terms
Cognition Disorders, Depression, Humans, Memory Disorders, Memory, Short-Term, Neuropsychological Tests, Executive Function

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