Practice effects in the brain: Changes in cerebral activation after working memory practice depend on task demands
Open accessAbstract
Several studies have examined the neural effects of working memory practice, but due to different task demands, diverse patterns of neural changes have been reported. In the present study, we examined neural effects of practice using a task with different working memory demands within a single practice paradigm. Fifteen adults practiced during 6weeks with a task that required maintenance and manipulation of information under low and high working memory loads. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (FMRI) data were acquired in the first week and last week of the practice period. Results were compared with results of a control group who did not practice the task. We demonstrated that practice was beneficial for both working memory maintenance and manipulation processes but that these processes were supported by different neural changes. While maintenance trials showed increased activation (i.e., less deactivation) in default-mode regions after practice, manipulation trials experienced increased activation in the striatum. Changes were also observed in left ventrolateral prefrontal cortex (VLPFC), bilateral dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) and left superior parietal cortex (SPC). However, for bilateral DLPFC and left SPC, these changes were not specific to the practice group. These findings illustrate the importance of controlling for test-retest effects in training or intervention studies. Behavioral follow-up tests demonstrated that practice effects lasted over a 6-month period, but the absence of transfer effects indicated that the acquired skills were specific for the practiced working memory task.
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?
To address potential non-independence, the synthesis was re-run after excluding potentially overlapping studies with shared first authors, retaining only one study per first-author set.
“To address potential non-independence, we re-ran the synthesis after excluding potentially overlapping studies with shared first authors31,48,54,60,67, retaining only one study per first-author set.”
From Meta-analysis of computerised working memory training: behavioural gains, training parameters, transfer mechanisms, and neural correlates (2026) · cites this paper as [48]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 84 · Cited by 122
- Authors
- Jolles, D. D., Grol, M. J., Van Buchem, M. A., Rombouts, S. A. R. B., & Crone, E. A.
- Affiliations
- Leiden University (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Jolles, Dietsje D.
- Venue
- NeuroImage
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2010-08-15
- Volume
- 52
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 658-668
- ISSN
- 1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2048922382
- Cited by
- 122
- References
- 84
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 10
- FWCI
- 14.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Locations
- NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Gratama Stichting
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
- Keywords
- practice effects, working memory load, working memory maintenance, default mode network, striatum, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, ventrolateral prefrontal cortex, superior parietal cortex, test-retest effects, transfer effects
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Brain, Brain Mapping, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Neural Pathways, Neuropsychological Tests, Practice, Psychological, Reaction Time, Speech, Time Factors, Transfer, Psychology, Case-Control Studies, Young Adult
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