Cited by 550Schizophrenia research and treatmentCognitive Abilities and TestingNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

Working memory in schizophrenia: a meta-analysis

Forbes, N. F., Carrick, L. A., McIntosh, A. M., Lawrie, S. M.·2009·Psychological Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Memory impairment is being recognized increasingly as an important feature of the neuropsychology of schizophrenia. Dysfunction of working memory, a system for the short-term storage and manipulation of information, may relate to a number of core symptoms of schizophrenia. Many studies have examined working memory function in schizophrenia but a clear understanding of the nature and extent of any deficit has been elusive. METHOD: A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing working memory function in subjects with schizophrenia and healthy controls was performed. Following a comprehensive literature search, meta-analyses were conducted on 36 measures of phonological, visuospatial and central executive working memory functioning, encompassing 441 separate results from 187 different studies. RESULTS: Statistically significant effect sizes were found for all working memory measures, indicating deficits in schizophrenia groups. Some of these were robust findings in the absence of evidence of significant heterogeneity or publication bias. Meta-regression analyses showed that the working memory deficit was not simply explained by discrepancies in current IQ between schizophrenia and control groups. CONCLUSIONS: Large deficits in working memory were demonstrated in schizophrenia groups across all three working memory domains. There were, however, no clear differences across subdomains or between particular working memory tasks. There was substantial heterogeneity across results that could only be partly explained.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0033291708004558

Cites

225 of 225 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Forbes, N. F., Carrick, L. A., McIntosh, A. M., & Lawrie, S. M.
Affiliations
Royal Edinburgh Hospital (GB)
Corresponding author
Lawrie, S. M.
Venue
Psychological Medicine
Published
2008-10-23
Volume
39
Issue
6
Pages
889-905
ISSN
  • 0033-2917 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8978
OpenAlex
W2099240715
Cited by
550
References
225
Citations by year
2026: 27 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 45 · 2021: 50 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 34 · 2018: 39 · 2017: 33 · 2016: 37 · 2015: 34 · 2014: 29 · 2013: 32 · 2012: 19
FWCI
1.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
schizophrenia, working memory, memory impairment, phonological working memory, visuospatial working memory, central executive function, IQ differences, neuropsychology of schizophrenia
MeSH terms
Chlorpromazine, Cognition Disorders, Humans, Memory, Memory Disorders, Psychological Tests, Regression Analysis, Schizophrenia, Schizophrenic Psychology, Antipsychotic Agents

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