The DOI matches its Crossref record; 41 of the 41 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Working memory, attention control, and the N-back task: a question of construct validity
Open accessAbstract
The N-back task requires participants to decide whether each stimulus in a sequence matches the one that appeared n items ago. Although N-back has become a standard "executive" working memory (WM) measure in cognitive neuroscience, it has been subjected to few behavioral tests of construct validity. A combined experimental- correlational study tested the attention-control demands of verbal 2- and 3-back tasks by presenting n = 1 "lure" foils. Lures elicited more false alarms than control foils in both 2- and 3-back tasks, and lures caused more misses to targets that immediately followed them compared with control targets, but only in 3-back tasks. N-back thus challenges control over familiarity-based responding. Participants also completed a verbal WM span task (operation span task) and a marker test of general fluid intelligence (Gf; Ravens Advanced Progressive Matrices Test; J. C. Raven, J. E. Raven, & J. H. Court, 1998). N-back and WM span correlated weakly, suggesting they do not reflect primarily a single construct; moreover, both accounted for independent variance in Gf. N-back has face validity as a WM task, but it does not demonstrate convergent validity with at least 1 established WM measure.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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
“Stimuli presentation was pseudo-randomized to avoid the occurrence of lure trials (i.e., non-target letters that match a recent letter in the sequence but not the letter N-back), which are known to elicit more false alarms (FA) and misses than non-lure non-targets because of their familiarity and resemblance to targets (see Kane et al., 2007).”
From Working Memory Reloaded: Tyrosine Repletes Updating in the N-Back Task (2013) · cites this paper as Kane et al., 2007
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
“Both maintenance and disengagement are important for problem-solving (e.g., Carpenter et al., 1990), but the relative contribution of each could be driving the different relationships of complex span tests and the n-back with fluid intelligence, as well as their less-than-perfect correlation with each other (e.g., Kane et al., 2007).”
From Which “working memory” are we talking about? Complex span tasks versus N-back (2025) · cites this paper as Kane et al., 2007
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 is itself an umbrella term encompassing diverse experimental paradigms, from maintenance of perceptual, spatial or verbal information to complex “n-back” and “span” tasks, with uncertain construct validity (Kane, Conway, Miura, & Colflesh, 2007; Shallice & Cooper, 2011).”
From Strategic offloading of delayed intentions into the external environment (2015) · cites this paper as Kane, Conway, Miura, & Colflesh, 2007
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“In conditions with n = 2 or higher (where the match is for the stimulus that appeared two or more items ago), this task requires the on-line monitoring and updating of WM content, which is known to be cognitively demanding (Kane et al., 2007).”
From Working Memory Reloaded: Tyrosine Repletes Updating in the N-Back Task (2013) · cites this paper as Kane et al., 2007
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“One of the most common tasks used in these WM training studies is the N-back, an updating task that correlates significantly with measures of higher-level cognition, such as Matrix Reasoning20–24.”
From Near transfer to an unrelated N-back task mediates the effect of N-back working memory training on matrix reasoning (2022) · cites this paper as [23]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Two-back performance did not correlate significantly with either measure, whereas three-back performance correlated descriptively more strongly with Raven's matrices than with operation span.”
From Which “working memory” are we talking about? Complex span tasks versus N-back (2025) · cites this paper as Kane et al., 2007
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Indeed, correlations between the n-back and operation span ranged from nonsignificant to weak (all rs ≤ .22).”
From Which “working memory” are we talking about? Complex span tasks versus N-back (2025) · cites this paper as Kane et al., 2007
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Furthermore, operation span and the n-back each accounted for unique variance in fluid intelligence, suggesting a dissociation between the two measures.”
From Which “working memory” are we talking about? Complex span tasks versus N-back (2025) · cites this paper as Kane et al., 2007
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Kane et al. (2007) identified recall versus recognition as one candidate.”
From Which “working memory” are we talking about? Complex span tasks versus N-back (2025) · cites this paper as Kane et al., 2007
In the citing paper
“Based on the cognitive load of the 2-back condition (20–22)”
From Dynamic reconfiguration of frontal brain networks during executive cognition in humans (2015) · cites this paper as [22]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1006/cogp.1999.0734 · Cited by 15,798
Individual differences in working memory and reading
Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980) · Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior · doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(80)90312-6 · Cited by 6,336
On the generalized distance in statistics
Mahalanobis, P. C. (1936) · DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · Cited by 6,068
A capacity theory of comprehension: individual differences in working memory
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.99.1.122 · Cited by 4,153
N-back working memory paradigm: a meta-analysis of normative functional neuroimaging studies.
Owen, A. M., McMillan, K. M., Laird, A. R., & Bullmore, E. (2005) · Human Brain Mapping · doi:10.1002/hbm.20131 · Cited by 3,560
Pragmatics of measuring recognition memory: Applications to dementia and amnesia.
Snodgrass, J. G., & Corwin, J. (1988) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037//0096-3445.117.1.34 · Cited by 3,093
Working memory, short-term memory, and general fluid intelligence: A latent-variable approach.
Engle, R. W., Tuholski, S. W., Laughlin, J. E., & Conway, A. R. A. (1999) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.128.3.309 · Cited by 3,078
Self-citationWorking memory span tasks: A methodological review and user’s guide
Conway, A. R. A., Kane, M. J., Bunting, M. F., Hambrick, D. Z., Wilhelm, O., & Engle, R. W. (2005) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/bf03196772 · Cited by 2,882
Self-citationPragmatics of measuring recognition memory: Applications to dementia and amnesia.
Snodgrass, J. G., & Corwin, J. (1988) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.117.1.34 · Cited by 2,527
Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2002) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/bf03196323 · Cited by 2,229
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- [3]3. Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. London: Oxford University Press.
- [34]34. Raven, J. C., Raven, J. E., & Court, J. H. (1998). Progressive matrices. Oxford, England: Oxford Psychologists Press.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 901–931 of 931
Liu, S., Ens, B. M., Lee, G. A., Semertzidis, N. A., Mueller, F., & Elvitigala, D. S. (2026) · International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (TEI) · doi:10.1145/3731459.3773299
Song, C., Long, G. A. O., Xianwen, G. O. N. G., Wang, X., Li, N., Shaojie, M. A., Yusheng, S. H. I., & Min, L. I. U. (2026) · Manned Spaceflight · doi:10.3724/zrht.1674-5825.2025079
Dione, M. (2013) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/353a9c3az5f97z4d95z9446z177d17f83885 · Cited by 2
VRN-Back: An Immersive Music Rhythm Game for Working Memory Training in Virtual Reality
Jiang, H., Luo, L., Guo, J., Liu, Z., Zhu, W., Weng, D., Song, W., & Duh, H. B. (2026) · IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics · doi:10.1109/tvcg.2026.3680633
“In addition, introducing lure stimuli—items appearing at the n − 1 or n + 1 posi-tions—can increase cognitive interference, potentially causing false alarms and requiring stronger inhibitory control, thereby enhancing training effects [29,41,60].”
Fang, X., Yang, C., Zhou, R., Hu, L., Li, Q., Wang, C., Su, K., Dai, X., Zhang, R., Zhou, Y., et al. (2026) · Regenesis repair rehabilitation. · doi:10.1016/j.rerere.2026.04.001
Experimental validation of an information theoretic model of cognitive effort
Lam, S. Y. (2022) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/0da97426z292bz4ef5z9e97zee60262b89da
Bényei, G. L., & Pajkossy, P. (2026) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-026-46731-3
“Behavioral performance in each session was described using the sensitivity ( d L ) and bias ( C L ) metrics, computed using the formulas proposed by Snodgrass and Corwin 60 (see also 59 ).”
Neves-Teles, T., Monticelli, B. E., Freitas, G. D. S., Zanon, C., & de Almeida, R. M. M. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-9418989/v1
A Cross-Platform Cognitive Support Tool for Memory and Daily Recall
Alahmadi, T. J., Alromeh, R. M., AlSaadan, R. E., AlQasem, R. M., AlManea, N. M., & AlWaheeby, J. M. (2026) · International Web for All Conference (W4A) · doi:10.1145/3800424.3800433
Guevara, T., & Watson, G. P. (2026) · Occupational Health Science · doi:10.1007/s41542-026-00264-3
“Attentional resources refer to the limited cognitive capacity required to maintain focus on activities, store and process information, and retrieve memories (Ford et al., 2023; Kahneman, 1973; Kane et al., 2007; Lu et al., 2022 ; Zimmerman et al., 2023 ).”
Measuring working memory control: validation of a paradigm combining maintenance and inhibition
Khakim, Z., Adi, S. P., Marvianto, R. D., Pamungkas, T. H., Sibagariang, D. S., Arista, P. D., & Lufityanto, G. (2026) · Cognitive Processing · doi:10.1007/s10339-026-01361-5
Santirocchi, A., Rossi‐Arnaud, C., Benelli, D., Barbato, C., Minni, A., & Cestari, V. (2026) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app16126245
Mahdavinataj, H., Sajedi, H., & Batouli, S. A. H. (2026) · GeroScience · doi:10.1007/s11357-026-02407-4
Fragebögen, Interviews und weitere quantitative Testverfahren in der klinischen Psychologie
Mundorf, A., Peterburs, J., & Ocklenburg, S. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-73259-5_7
Shahsavari, F., Nasiri, F., & Zemestani, M. (2026) · Physiology & Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2026.115461
Rayatdoust, M., Taher, M., Hosseinkhanzadeh, A. A., & Tabatabaee, S. M. (2026) · Quarterly Journal of Child Mental Health · doi:10.66224/jcmh.13.1.8
“The olfactory training protocol was adapted from other reseacr (40).”
Mateen, N., Ullah, R. M. K., Baik, J. S., Hong, K., Kang, M.-K., Kim, C.-S., & Shin, Y. (2026) · Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnagi.2026.1834253
“The 2-back task was used to evaluate a subject’s working memory performance (Owen et al., 2005; Kane et al., 2007), and the Stroop task assessed inhibitory control, in which interference occurs when one stimulus attribute influences the processing of another (Scarpina and Tagini, 2017).”
A comparative study on executive function of adolescent athletes in different winter sports
Wang, J., Wang, F., Gao, G., Liu, C., & Shi, P. (2026) · BMC Sports Science Medicine and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1186/s13102-026-02004-0
“The 2-back task adopted in this study has been verified to have good reliability and validity [32, 33] and widely applied in numerous studies [34, 35].”
Sia, E. S. W., Aziz, A. B. A., Drieberg, M., & Ali, S. S. A. (2026) · Journal of King Saud University - Computer and Information Sciences · doi:10.1007/s44443-026-01186-4
Lindı́n, M., Cespón, J., Zurrón, M., & Dı́az, F. (2026) · Neuromethods · doi:10.1007/978-1-0716-5340-1_4
Ahadi, M., Khormizi, H. Z., Jambarsang, S., Shaaf, F., & Rezaeipandari, H. (2026) · Health Science Reports · doi:10.1002/hsr2.73208
“Reliability ranges from 0.54 to 0.84, with strong validity for measuring working memory [44].”
InfluentialDanesh, F., Arshadi, N., & Beshlideh, K. (2026) · International Journal of Psychology (IPA) · doi:10.66224/ijpb.20.1.117
“The validity coefficients of this test have been reported to range from .54 to .84, and its reliability, ascertained using the test–retest method, has been reported to range from .87 to .90 (Kane et al., 2007; Hepdarcan & Can, 2025).”
Wang, H.-J., Liu, L., Li, Y.-H., Qiu, Y.-H., Xia, X., Cai, Y., & Zhang, S.-J. (2026) · Frontiers in Neurology · doi:10.3389/fneur.2026.1805467
Frontoparietal effective connectivity supports working memory in early childhoodPreprint
Guedj, C., Bollinger, L., Marié, D., Laera, G., CERESETTI, R., Comparini, A., Richiardi, J., Kliegel, M., & James, C. E. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.09.23.753700
Erkan, İ. (2026) · Journal of Interior Design · doi:10.1177/10717641261451428
“41,42”
N-Back: impacto de la estética del estímulo en la eficacia de la respuesta
Bento, S. D. A., Rodrigues, P., Nascimento, C. S., & Maia, L. A. C. R. (2026) · Revista Electrónica de PortalesMedicos com · doi:10.64396/v21-0210
Selective memory modulation following its reactivation in virtual reality
Zil-Bar, R., Schrift, G., Kozak, S., Bar‐Haim, Y., & Censor, N. (2026) · Computers in Human Behavior Reports · doi:10.1016/j.chbr.2026.101365
Comparing Mixed Reality and Screen-Based Flight Simulators Under Varying Cognitive Load
Lind, M., Zhou, X., Ghavamian, P., Dahlkvist, R., Ramberg, R., Lindberg, C. K. K., & Matviienko, A. (2026) · ACM Symposium on Spatial User Interaction (SUI) · doi:10.1145/3822518.3839303
“Low/high load used 2/3-back tasks and 6/10 flight-status questions [12–14 , 30].”
Evaluating the effect of physical work in the heat on cognitive performance of construction workers
Neelangal, K. B., Nasirzadeh, F., Aisbett, B., & Tait, J. (2026) · Applied Ergonomics · doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2026.104903
Metadata
- Authors
- Kane, M. J., Conway, A. R. A., Miura, T. K., & Colflesh, G. J. H.
- Affiliations
- University of North Carolina at Greensboro (US)
- Princeton University (US)
- University of Illinois Chicago (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition
- Published
- 2007-05
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 615-622
- ISSN
- 0278-7393 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1285
- OpenAlex
- W1978600950
- Cited by
- 933
- References
- 40
- Citations by year
- 2026: 50 · 2025: 68 · 2024: 73 · 2023: 49 · 2022: 61 · 2021: 74 · 2020: 70 · 2019: 67 · 2018: 63 · 2017: 57 · 2016: 50 · 2015: 57 · 2014: 49 · 2013: 34 · 2012: 32
- FWCI
- 21.75
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- libres.uncg.edu
- Locations
- Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- NC Digital Online Collection of Knowledge and Scholarship (The University of North Carolina at Greensboro) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Air Force Office of Scientific Research (F49620-00-1-131)
- 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
- n-back task, working memory, attentional control, construct validity, convergent validity, operation span, fluid intelligence, executive function
- MeSH terms
- Attention, Humans, Individuality, Intelligence, Memory, Short-Term, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Problem Solving, Psychomotor Performance, Reaction Time, Semantics, Serial Learning, Verbal Learning
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
