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
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
“A line of evidence consistent with this idea shows that individual differences in both working memory span and in n-back tasks are related to individual differences in Gf (23, 25, 32).”
Do “brain-training” programs work?
Simons, D. J., Boot, W. R., Charness, N., Gathercole, S. E., Chabris, C. F., Hambrick, D. Z., & Stine-Morrow, E. A. L. (2016) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1177/1529100616661983 · Cited by 1,183
Is working memory training effective?
Shipstead, Z., Redick, T. S., & Engle, R. W. (2012) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0027473 · Cited by 1,101
The concurrent validity of the N -back task as a working memory measure
Jaeggi, S. M., Buschkuehl, M., Perrig, W. J., & Meier, B. (2010) · Memory · doi:10.1080/09658211003702171 · Cited by 981
“…using a single WM capacity measure such as a reading span task (RST) or an operation span task report rather weak intercorrelations (ranging between r (cid:2) .10 and r (cid:2) .24; Colom, Abad, Quiroga, Shih, & Flores-Mendoza, 2008; Kane et al., 2007; Oberauer, 2005; Roberts & Gibson, 2002).”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialSnyder, H. R., Miyake, A., & Hankin, B. L. (2015) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00328 · Cited by 946
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
