Cited by 617Cognitive Abilities and TestingCognitive Functions and MemoryCognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skills

No evidence of intelligence improvement after working memory training: A randomized, placebo-controlled study.

Redick, Thomas S., Shipstead, Zach, Harrison, Tyler L., Hicks, Kenny L., Fried, David E., Hambrick, David Z., Kane, Michael J., Engle, Randall W.·2013·Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

Abstract

Numerous recent studies seem to provide evidence for the general intellectual benefits of working memory training. In reviews of the training literature, Shipstead, Redick, and Engle (2010, 2012) argued that the field should treat recent results with a critical eye. Many published working memory training studies suffer from design limitations (no-contact control groups, single measures of cognitive constructs), mixed results (transfer of training gains to some tasks but not others, inconsistent transfer to the same tasks across studies), and lack of theoretical grounding (identifying the mechanisms responsible for observed transfer). The current study compared young adults who received 20 sessions of practice on an adaptive dual n-back program (working memory training group) or an adaptive visual search program (active placebo-control group) with a no-contact control group that received no practice. In addition, all subjects completed pretest, midtest, and posttest sessions comprising multiple measures of fluid intelligence, multitasking, working memory capacity, crystallized intelligence, and perceptual speed. Despite improvements on both the dual n-back and visual search tasks with practice, and despite a high level of statistical power, there was no positive transfer to any of the cognitive ability tests. We discuss these results in the context of previous working memory training research and address issues for future working memory training studies.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0029082

Cites

18 of 18 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?

  • The literature on transfer from working memory training to fluid intelligence is mixed, with some promising studies and rigorous replications failing to find transfer.

    “However, evidence on transfer of improved WM into more general cognitive domains such as fluid intelligence (Gf) has been more equivocal.”

    From Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis (2015) · cites this paper as Redick et al., 2013

  • A dose-dependent relationship between amount of training and transfer has been described and replicated in some but not all studies.

    “Furthermore, we have previously described a dose-dependent relationship between training and transfer, such that more training leads to more gain (Jaeggi et al., 2008).”

    From Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis (2015) · cites this paper as Redick et al., 2013

  • Two prominent recent studies that used active control groups did not observe transfer to fluid intelligence.

    “With this in mind, two recent, widely publicized training studies used active controls and failed to find transfer to measures of Gf (Harrison et al., 2013;Redick et al., 2013).”

    From Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis (2015) · cites this paper as Redick et al., 2013

  • In those studies, active controls showed no gain from baseline and were not better than passive controls, which suggests the null transfer result did not depend on control type.

    “It is important to note, however, that their active control groups did not improve over baseline, nor did they outperform their associated passive control groups, suggesting that the failure to find transfer was irrespective of control type.”

    From Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis (2015) · cites this paper as Redick et al., 2013

  • Findings for transfer effects of cognitive training on untrained cognitive domains and daily functioning are less consistent.

    “While a variety of cognitive training studies have identified post-intervention gains on trained tasks and on tasks within similar domains [13–15], findings for transfer effects on untrained cognitive domains and daily functioning are less consistent, presenting a need to improve the efficacy of cognitive training interventions in producing clinically meaningful outcomes [11, 15–18].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Redick, T. S., Shipstead, Z., Harrison, T. L., Hicks, K. L., Fried, D. E., Hambrick, D. Z., Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W.
Affiliations
  • Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
  • Michigan State University (US)
  • University of North Carolina at Greensboro (US)
Venue
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
Published
2013-05
Volume
142
Issue
2
Pages
359-379
ISSN
  • 0096-3445 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2222
OpenAlex
W2137060718
Cited by
617
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 54 · 2018: 66 · 2017: 59 · 2016: 66 · 2015: 79 · 2014: 77 · 2013: 42 · 2012: 11
FWCI
89.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Experimental Psychology General (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Office of Naval Research (N000140910129)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Cognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skills
Keywords
working memory training, fluid intelligence, transfer of training, visual search, multitasking, working memory capacity, crystallized intelligence, perceptual speed, cognitive training
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Attention, Female, Humans, Intelligence, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Neuropsychological Tests, Practice, Psychological, Transfer, Psychology

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