Working memory training and transfer in older adults: Effects of age, baseline performance, and training gains.
Open accessAbstract
Recent studies suggest that working memory training may benefit older adults; however, findings regarding training and transfer effects are mixed. The current study aimed to investigate the effects of a process-based training intervention in a diverse sample of older adults and explored possible moderators of training and transfer effects. For that purpose, 80 older adults (65-95 years) were assigned either to a training group that worked on visuospatial, verbal, and executive working memory tasks for 9 sessions over 3 weeks or to a control group. Performance on trained and transfer tasks was assessed in all participants before and after the training period, as well as at a 9-month follow-up. Analyses revealed significant training effects in all 3 training tasks in trained participants relative to controls, as well as near transfer to a verbal working memory task and far transfer to a fluid intelligence task. Encouragingly, all training effects and the transfer effect to verbal working memory were stable at the 9-month follow-up session. Further analyses revealed that training gains were predicted by baseline performance in training tasks and (to a lesser degree) by age. Gains in transfer tasks were predicted by age and by the amount of improvement in the trained tasks. These findings suggest that cognitive plasticity is preserved over a large range of old age and that even a rather short training regime can lead to (partly specific) training and transfer effects. However, baseline performance, age, and training gains moderate the amount of plasticity.
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?
Previous studies typically compared low versus high training gain subgroups, and this responder analysis can be problematic.
“Previous studies have examined the relationship between training gain and far transfer, typically by comparing subgroups of participants who show low versus high training gain31,38,39; however, this type of responder analysis can be problematic40.”
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 [38]
Individuals with lower baseline cognitive ability demonstrate greater performance gains following cognitive training compared to those with higher baseline cognitive ability.
“For instance, individuals with lower baseline cognitive ability demonstrate greater performance gains following cognitive training compared to those with higher baseline cognitive ability, potentially due to a sufficient “mismatch” between the task demand and functional supply of the brain [68–72].”
From Primary outcome from the augmenting cognitive training in older adults study (ACT): A tDCS and cognitive training randomized clinical trial (2023) · cites this paper as [68]
Results from studies on adults suggest that the updating component of working memory (storage and processing) has to be engaged during training to induce transfer to untrained working memory tasks and reasoning.
“Results from studies on adults suggest, for instance, that the updating component of working memory (e.g., storage and processing) has to be engaged during training in order to induce transfer to untrained working memory tasks and reasoning (von Bastian and Oberauer, 2013; see also Zinke et al., 2014).”
From Executive control training from middle childhood to adolescence (2014) · cites this paper as Zinke et al., 2014
Individuals' improvement during training has been shown to be a relevant predictor of transfer effects in young adults as well as in children and older adults.
“individuals’ improvement during training has been shown to be a relevant predictor of transfer effects in young adults (Jaeggi et al., 2011) as well as in children and older adults (Zinke et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2014).”
From Training on Working Memory and Inhibitory Control in Young Adults (2016) · cites this paper as Zinke et al., 2013
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 49 · Cited by 246
- Authors
- Zinke, K., Zeintl, M., Rose, N. S., Putzmann, J., Pydde, A., & Kliegel, M.
- Affiliations
- Technische Universität Dresden (DE)
- Baycrest Centre for Geriatric Care (CA)
- University of Geneva (CH)
- Venue
- Developmental Psychology
- Published
- 2014-01
- Volume
- 50
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 304-315
- ISSN
- 0012-1649 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-0599
- OpenAlex
- W2316672792
- Cited by
- 246
- References
- 49
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 28 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 27.94
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Developmental Psychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Archive ouverte UNIGE (University of Geneva) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Research Bank (Australian Catholic University) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Aging and Gerontology Research
- Keywords
- working memory training, transfer effects, older adults, cognitive plasticity, fluid intelligence, baseline performance, age differences, executive function, visuospatial working memory, verbal working memory
- MeSH terms
- Age Factors, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Aging, Analysis of Variance, Cognition, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Learning, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Neuropsychological Tests, Practice, Psychological, Space Perception, Statistics as Topic, 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
