Cited by 84Cognitive Abilities and TestingCognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skillsNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

Working memory updating and binding training: Bayesian evidence supporting the absence of transfer.

De Simoni, Carla, von Bastian, Claudia C.·2018·Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

Abstract

As working memory (WM) predicts a wide range of other abilities, it has become a popular target for training interventions. However, its effectiveness to elicit generalized cognitive benefits is still under debate. Previous research yielded inconsistent findings and focused only little on the mechanisms underlying transfer effects. To disentangle training effects on WM capacity and efficiency, we evaluated near transfer to untrained, structurally different WM tasks and far transfer to closely related abilities (i.e., reasoning, processing speed, task switching, and inhibitory control) in addition to process-specific effects on 3 WM mechanisms (i.e., focus switching, removal of WM contents, and interference resolution). We randomly assigned 197 young adults to 1 of 2 experimental groups (updating or item-to-context binding) or to an active control group practicing visual search tasks. Before and after 5 weeks of adaptive training, performance was assessed measuring each of the cognitive processes and abilities of interest with 4 tasks covering verbal-numerical and visual-spatial materials. Despite the relatively large sample size, large practice effects in the trained tasks, and at least moderate correlations between WM training tasks and transfer measures, we found consistent evidence for the absence of any training-induced improvements across all ranges of transfer and mechanisms. Instead, additional analyses of error patterns and self-reported strategy use indicated that WM training encouraged the development of stimulus-specific expertise and use of paradigm-specific strategies. Thus, the results suggest that the WM training interventions examined here enhanced neither WM capacity nor the WM mechanisms assumed to underlie transfer. (PsycINFO Database Record

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/xge0000453

Cites

38 of 121 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 13

  1. Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan, (Eds.), Adolescence and education: Vol. 5 (pp. 307 -337). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
  2. Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9 (2), 233-255. doi: 10.1207/S15328007sem0902\_5 · DOI
  3. Cowan, N. (1995). Attention and memory: An integrated framework . New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  4. Engle, R. W., Tuholski, S. W., Laughlin, J. E., & Conway, A. R. A. (1999). Working memory, short-term memory, and general fluid intelligence: A latent-variable approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128 (3), 309-331. doi: 10.1037/00963445.128.3.309 · DOI
  5. Jeffreys, H. (1961). Theory of probability (3rd ed.). New York: NY: Oxford University Press.
  6. Judd, C. H. (1908). The relation of special training to general intelligence. Educational Review, 88 (197-227).
  7. Katz, B., Jones, M. R., Shah, P., Buschkuehl, M., & Jaeggi, S. M. (2016). Individual differences and motivational effects in cognitive training research. In T. Strobach & J. Karbach (Eds.), Cognitive training: An overview of features and applications (pp. 157166). Berlin: Springer.
  8. Morey, R. D. (2008). Confidence intervals from normalized data: A correction to Cousineau (2005). Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 4 (2), 61-64. doi: 10.20982/tqmp.04.2.p061Morey, R. D., & Rouder, J. N. (2015). BayesFactor: Computation of Bayes factors for common designs. Retrieved from https://cran.rproject.org/package=BayesFactor · DOI
  9. Oberauer, K. (2008). How to say no: Single- and dual-process theories of short-term recognition tested on negative probes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition , 34 (3), 439 -459. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.34.3.439 · DOI
  10. Oberauer, K., Süss, H.-M., Wilhelm, O., & Sander, N. (2007). Individual differences in working memory capacity and reasoning ability. In A. Conway, C. Jarrold, M. Kane, A. Miyake, & J. Towse (Eds.), Variation in Working Memory (pp. 49 -75). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  11. Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software , 48 , 1 -36. Retrieved from http://www.jstatsoft.org/v48/i02/
  12. Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized Self-Efficacy scale. In J. Weinman, S. Wright, & M. Johnston (Eds.), Measures in health psychology: A user's portf olio. Causal and control beliefs (pp. 35 -37). Windsor, UK: NFER-NELSON.
  13. Titz, C., & Karbach, J. (2014). Working memory and executive functions: effects of training on academic achievement. Psychological Research , 78 , 852 -868. doi: 10.1007/s00426013-0537-1 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
De Simoni, C., & von Bastian, C. C.
Venue
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
Published
2018-06
Volume
147
Issue
6
Pages
829-858
ISSN
  • 0096-3445 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2222
OpenAlex
W2797454439
Cited by
84
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 1
FWCI
14.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Experimental Psychology General (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Swiss National Science Foundation (100014_146074)
  • University of Zurich
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Cognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skills
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
working memory training, transfer of training, working memory updating, near transfer, far transfer, interference resolution, inhibitory control, task switching, processing speed, reasoning, practice effects, strategy use, Bayesian analysis
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Bayes Theorem, Humans, Learning, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Neuropsychological Tests, Problem Solving, Transfer, Psychology, Young Adult

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