Cited by 8Cognitive Abilities and TestingCognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skillsDevelopmental and Educational Neuropsychology

A dual-process model for cognitive training

Open access
Ericson, Julia, Klingberg, Torkel·2023·npj Science of Learning

Abstract

A key goal in cognitive training research is understanding whether cognitive training enhances general cognitive capacity or provides only task-specific improvements. Here, we developed a quantitative model for describing the temporal dynamics of these two processes. We analyzed data from 1300 children enrolled in an 8 week working memory training program that included 5 transfer test sessions. Factor analyses suggested two separate processes: an early task-specific improvement, accounting for 44% of the total increase, and a slower capacity improvement. A hidden Markov model was then applied to individual training data, revealing that the task-specific improvement plateaued on the third day of training on average. Thus, training is not only task specific or transferable but a combination of the two. The models provide methods for quantifying and separating these processes, which is crucial for studying the effects of cognitive training and relating these effects to neural correlates.

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 · 10.1038/s41539-023-00161-2

Cites

52 of 52 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?

  • The training-dose categories were defined empirically from the distribution of training hours rather than from trajectory-based markers of learning, so the pattern should not be taken as direct evidence regarding fast versus slow learning phases in WM training.

    “However, this pattern should not be taken as direct evidence regarding fast versus slow learning phases in WM training (Ericson & Klingberg, 2023; Yamashita et al., 2015), because our training-dose categories were defined empirically from the distribution of training hours rather than from trajectory-based markers of learning.”

    From The asymmetry of working memory training transfer: A systematic review and meta-analysis (2026) · cites this paper as Ericson & Klingberg, 2023

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: 2

  1. [21]Alloway, T. P. Automated Working Memory Assessment. London: Pearson Assessment (2007).
  2. [28]Newcombe, N. Harnessing Spatial Thinking to Support STEM Learning Working paper 161 (OECD iLibrary, 2017). https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/harnessing-spatial-thinking-to-support-stem-learning_7d5dcae6-en.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ericson, J., & Klingberg, T.
Affiliations
Karolinska Institutet (SE)
Corresponding author
  • Ericson, Julia
  • Klingberg, Torkel
Venue
npj Science of Learning
Published
2023-05-06
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
12-12
ISSN
2056-7936 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4372357784
Cited by
8
References
52
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2
FWCI
2.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • npj Science of Learning (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Karolinska Institutet
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
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology
Keywords
cognitive training, working memory training, dual-process models, hidden Markov models, training dynamics, children, cognitive enhancement

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