Adaptive working-memory training benefits reading, but not mathematics in middle childhood
Abstract
Working memory (WM) capacity is highly correlated with general cognitive ability and has proven to be an excellent predictor for academic success. Given that WM can be improved by training, our aim was to test whether WM training benefited academic abilities in elementary-school children. We examined 28 participants (mean age = 8.3 years, SD = 0.4) in a pretest-training-posttest-follow-up design. Over 14 training sessions, children either performed adaptive WM training (training group, n = 14) or nonadaptive low-level training (active control group, n = 14) on the same tasks. Pretest, posttest, and follow-up at 3 months after posttest included a neurocognitive test battery (WM, task switching, inhibition) and standardized tests for math and reading abilities. Adaptive WM training resulted in larger training gains than nonadaptive low-level training. The benefits induced by the adaptive training transferred to an untrained WM task and a standardized test for reading ability, but not to task switching, inhibition, or performance on a standardized math test. Transfer to the untrained WM task was maintained over 3 months. The analysis of individual differences revealed compensatory effects with larger gains in children with lower WM and reading scores at pretest. These training and transfer effects are discussed against the background of cognitive processing resulting from WM span training and the nature of the intervention.
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?
Despite near transfer to a new, untrained working memory task in Karbach et al. (2014), no further transfer to any other experimental tasks occurred across studies, including measures of cognitive flexibility, inhibition, and fluid intelligence.
“Despite near transfer to a new, untrained working memory task (Karbach et al., 2014), no further transfer to any other experimental tasks occurred across studies, including measures of cognitive flexibility, inhibition, and fluid intelligence.”
From Executive control training from middle childhood to adolescence (2014) · cites this paper as Karbach et al., 2014
In two recent training studies (Loosli et al., 2012; Karbach et al., 2014), both found reliable performance improvements on the training tasks in the training group.
“The results of both studies were very consistent with respect to reliable performance improvements on the training tasks in the training group”
From Executive control training from middle childhood to adolescence (2014) · cites this paper as Karbach et al., 2014
In those two studies, both found far transfer to reading abilities.
“and in terms of far transfer to reading abilities”
From Executive control training from middle childhood to adolescence (2014) · cites this paper as Karbach et al., 2014
Recent studies analyzing correlations between baseline cognitive ability and training-related benefits indicate that working memory training yielded larger training and transfer effects in children with low cognitive performance at pretest.
“recent studies also have analyzed correlations between baseline cognitive ability and training-related benefits, indicating that working memory training yielded larger training and transfer effects in children with low cognitive performance at pretest”
From Executive control training from middle childhood to adolescence (2014) · cites this paper as Karbach et al., 2014
After 10-14 sessions of Braintwister working memory training, two studies consistently showed improvements on standardized tests of reading in students between 7 and 11 years of age.
“After 10–14 sessions of training, both studies consistently showed improvements on standardized tests of reading in students between 7 and 11 years of age (Loosli et al., 2012; Karbach et al., 2014).”
From Executive control training from middle childhood to adolescence (2014) · cites this paper as Karbach et al., 2014
Training difficulty was adaptive in order to maintain activities as a constant challenge.
“Training difficulty was adaptive in order to maintain activities as a constant challenge (Klingberg et al., 2005; Brehmer et al., 2011; Karbach et al., 2015).”
From Training on Working Memory and Inhibitory Control in Young Adults (2016) · cites this paper as Karbach et al., 2015
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 72 · Cited by 183
- Authors
- Karbach, J., Strobach, T., & Schubert, T.
- Affiliations
- Saarland University (DE)
- Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Karbach, Julia
- Venue
- Child Neuropsychology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2014-04-03
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 285-301
- ISSN
- 0929-7049 (ISSN-L)
- 1744-4136
- OpenAlex
- W2040248713
- Cited by
- 183
- References
- 72
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 41 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 5
- FWCI
- 23.19
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Child Neuropsychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Cognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skills
- Keywords
- working memory training, adaptive training, reading skills, mathematical ability, academic performance, middle childhood, elementary school students, transfer of training, task switching, inhibition, compensation effect, individual differences, cognitive training
- MeSH terms
- Achievement, Child, Child, Preschool, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Germany, Humans, Learning, Male, Mathematics, Memory, Short-Term, Neuropsychological Tests, Reading, 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
