Computerised working memory training in healthy adults: A comparison of two different training schedules
Abstract
This study compared a high intensity working memory training (45 minutes, 4 times per week for 4 weeks) with a distributed training (45 minutes, 2 times per week for 8 weeks) in middle-aged, healthy adults. The aim was to clarify whether a computerised working memory training is effective and whether intensity of training influences training outcome. To evaluate the efficacy and possible transfer effects, a neuropsychological test battery assessing short- and long-term memory, working memory, executive functions and mental speed was applied at baseline and at retest. Our results indicate that the distributed training led to increased performance in all cognitive domains when compared to the high intensity training and the control group without training. The most significant differences revealed by interaction contrasts were found for verbal and visual working memory, verbal short-term memory and mental speed. These results support the hypothesis that cognitive enhancement by cognitive intervention is effective in healthy individuals, and that a distributed training schedule is superior to a high intensity 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?
In WM training studies, evidence of the practice distribution effect is scarce and inconsistent.
“In the context of WM training studies, however, evidence of the practice distribution effect is scarce and inconsistent.”
From Nearest transfer effects of working memory training: A comparison of two programs focused on working memory updating (2019) · cites this paper as [44]
Penner et al. found that a group trained twice weekly (spaced distribution) performed better in different cognitive domains than a group trained four times a week (massed distribution) using the BrainStim program over 16 sessions.
“In the study by Penner et al. [44], two groups were trained using the BrainStim program, which included some WMU measures, over the course of 16 sessions. Performance in different cognitive domains was better in the training group that trained twice weekly (spaced distribution) than the performance shown by a group trained four times a week (massed distribution).”
From Nearest transfer effects of working memory training: A comparison of two programs focused on working memory updating (2019) · cites this paper as [44]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 19 · Cited by 60
- Authors
- Penner, I.-K., Vogt, A., Stöcklin, M., Gschwind, L., Opwis, K., & Calabrese, P.
- Affiliations
- University of Basel (CH)
- Novartis (Switzerland) (CH)
- Corresponding author
- Penner, Iris-Katharina
- Venue
- Neuropsychological Rehabilitation
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2012-10
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 716-733
- ISSN
- 0960-2011 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-0694
- OpenAlex
- W2163122150
- Cited by
- 60
- References
- 19
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 2
- FWCI
- 6.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Neuropsychological Rehabilitation (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Keywords
- working memory training, computerized cognitive training, exercise intensity, training schedule, distributed training, high-intensity training, cognitive enhancement, transfer effects, verbal working memory, visual working memory, short-term memory, cognitive speed, executive function, middle-aged adults
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Attention, Female, Humans, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Middle Aged, Neuropsychological Tests, Spatial Behavior, Therapy, Computer-Assisted, Transfer, Psychology, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, 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
