Cited by 981Cognitive Abilities and TestingNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesCognitive Functions and Memory

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 79 of the 79 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The concurrent validity of the N -back task as a working memory measure

Abstract

The N-back task is used extensively in literature as a working memory (WM) paradigm and it is increasingly used as a measure of individual differences. However, not much is known about the psychometric properties of this task and the current study aims to shed more light on this issue. We first review the current literature on the psychometric properties of the N-back task. With three experiments using task variants with different stimuli and load levels, we then investigate the nature of the N-back task by investigating its relationship to WM, and its role as an inter-individual difference measure. Consistent with previous literature, our data suggest that the N-back task is not a useful measure of individual differences in WM, partly because of its insufficient reliability. Nevertheless, the task seems to be useful for experimental research in WM and also well predicts inter-individual differences in other higher cognitive functions, such as fluid intelligence, especially when used at higher levels of load.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/09658211003702171

Cites

79 of 79 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 77 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Tewes , U. 1991 . Hamburg-Wechsler-Intelligenztest für Erwachsene-Revision 1991 (HAWIE-R) , Bern : Hans Huber .
  2. Wechsler , D. 1981 . WAIS-R Manual , New York : The Psychological Corporation .

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–400 of 977

Metadata

Authors
Jaeggi, S. M., Buschkuehl, M., Perrig, W. J., & Meier, B.
Affiliations
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • University of Bern (CH)
Corresponding author
Jaeggi, Susanne M.
Venue
Memory
Published
2010-04-19
Volume
18
Issue
4
Pages
394-412
ISSN
  • 0965-8211 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-0686
OpenAlex
W2104281515
Cited by
981
References
77
Citations by year
2026: 85 · 2025: 92 · 2024: 112 · 2023: 70 · 2022: 85 · 2021: 78 · 2020: 57 · 2019: 79 · 2018: 62 · 2017: 55 · 2016: 48 · 2015: 50 · 2014: 39 · 2013: 26 · 2012: 24
FWCI
28.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Memory (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • BORIS (University Library Bern) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
Keywords
n-back task, working memory, concurrent validity, individual differences, reliability statistics, fluid intelligence, workload, psychometric properties
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Association Learning, Attention, Female, Humans, Individuality, Intelligence, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Neuropsychological Tests, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Psychometrics, Reaction Time, Reading, Retention, Psychology, Serial Learning, Speech Perception, Verbal Learning, Reproducibility of Results, Young Adult, Executive Function

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