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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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 the citing paper
“One of the most common tasks used in these WM training studies is the N-back, an updating task that correlates significantly with measures of higher-level cognition, such as Matrix Reasoning20–24.”
From Near transfer to an unrelated N-back task mediates the effect of N-back working memory training on matrix reasoning (2022) · cites this paper as [24]
In the citing paper
“This holds true when the stimulus items are either from both the same (e.g., letters to digits) or different domain (e.g., spatial locations to digits) to the trained items (Li et al., 2008; Jaeggi et al., 2010; Anguera et al., 2012; Bürki et al., 2014; Waris et al., 2015; Küper and Karbach, 2016; Minear et al., 2016; Blacker et al., 2017).”
From Are Working Memory Training Effects Paradigm-Specific? (2019) · cites this paper as Jaeggi et al., 2010
In the citing paper
“In line with previous findings, there was evidence suggesting n-back training transfers to n-back tasks with new stimulus materials (Jaeggi et al., 2010; Anguera et al., 2012; Küper and Karbach, 2016; Minear et al., 2016; Soveri et al., 2017).”
From Are Working Memory Training Effects Paradigm-Specific? (2019) · cites this paper as Jaeggi et al., 2010
Citations
Cites
Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1006/cogp.1999.0734 · Cited by 15,798
The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity
Cowan, N. (2001) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x01003922 · Cited by 6,779
Individual differences in working memory and reading
Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980) · Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior · doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(80)90312-6 · Cited by 6,336
A capacity theory of comprehension: individual differences in working memory
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.99.1.122 · Cited by 4,153
Human Cognitive Abilities: A Survey of Factor-Analytic Studies
Carroll, J. B. (1993) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511571312 · Cited by 4,121
N-back working memory paradigm: a meta-analysis of normative functional neuroimaging studies.
Owen, A. M., McMillan, K. M., Laird, A. R., & Bullmore, E. (2005) · Human Brain Mapping · doi:10.1002/hbm.20131 · Cited by 3,560
Human cognitive abilities a survey of factor-analytic studies
Carroll, J. B. (2004) · Cited by 3,395
Pragmatics of measuring recognition memory: Applications to dementia and amnesia.
Snodgrass, J. G., & Corwin, J. (1988) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037//0096-3445.117.1.34 · Cited by 3,093
Working memory, short-term memory, and general fluid intelligence: A latent-variable approach.
Engle, R. W., Tuholski, S. W., Laughlin, J. E., & Conway, A. R. A. (1999) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.128.3.309 · Cited by 3,078
Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user’s guide
Conway, A. R. A., Kane, M. J., Bunting, M. F., Hambrick, D. Z., Wilhelm, O., & Engle, R. W. (2005) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/bf03196772 · Cited by 2,882
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Tewes , U. 1991 . Hamburg-Wechsler-Intelligenztest für Erwachsene-Revision 1991 (HAWIE-R) , Bern : Hans Huber .
- Wechsler , D. 1981 . WAIS-R Manual , New York : The Psychological Corporation .
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Do “brain-training” programs work?
Simons, D. J., Boot, W. R., Charness, N., Gathercole, S. E., Chabris, C. F., Hambrick, D. Z., & Stine-Morrow, E. A. L. (2016) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1177/1529100616661983 · Cited by 1,183
Is working memory training effective?
Shipstead, Z., Redick, T. S., & Engle, R. W. (2012) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0027473 · Cited by 1,101
Green spaces and cognitive development in primary schoolchildren
Dadvand, P., Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J., Esnaola, M., Forns, J., Basagaña, X., Alvarez-Pedrerol, M., Rivas, I., López-Vicente, M., De Castro Pascual, M., Su, J., et al. (2015) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1503402112 · Cited by 942
Anxiety and working memory capacity: A meta-analysis and narrative review.
Moran, T. P. (2016) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000051 · Cited by 776
Redick, T. S., Shipstead, Z., Harrison, T. L., Hicks, K. L., Fried, D. E., Hambrick, D. Z., Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2013) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/a0029082 · Cited by 617
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
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2010-04-19
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 394-412
- ISSN
- 0965-8211 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-0686
- OpenAlex
- W2104281515
- Semantic Scholar
- 1cdd5a855d4ded37954d52981b618cd9a6576f96
- 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
