Cogmed WM training: Reviewing the reviews

Abstract

Does Cogmed working-memory training (CWMT) work? Independent groups of reviewers have come to what appears to be starkly different conclusions to this question, causing somewhat of a debate within scientific and popular media. Here, various studies, meta-analyses, and reviews of the Cogmed research literature will be considered to provide an overview of our present understanding regarding the effects of CWMT. These will particularly be considered in light of two recent critical reviews published by Melby-Lervåg and Hulme (2013 Melby-Lervåg , M. , & Hulme , C. ( 2013 ). Is working memory training effective? A meta-analytic review . Developmental Psychology , 49 , 270 – 291 .[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) and Shipstead, Hicks, and Engle (2012 Shipstead , Z. , Hicks , K. L. , & Engle , R. W. ( 2012 ). Cogmed working memory training: Does the evidence support the claims? . Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition , 1 , 185 – 193 .[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) and their arguments and conclusions assessed against current available evidence. Importantly we describe how the conclusions drawn by Melby-Lervåg and Hulme appear to contradict their own findings. In fact, the results from their meta-analysis show highly significant effects of working-memory (WM) training on improving visuospatial WM and verbal WM (both ps < .001). In addition, analyses of long-term follow-ups show that effects on visuospatial WM remain significant over time (again at p < .001). Thus, the analyses show that WM is indeed improved using WM training, and the highest effect sizes are achieved using CWMT (compared with other training programs). We also conclude that there is current evidence from several studies using different types of outcome measures that shows attention can be improved following CWMT. In a little more than a decade, there is evidence that suggests that Cogmed has a significant impact upon visual-spatial and verbal WM, and these effects generalize to improved sustained attention up to 6 months. We discuss the evidence for improvements in academic abilities and conclude that although some promising studies are pointing to benefits gained from CWMT, more controlled studies are needed before we can make strong and specific claims on this topic. In conclusion, we find that there is a consensus in showing that WM capacity and attention is improved following CWMT. Due to the importance of WM and attention in everyday functioning, this is, on its own, of great potential value.