CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 223Cognitive Abilities and TestingNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesCognitive Functions and Memory

Is the N-Back Task a Valid Neuropsychological Measure for Assessing Working Memory?

Open access
Miller, K.M., Price, C.C., Okun, M.S., Montijo, H., Bowers, D.·2009·Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology
DOI 10.1093/arclin/acp063PMC PMC2770861
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The n-back is a putative working memory task frequently used in neuroimaging research; however, literature addressing n-back use in clinical neuropsychological evaluation is sparse. We examined convergent validity of the n-back with an established measure of working memory, digit span backward. The relationship between n-back performance and scores on measures of processing speed was also examined, as was the ability of the n-back to detect potential between-groups differences in control and Parkinson's disease (PD) groups. Results revealed no correlation between n-back performance and digit span backward. N-back accuracy significantly correlated with a measure of processing speed (Trail Making Test Part A) at the 2-back load. Relative to controls, PD patients performed less accurately on the n-back and showed a trend toward slower reaction times, but did not differ on any of the neuropsychological measures. Results suggest the n-back is not a pure measure of working memory, but may be able to detect subtle differences in cognitive functioning between PD patients and controls.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/arclin/acp063

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • The concurrent validity of the n-back task has been questioned because previous studies reported low correlations between n-back and other WM tasks, especially complex span tasks.

    “The concurrent validity of the n-back task, however, has been questioned as previous studies have reported low correlations between the n-back task and other WM tasks, especially complex span tasks”

    From Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies (2017) · cites this paper as Miller, Price, Okun, Montijo, & Bowers, 2009

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Miller, K. M., Price, C. C., Okun, M. S., Montijo, H., & Bowers, D.
Affiliations
  • University of Florida (US)
  • Duke University (US)
Corresponding author
Miller, K.M.
ORCID
Venue
Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2009-09-18
Volume
24
Issue
7
Pages
711-717
ISSN
  • 0887-6177 (ISSN-L)
  • 1873-5843
DOI
10.1093/arclin/acp063
PMC
PMC2770861
OpenAlex
W2041788160
Cited by
223
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 4
FWCI
4.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute on Aging (F32AG021363)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (K23NS060660, K23NS044997, R01NS050633, NIHK23 NS044997)
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, convergent validity, backward digit span, processing speed, Trail Making Test Part A, Parkinson's disease, neuropsychological assessment, reaction time
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Analysis of Variance, Attention, Female, Humans, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Middle Aged, Neuropsychological Tests, Parkinson Disease, Psychomotor Performance, Reaction Time, 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