The DOI matches its Crossref record; 231 of the 232 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 1 are not checked yet; 11 of the 73 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence From a Meta-Analytic Review
Open accessAbstract
It has been claimed that working memory training programs produce diverse beneficial effects. This article presents a meta-analysis of working memory training studies (with a pretest-posttest design and a control group) that have examined transfer to other measures (nonverbal ability, verbal ability, word decoding, reading comprehension, or arithmetic; 87 publications with 145 experimental comparisons). Immediately following training there were reliable improvements on measures of intermediate transfer (verbal and visuospatial working memory). For measures of far transfer (nonverbal ability, verbal ability, word decoding, reading comprehension, arithmetic) there was no convincing evidence of any reliable improvements when working memory training was compared with a treated control condition. Furthermore, mediation analyses indicated that across studies, the degree of improvement on working memory measures was not related to the magnitude of far-transfer effects found. Finally, analysis of publication bias shows that there is no evidential value from the studies of working memory training using treated controls. The authors conclude that working memory training programs appear to produce short-term, specific training effects that do not generalize to measures of “real-world” cognitive skills. These results seriously question the practical and theoretical importance of current computerized working memory programs as methods of training working memory skills.
Verified 2026-10-05 · 1 reference not checked yet
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
63 Own result · 28 Own interpretation · 26 No full text of the sources · 15 No basis given · 9 Own method · 8 Sources not found · 5 Supported · 5 Not checked yet · 4 Partly supported · 1 Supported so far · 1 Not supported · accuracy not yet measured
At least one cited source doesn’t support this claim or points to a different paper, and none confirmed it — see the verdicts below.
In the paper
“Unfortunately, once again this effect seems to be driven by three comparisons across two studies (Nussbaumer et al., 2013; Alloway et al., 2013) where the control group shows decreases in performance between pretest and posttest.”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > Results > Follow-up Effects from Working Memory Training on Far Transfer Measures
What the sources say
- Disputedcites Nussbaumer et al., 2013Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion (page unavailable) says the low-WM-load group was the active control group and that its performance increased from pretest to posttest, rather than decreased. The Results (page unavailable) also report no differential transfer in mathematical problem-solving tasks. This paper does not establish the citing sentence’s count of three comparisons across two studies. (LLM, conf=0.87)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Alloway et al., 2013 source
hedgeddirectn = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Disputed
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“These crossover interactions thus artificially produced large effect sizes (Boot, Blakely, & Simons, 2011; Fischer-Baum, 2015; Redick, 2015; Redick & Webster, 2014), and are responsible for the significant effect of N-back training and transfer to nonverbal ability.”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > Results > Immediate Effects of Working Memory Training on Far Transfer Measures
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Boot, Blakely, & Simons, 2011 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In 'Inadequate Baseline for Transfer Effects' (page unavailable), the paper says a control group’s lack of expected test–retest improvement can make a training benefit appear greater. That supports the general concern about inflated apparent effects, but the passage does not identify crossover interactions, quantify large effect sizes, or link them to N-back training and transfer to nonverbal ability. (LLM, conf=0.82)
- Not matchedcites Fischer-Baum, 2015
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Redick, 2015 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“After only the most problematic study has been removed from the analysis (Schweizer et al., 2011), the effects of N-back training on nonverbal ability with treated controls is negligible (g = 0.10).”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > Results > Immediate Effects of Working Memory Training on Far Transfer Measures
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Schweizer et al., 2011 source
The citation identifies the study removed from the citing authors’ analysis; it does not attribute the recalculated g = 0.10 to Schweizer et al. The Methods (Participants and Procedures; Materials) describe n-back training, an actively trained control group, and Raven’s Progressive Matrices as a nonverbal transfer measure. The source therefore fits the study being identified. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Of these, 6 comparisons across 4 studies (Jaeggi et al 2014; Lee, 2014; Redick & Wiemers, 2015; Shiran & Breznitz, 2011) show an odd pattern with the control group showing decreases in reading comprehension from pretest-posttest”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > Results > Immediate Effects of Working Memory Training on Far Transfer Measures
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Jaeggi et al 2014 source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Lee, 2014
- Partly supportedcites Redick & Wiemers, 2015 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Criteria for Evaluating Educationally-Relevant Working Memory Training Research section says that control groups sometimes decline from pretest to posttest. But our copy does not report six reading-comprehension comparisons across four studies; the specific control-group decreases described in the Alloway et al. (2013) section concern spelling and math. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.78)
plainn = 4- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“For intermediate and near transfer effects to verbal and visuo-spatial working memory tasks, the development of task- or stimulus-specific strategies is likely to explain a large amount of the pretest-to-posttest improvement (Gibson et al., 2014; Dunning & Holmes, 2014; Sprenger et al., 2013).”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > Discussion > Theoretical Implications
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Gibson et al., 2014 source
- Partly supportedcites Dunning & Holmes, 2014 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion reports that strategy use and performance improved together on untrained visuospatial short-term memory and verbal working memory tasks that directly overlapped with training, and proposes task-specific strategies as an explanation. It does not establish how much of the improvement strategies explain, and the Results do not show a comparable strategy increase for visuospatial working memory in the adaptive-training group. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Sprenger et al., 2013 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“In addition, it is important to remember that ‘the variance of the score gains can have a radically different composition than the variance of the scores themselves’ (Hayes, Petrov, & Sederberg, 2015, p. 9).”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > Discussion > Theoretical Implications
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Hayes, Petrov, & Sederberg, 2015 source
The General Discussion states the cited sentence almost verbatim. It explains that components contributing to scores across individuals can cancel out when pretest scores are subtracted from posttest scores, leaving score gains with a different variance composition. (LLM, conf=0.95)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Given the tendency for small sample sizes to produce inflated effect size estimates (Button et al., 2013), future studies should include larger samples in order to produce more precise effect size estimates.”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > Discussion > Methodological Issues in the Studies of Working Memory Training
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Button et al., 2013 source
The Results section states that small studies are particularly susceptible to inflated effect size estimates. The Abstract explains that this inflation is worst for small, low-powered studies when findings are selected by a discovery threshold. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“For example, there is no evidence that working memory training reduces symptoms in individuals with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD; Cortese et al., 2015; Rapport, Orban, Kofler, & Friedman, 2013).”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > Discussion > Practical Implications
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Cortese et al., 2015 source
The Results report no effects of working memory training specifically on ADHD symptoms in the children with ADHD studied. The Discussion likewise says its effects on ADHD symptoms were negligible even with ratings from assessors closest to treatment. (LLM, conf=0.93)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Rapport, Orban, Kofler, & Friedman, 2013 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Unsworth et al. (2014) demonstrated that all three sources of variance (primary memory, secondary memory, attention control) were necessary to fully mediate the relationship between working memory capacity and fluid intelligence.”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > Discussion > Theoretical Implications
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Unsworth et al., 2014 source
The Discussion reports that capacity, attention control, and secondary memory each uniquely related to fluid intelligence and jointly, completely mediated its relationship with working memory. The paper describes primary memory as including the capacity to maintain items, so the citing sentence’s terminology is a reasonable paraphrase. (LLM, conf=0.90)
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“For studies in which untreated controls are used (and even in studies with treated controls where the subjects have different expectancies than the training group about the intervention) motivation could partially explain differences, given previous research showing effects of motivation on intelligence tests (Duckworth, Quinn, Lynam, Loeber, & Stouthmaer-Loeber, 2011).”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > Discussion > Theoretical Implications
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Duckworth, Quinn, Lynam, Loeber, & Stouthmaer-Loeber, 2011 source
Split into 2 atoms — 2 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
- It may state two separate claims as one. 41
- Probably not a substantial claim. 44
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Several studies have found that intervention studies are particularly vulnerable to publication bias and for lacking replicability (Cuijpers et al., 2010; Scherer et al., 2007).”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > The Current Review
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Cuijpers et al., 2010 source
- Partly supportedcites Scherer et al., 2007 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The discussion passage on randomized or controlled trials reports that positive results were associated with full publication and warns reviewers of interventions about publication bias (page not provided). It does not address replicability or establish that intervention studies are more vulnerable to publication bias than other study designs. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There is, however, a significant effect at follow-up for treated controls on arithmetic.”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > Results > Follow-up Effects from Working Memory Training on Far Transfer Measures
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When the comparisons with the problematic pretest-to-posttest decline in the control group are excluded, the effects of working memory training compared to treated controls for reading comprehension becomes trivial (g = 0.08) and similar in magnitude to the”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > Results > Immediate Effects of Working Memory Training on Far Transfer Measures
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The findings are consistent between studies; there is no significant variation between studies on any measure.”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > Results > Follow-up Effects from Working Memory Training on Far Transfer Measures
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“however, both of these significant effects within the moderator analyses include the problematic comparisons described above, and when these studies are excluded the effect sizes reduce to trivial levels.”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > Results > Immediate Effects of Working Memory Training on Far Transfer Measures
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These effects are significant, moderate in size, and there is evidence of true heterogeneity between studies (see Table 1).”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > Results > Immediate Effects of Working Memory Training on Intermediate Transfer Measures
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, 4 of the 5 comparisons had large, unexplained pretest-to-posttest decreases for the control group, which were larger than the training group's pretest-to-posttest increases.”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > Results > Immediate Effects of Working Memory Training on Far Transfer Measures
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In studies with treated controls, the effects of training on nonverbal ability, verbal ability, word decoding, and arithmetic are close to zero and not significant (see Table 1).”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > Results > Immediate Effects of Working Memory Training on Far Transfer Measures
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The findings, though statistically significant, vary across studies (true heterogeneity is present, see Table 1) and are maintained at follow-up (5 months after training; see Table 2).”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > Results > Effects of Working Memory Training on Near Transfer Measures
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Overall, there was a tendency for studies in the grey literature to have smaller effect sizes, but this was only significant for verbal working memory and visuo-spatial working memory”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > Results > Analyses of Publication Bias
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On most measures the pattern of findings across studies were consistent (the true variation between studies was zero or not significant, see Table 1).”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > Results > Immediate Effects of Working Memory Training on Far Transfer Measures
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At follow-up the effects for verbal working memory were no longer significant in studies with treated controls, but still significant for studies with untreated controls.”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > Results > Follow-up Effects of Working Memory Training on Intermediate Transfer Measures
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For treated controls there are no statistically significant effects on nonverbal ability, verbal ability, word decoding, or reading comprehension.”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > Results > Follow-up Effects from Working Memory Training on Far Transfer Measures
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Current working memory training programs yield short-term improvements on both verbal and visuo-spatial working memory tasks.”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As is evident in our figures, even though the meta-analytic effect sizes tended to be non-significant, there are certainly individual studies that demonstrate transfer effects.”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > Discussion > Theoretical Implications
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For measures of visuo-spatial working memory, modest training effects appear to be maintained at follow-up, but these outcome tasks often share features (memoranda, method) with the tasks trained.”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For treated controls, the k = 34 studies meeting the minimum recommended sample sizes produced no effect, g = .01, whereas the k = 25 comparisons with fewer subjects produced a significant effect, g = .26.”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > Discussion > Methodological Issues in the Studies of Working Memory Training
plainn = 25- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, based on an analysis of the 87 studies containing 145 independent experiments reviewed here, we observed no evidence of such effects.”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > Discussion > Practical Implications
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, neither of these effects was significant in the untreated control comparisons.”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > Discussion
plainn = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There were two cases where there appears to be weak evidence for transfer from working memory training to measures of “real-world” cognitive skills: improvements in reading comprehension immediately after training (that were not sustained at follow-up) and improvements in arithmetic at follow-up (in the absence of effects at immediate posttest).”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > Discussion
hedgedconditionaln = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The largest effect size for working memory training on nonverbal ability came from the earliest study (d = 2.18; Klingberg et al., 2002), which included only 7 subjects in each of the training and control groups.”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > Discussion > Methodological Issues in the Studies of Working Memory Training
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Klingberg et al., 2002 source
plainn = 7- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For untreated controls, the k = 31 studies meeting the minimum recommended sample sizes produced a significant effect, g = .16, as did the k = 18 comparisons with fewer subjects, g = .33.”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > Discussion > Methodological Issues in the Studies of Working Memory Training
plainn = 18- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“all immediate and delayed comparisons of nonverbal ability, verbal ability, reading comprehension, word decoding, and arithmetic were not significantly different from zero when compared against treated controls and eliminating outlier studies.”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > Conclusions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We did find significant moderator effects on intermediate and near transfer (verbal and visuo-spatial working memory), suggesting that we had sufficient power to detect such effects if they were present.”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > Discussion
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This will give us much more robust estimates of effect size, and allow us to perform moderator analyses that have more power.”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > The Current Review
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The inter-rater correlation (Pearson's) for outcomes was r = .99, 95% CI [.97, 1], p < .0001 and agreement rate = 97.00%.”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > Method > Search, Inclusion Criteria and Coding
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For the moderators, the agreement rate was 98%.”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > Method > Search, Inclusion Criteria and Coding
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For this reason studies from the same author were examined to detect duplicate samples, and studies based on the same participants were only coded once”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > Method > Search, Inclusion Criteria and Coding
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This meta-analysis was designed in line with the statement for systematic reviews developed by PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, www.prisma-statement.org).”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > Method
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Since previous meta-analyses have found a large difference between studies using treated and untreated controls (Dougherty et al., 2015; Lilienfeld et al. 2014; Melby-Lervåg & Hulme, 2013), these two designs were analyzed separately.”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > Method > Meta-Analytic Procedure and Analysis
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“For example, according to one theory variations in fluid intelligence reflect to a large degree variations in working memory capacity (Engle, 2002; but see Heitz et al., 2006).”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > The Foundation of Working Memory Training
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Engle, 2002 source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true.
In the paper
“Previous reviews seem to show conflicting findings for two main reasons: First, some methodological decisions may have led to biased conclusions (see Melby-Lervåg & Hulme, 2015). Secondly, typically previous reviews have examined subsets of studies restricted to specific types of working memory training, age groups, or participant status.”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > Prior Reviews of Working Memory Training
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Melby-Lervåg & Hulme, 2015 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The idea that working memory limitations may place constraints on diverse higher cognitive functions leads directly to the suggestion that if working memory capacity can be increased by training, this should produce transfer effects to diverse untrained tasks that depend on such a capacity (Shipstead, Redick, & Engle, 2010).”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > The Foundation of Working Memory Training
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Shipstead, Redick, & Engle, 2010 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If working memory training studies find increases in fluid intelligence or attainment in the absence of increases in working memory capacity, this pattern would be difficult to explain theoretically.”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > The Current Review
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“However, there are some obvious weaknesses in this study: the group sizes (7 children per group) are tiny – this study is, like many other studies in this area, severely underpowered.”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > The Foundation of Working Memory Training
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Klingberg et al. (2002) source
plainn = 7- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When a study had multiple indicators for the same construct (for instance more than one measure of verbal working memory) the mean of the indicators was used to yield a single effect size, for that study.”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > Method > Search, Inclusion Criteria and Coding
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because of the limited number of training studies examining follow-up effects, moderator analyses were not conducted. In addition, moderator analyses were not calculated for decoding, reading comprehension, and arithmetic, given the limited number of comparisons for treated and untreated controls.”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > Method > Meta-Analytic Procedure and Analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“We calculated effect sizes by dividing the differences in gain between pre- and post-test in the treatment and the control group by the pooled standard deviation for each group at pretest; this method of effect size calculation for pretest-posttest designs is recommended (Morris, 2008).”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > Method > Meta-Analytic Procedure and Analysis
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Morris, 2008 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The authors conclude that working memory training programs appear to produce short-term, specific training effects that do not generalize to measures of “real-world”cognitive skills.”
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
“Our conclusion is that there is no good evidence that working memory training improves intelligence test scores or other measures of “real-world”cognitive skills.”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > Abstract
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
In the paper
“The idea that working memory limitations may place constraints on diverse higher cognitive functions leads directly to the suggestion that if working memory capacity can be increased by training, this should produce transfer effects to diverse untrained tasks that depend on such a capacity (Shipstead, Redick, & Engle, 2010).”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > The Foundation of Working Memory Training
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Shipstead, Redick, & Engle, 2010 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All the studies were coded by two independent raters.”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > Method > Search, Inclusion Criteria and Coding
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“This is because effects of working memory training on fluid intelligence or academic attainment are typically seen as being mediated by (i.e. dependent upon) increases in working memory capacity (Harrison et al., 2013; Lange & Süß, 2015; Tidwell et al., 2014; von Bastian & Oberauer, 2014).”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > The Current Review
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Others have argued that limitations in working memory capacity may be responsible for impairments in the development of reading (Swanson, 2006), language (Archibald & Gathercole, 2006), and mathematical skills (Passolunghi, 2006).”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > The Foundation of Working Memory Training
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Swanson, 2006
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Archibald & Gathercole, 2006 source
- Not matchedcites Passolunghi, 2006
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The mean effect sizes were calculated by a weighted average of individual effect sizes using a random-effects model.”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > Method > Meta-Analytic Procedure and Analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because studies in this area are generally underpowered, summarizing them in a meta-analysis may be valuable as a way of clarifying the conclusions that can be drawn from the many inconsistent findings.”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > The Foundation of Working Memory Training
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“Violating the assumption of independence by computing an overall effect size based on information from the same sample more than once can lead to biased estimates (Borenstein et al. 2007).”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > Method > Search, Inclusion Criteria and Coding
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Borenstein et al. 2007
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nevertheless, if the claim that working memory training improves intelligence test scores could be confirmed and substantiated it would have potentially important implications for education and economic productivity, as well as for theories about the nature and limitations of human cognitive abilities.”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > The Foundation of Working Memory Training
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“We adjusted the effect size for small samples using Hedges g (Hedges & Olkin, 1985).”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > Method > Meta-Analytic Procedure and Analysis
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Hedges & Olkin, 1985 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Theoretically, such far transfer effects are only expected in the presence of improvements in working memory capacity.”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > The Current Review
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Theoretically, there is no reason to expect decreases in a relatively stable construct such as reading comprehension ability between pretest and posttest in a control group; such decreases presumably can only reflect error of measurement.”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > Results > Immediate Effects of Working Memory Training on Far Transfer Measures
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If there are true effects, one expects the distribution of published p-values to be right-skewed with more low (.01s) than high (.04s) p-values.”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > Method > Meta-Analytic Procedure and Analysis
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Here, we will pay particular attention to this, both by retrieving as much grey literature as possible (see Rothstein, Sutton & Borenstein, 2005) and by estimating the impact of publication bias using statistical procedures.”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > The Current Review
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Rothstein, Sutton & Borenstein, 2005
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“P-curve is a recently developed method that deals with the weaknesses in the funnel plot/trim- and-fill analysis (Simonsohn, Nelson & Simmons, 2014).”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > Method > Meta-Analytic Procedure and Analysis
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Simonsohn, Nelson & Simmons, 2014 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“A p-curve plots the distribution of statistically significant p values (p < 0.05) in published studies, and the shape of the p-curve is a function only of the effect size and sample size, when the power level is taken into account.”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > Method > Meta-Analytic Procedure and Analysis
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Simonsohn, Nelson & Simmons, 2014 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In line with recommendations for meta-analyses, we made special efforts to retrieve studies from the grey literature and used this as a moderator when possible (Higgins & Green, 2011).”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > Method > Meta-Analytic Procedure and Analysis
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Higgins & Green, 2011
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In any case, these effect sizes are arguably too small to be relevant to educational practice (Promising Practices Network [PPN], 2007; What Works Clearinghouse, 2007; Cooper, 2008).”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > Results > Immediate Effects of Working Memory Training on Far Transfer Measures
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Promising Practices Network [PPN], 2007
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites What Works Clearinghouse, 2007
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Cooper, 2008 source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, if a set of studies is affected by publication bias (because researchers discard entire studies or discard analyses or parts of studies), the p-curve becomes left-skewed or flat.”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > Method > Meta-Analytic Procedure and Analysis
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Further, in comparison to Melby-Lervåg and Hulme (2013) and Schwaighofer et al. (2015), we will also provide a more fine-grained analysis of working memory measures and publication bias.”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > The Current Review
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Such a form of p-curve is said to provide “no evidential value” (i.e., no support for an appreciable effect size).”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > Method > Meta-Analytic Procedure and Analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Traditionally, it has been argued that random allocation of participants to conditions is the surest way of ensuring that the results of an intervention reflect a causal effect (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002).”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > The Current Review
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“As noted elsewhere (Logie, 2012), high- and low-ability individuals performing the same complex task may strategically use their cognitive resources differently so that repeatedly practicing the same task over sessions may not address the same cognitive processes to the same degree across all people.”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > Discussion > Theoretical Implications
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Logie, 2012 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“since these studies are likely to show evidential value because the untreated control comparison overestimates the “true” effects of intervention.”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > Results > Analyses of Publication Bias
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We believe that the lack of significant moderator effects on nonverbal ability is important since it contradicts many suggestions in the literature.”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Our meta-analysis included an impressive number of studies from the burgeoning working memory training literature, but the pattern of results is consistent with an earlier review (Melby-Lervåg & Hulme, 2013).”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > Conclusions
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Melby-Lervåg & Hulme, 2013 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This pattern of declines in the controls on stable constructs such as reading comprehension and arithmetic is completely unexpected and presumably reflects measurement error.”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > Discussion
hedgedn = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“For example, whether an active control group uses a non-adaptive training regime or a different, adaptive activity may have effects (Weicker et al., 2015).”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > Discussion > Methodological Issues in the Studies of Working Memory Training
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Weicker et al., 2015
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The p-curve is flat or slightly left-skewed, providing evidence of publication bias (exclusion of whole studies or parts of studies).”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > Results > Analyses of Publication Bias
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because many of the studies reviewed did not describe the active control group scheme in much detail, there were too few studies to do a more fine-grained”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > Discussion > Methodological Issues in the Studies of Working Memory Training
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Both effects appear to be driven by studies in which the control group show a decrease between pretest to posttest, and such a pattern inflates estimates of the effect size obtained”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > Discussion
hedgeddirectn = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Simmons et al. (2011) recommend that at a minimum, 20 subjects/observations need to be present in each cell (in this case, group).”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > Discussion > Methodological Issues in the Studies of Working Memory Training
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Simmons et al., 2011 source
plainn = 20- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“In this vein, there is good evidence that difficulties with word reading and problems with reading and language comprehension can be improved by intensive, targeted educational interventions (see Hulme & Melby-Lervåg, 2015).”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > Conclusions
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Hulme & Melby-Lervåg, 2015 source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This result may reflect the fact that individual differences in working memory capacity are multi-faceted (Gibson & Gondoli, 2012, 2013).”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > Discussion > Theoretical Implications
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Gibson & Gondoli, 2012, 2013
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Kraemer, Gardner, Brooks, and Yesavage (1998) have argued forcefully that meta-analyses should exclude studies that are underpowered, as this will go a long way to removing the problem of misleading conclusions arising from the file drawer problem.”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > Discussion > Methodological Issues in the Studies of Working Memory Training
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kraemer, Gardner, Brooks, and Yesavage, 1998 source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If working memory training produces far transfer because of increased working memory capacity, there should be a direct relationship between the degree to which working memory skills increase and the extent of increases in measures of “far transfer” such as fluid intelligence.”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > Discussion > Methodological Issues in the Studies of Working Memory Training
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“This is termed by Bogg and Lasecki (2014) a “winner's curse” because such very large effect sizes are unlikely to be true.”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > Discussion > Methodological Issues in the Studies of Working Memory Training
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Bogg and Lasecki, 2014
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“It should also be noted that the type of active control group used is also potentially important (see Mohr et al., 2009).”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > Discussion > Methodological Issues in the Studies of Working Memory Training
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Mohr et al., 2009 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These results provide clear evidence that nonverbal ability transfer is largest in studies with untreated controls and small sample sizes, and no effects are observed in studies with treated controls and at least the minimum recommended number of subjects in the training and control groups.”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > Discussion > Methodological Issues in the Studies of Working Memory Training
boostedcorrelationaln = 25- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The authors state this as an assumption.
The multiple comparisons from the same control group included in one analysis have zero correlation between their outcomes.
“we choose to include these studies in the analyses assuming zero correlation between the outcomes.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Individuals with cognitive impairments may benefit more from working memory training.
“Under the assumption that individuals who have cognitive impairments (e.g., ADHD, dyslexia, low working memory, or other neuropsychological disorders) may be more receptive to benefits from working memory training”
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 cited source doesn’t support the claim as written.
In the citing paper
“Interestingly, several meta-analyses have estimated within-and between-study true heterogeneity in WM training to be null or low, both with near-transfer and far-transfer effects.”
From Working memory training in typically developing children: A multilevel meta-analysis (2020) · cites this paper as Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source doesn’t support the claim as written.
In the citing paper
“Third, meta-analytic near transfer measures have lumped together untrained WM tasks that differ from the training tasks only by their stimuli and WM tasks that are structurally different from the training tasks”
From Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies (2017) · cites this paper as Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source doesn’t support the claim as written.
In the citing paper
“Importantly, a meta-analysis reported a trend for n-back being the most efficient WM training [13].”
From Adaptive working memory training does not produce transfer effects in cognition and neuroimaging (2022) · cites this paper as [13]
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Both meta-analyses reach the conclusion that while WM training exerts a medium effect on memory-task performance (near transfer), no other cognitive or academic skills (far transfer) seem to be affected, regardless of the population examined; in particular, no effects are observed when active controls are implemented to rule out placebo effects”
From Working memory training in typically developing children: A multilevel meta-analysis (2020) · cites this paper as Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Both meta-analyses reach the conclusion that while WM training exerts a medium effect on memory-task performance (near transfer), no other cognitive or academic skills (far transfer) seem to be affected, regardless of the population examined; in particular, no effects are observed when active controls are implemented to rule out placebo effects”
From Working memory training in typically developing children: A multilevel meta-analysis (2020) · cites this paper as Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“When present at all, true heterogeneity is accounted for by the type of control group used (active or non-active), statistical artifacts such as pre-post-test regression to the mean due to baseline differences between the experimental and control groups, and, to a lesser extent, a few extreme effect sizes.”
From Working memory training in typically developing children: A multilevel meta-analysis (2020) · cites this paper as Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“This outcome is in line with the findings ofMelby-Lervåg et al. (2016) and corroborate the idea that transfer is function of distance between training task and target task rather than the features of the training program per se (e.g.,Byrne et al., 2019;Pergher et al., 2019).”
From Working memory training in typically developing children: A multilevel meta-analysis (2020) · cites this paper as Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Four comprehensive meta-analyses (Melby-Lervåg & Hulme, 2013;Melby-Lervåg, Redick, & Hulme, 2016;Schwaighofer, Fischer, & Buhner, 2015;Weicker, Villringer, & Thöne-Otto, 2016) have found that WM training impacts on the ability to perform the trained tasks and, to a lesser degree, tasks similar to the trained tasks (i.e., near transfer).”
From Working memory training does not enhance older adults' cognitive skills: A comprehensive meta-analysis (2019) · cites this paper as Melby-Lervåg, Redick, & Hulme, 2016
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The overall effect size was g = 1.170, 95% CI [0.713; 1.627], m = 12, k = 34, df = 5.99, p < .001,ω 2 = 0.061, τ 2 = 0.392.”
From Working memory training does not enhance older adults' cognitive skills: A comprehensive meta-analysis (2019) · cites this paper as Melby-Lervåg et al. (2016)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Rather, such small effects can be easily accounted for by assuming that participants learn how to carry out a particular class of memory tasks rather than enhance their memory capacity (Gathercole et al., 2019;Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016;Sala & Gobet, 2019;Shipstead, Redick, & Engle, 2012).”
From Working memory training does not enhance older adults' cognitive skills: A comprehensive meta-analysis (2019) · cites this paper as Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“As is evident from the short review above, there is some disagreement between the previous meta-analyses, particularly regarding the size of the near transfer effects.”
From Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies (2017) · cites this paper as Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The pooled effect size for all types of WM tasks was g = 0.29 [0.18, 0.40] p < 0.001.”
From Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies (2017) · cites this paper as Melby-Lervåg et al. (2016)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“the effect size was significantly stronger, Q M (1) = 8.89, p < 0.01, for the former, g = 0.62 [0.38, 0.86] p < 0.001 (number of effect sizes = 19), than the latter, g = 0.21, [0.08, 0.33] p < 0.01 (number of effect sizes = 70).”
From Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies (2017) · cites this paper as Melby-Lervåg et al. (2016)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The transfer effect to untrained WM tasks as a whole is approximately of the same size as in the n-back training analyses by Melby-Lervåg et al. (2016; when averaged across verbal and nonverbal WM and active and passive control groups) but considerably smaller than in the other metaanalyses not focusing specifically on n-back training”
From Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies (2017) · cites this paper as Melby-Lervåg et al. (2016)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The effectiveness of training based on the n-back task in eliciting transfer to other different tasks thus remains unclear.”
From Nearest transfer effects of working memory training: A comparison of two programs focused on working memory updating (2019) · cites this paper as [22]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“While a variety of cognitive training studies have identified post-intervention gains on trained tasks and on tasks within similar domains [13–15], findings for transfer effects on untrained cognitive domains and daily functioning are less consistent, presenting a need to improve the efficacy of cognitive training interventions in producing clinically meaningful outcomes [11, 15–18].”
From Primary outcome from the augmenting cognitive training in older adults study (ACT): A tDCS and cognitive training randomized clinical trial (2023) · cites this paper as [17]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Whereas near transfer – i.e., the transfer of skills within the same domain – is sometimes observed, far transfer – i.e., the transfer of skills across two distant domains – is rare or possibly inexistent (Melby-Lervåg, Redick, & Hulme, 2016, Sala et al., 2019a).”
From Cognitive and academic benefits of music training with children: A multilevel meta-analysis (2020) · cites this paper as Melby-Lervåg, Redick, & Hulme, 2016
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“These results are also in line with Sala and Gobet (2017; a re-analysis with RVE of the data used in that study yields similar results; for the details, see the supplemental materials) and, more broadly, the conclusions of previous meta-analytic syntheses concerning WM training in the general population (Aksayli et al., 2019;Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016;Sala et al., 2019a).”
From Working memory training in typically developing children: A multilevel meta-analysis (2020) · cites this paper as Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Furthermore, as the same pattern of results has been found in adults, older adults, and children with learning disabilities (Aksayli et al., 2019;Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016;Sala et al., 2019a), the most parsimonious and plausible conclusion is that WM training does not lead to far transfer.”
From Working memory training in typically developing children: A multilevel meta-analysis (2020) · cites this paper as Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“However, WM training appears to have little or no effect on cognitive tests unrelated to the trained tasks (i.e., far transfer), especially when treated groups were compared to active control groups to rule out possible placebo effects (e.g., Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016).”
From Working memory training does not enhance older adults' cognitive skills: A comprehensive meta-analysis (2019) · cites this paper as Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“For example, the meta-analysis by Melby-Lervåg et al. (2016) included studies that were not randomized, controlled trials.”
From Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies (2017) · cites this paper as Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The results from these meta-analyses (Table 1) with both clinical and healthy samples of children and adults showed that WM training can produce small to large short-term near transfer effects (verbal and visuospatial WM tasks) and null to small effects of transfer to verbal and visuospatial reasoning (or fluid intelligence; Gf) tasks.”
From Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies (2017) · cites this paper as Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Also for Gf, the present transfer effect size is roughly in line with the three previous meta-analyses investigating transfer to Gf from n-back training (Au et al., 2015;Melby-Lervåg & Hulme, 2016;Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016).”
From Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies (2017) · cites this paper as Melby-Lervåg & Hulme, 2016
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Also for Gf, the present transfer effect size is roughly in line with the three previous meta-analyses investigating transfer to Gf from n-back training (Au et al., 2015;Melby-Lervåg & Hulme, 2016;Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016).”
From Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies (2017) · cites this paper as Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“On the whole, this is in line with the previous meta-analyses (Melby-Lervåg & Hulme, 2013;Schwaighofer et al., 2015;Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016).”
From Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies (2017) · cites this paper as Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“However, subsequent meta-analyses did not find any significant far transfer effects [5, 13, 17], especially when the effects of WM training were compared with an active control group, that is, a group practicing tasks with little WM demands.”
From Adaptive working memory training does not produce transfer effects in cognition and neuroimaging (2022) · cites this paper as [13]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Meta-analyses averaging effects of training on WM tasks with varying similarity have reported significant near transfer effects, e.g., [13, 14].”
From Adaptive working memory training does not produce transfer effects in cognition and neuroimaging (2022) · cites this paper as [13]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“WM training does not enhance children’s domain-general cognitive skills or academic achievement (Aksayli, Sala, & Gobet, 2019; Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016; Sala & Gobet, 2020).”
From Cognitive and academic benefits of music training with children: A multilevel meta-analysis (2020) · cites this paper as Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016
In the citing paper
“we would expect working memory training to portend reading comprehension improvements of d=0.05”
From Do Working Memory Deficits Underlie Reading Problems in Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)? (2019) · cites this paper as Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016
In the citing paper
“and portends ‘trivial’ changes in reading performance in neurotypical samples (d=0.08; Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016).”
From Do Working Memory Deficits Underlie Reading Problems in Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)? (2019) · cites this paper as Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016
In the citing paper
“Other meta-analyses have included some CWMT interventions within the broader context of WM training, showing less optimistic results (e.g., Melby-Lervåg, Redick, & Hulme, 2016;Sala & Gobet, 2017a).”
From The cognitive and academic benefits of Cogmed: A meta-analysis (2019) · cites this paper as Melby-Lervåg, Redick, & Hulme, 2016
In the citing paper
“Interestingly, the lack of follow-up far-transfer effects also seems to reject the hypothesis that some time is needed in order for generalized results reported in most recent meta-analyses and systematic reviews in the broader field of WM training”
From The cognitive and academic benefits of Cogmed: A meta-analysis (2019) · cites this paper as Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016
In the citing paper
“Melby-Lervag et al. [22] claimed that there is no evidence to support the notion that WM training improves performance in far-related abilities.”
From Nearest transfer effects of working memory training: A comparison of two programs focused on working memory updating (2019) · cites this paper as [22]
In the citing paper
“While some distinctions have been made in terms of task type (untrained N-back vs. WM tasks in Soveri et al. 2017a, b) and task domain (verbal vs. visuospatial WM in Melby-Lervåg and Hulme 2013; Melby-Lervåg et al. 2016; Schwaighofer et al. 2015), such categorization does not capture the full range of cognitive demands imposed by different WM tasks and may even mask improvements in a subgroup of”
From Divergent Research Methods Limit Understanding of Working Memory Training (2020) · cites this paper as Melby-Lervåg et al. 2016
In the citing paper
“after a decade of research and several meta-analyses6,7, it seems that positive transfer from working memory training is limited to untrained WM tasks only.”
From The early effects of external and internal strategies on working memory updating training (2018) · cites this paper as [7]
In the citing paper
“However, the effect size of transfer to untrained tasks, if any, is small: ~0.3 standard deviations in methodologically weaker studies, ~0.01 in methodologically sound studies (Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016; Redick, 2019).”
From Training-induced improvement in working memory tasks results from switching to efficient strategies (2021) · cites this paper as Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016
In the citing paper
“the present results also indicate that strategy instruction with just a single training session can yield a transfer pattern that mimics the one identified after ordinary 4–6-week long adaptive WM training7,8.”
From The early effects of external and internal strategies on working memory updating training (2018) · cites this paper as [7]
In the citing paper
“Others (e.g., Jacoby & Ahissar, 2013, 2015; Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016; Redick, 2019; Sala & Gobet, 2017; Simons et al., 2016) noted that “far” transfer is more characteristic of studies without an active-control group.”
From Training-induced improvement in working memory tasks results from switching to efficient strategies (2021) · cites this paper as Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016
Statistics that don’t add up
Each reported p-value recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“Q(1) = 13.70, p = .0001”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > Results > Effects of Working Memory Training on Near Transfer Measures
Reported p = .0001 · recomputed p < .001
Statistics recomputed
Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.
- Doesn’t add upQ(1) = 13.7reported p = .0001 · recomputed p < .001
“Q(1) = 13.70, p = .0001”
- ConsistentQ(1) = 6.09reported p = .01 · recomputed p = .014
“Q (1) = 6.09, p = .01”
- ConsistentQ(1) = 4.52reported p = .03 · recomputed p = .034
“Q(1) = 4.52, p = .03”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > Results > The Relationship between Measures of Near and Far Transfer
“The results showed that type of control was a predictor of gains on tests of nonverbal ability (ß = 0.27, p = 0.04).”
§ Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review > Results > The Relationship between Measures of Near and Far Transfer
“Because treated controls showed significantly smaller training effects on nonverbal ability than untreated controls, we ran a meta-regression model (random effects model, method of moments) where we controlled for the type of control group with a dummy variable (coded as 1 for treated and 0 for untreated).”
Cited works that were retracted
Works this paper cites that were later retracted, from the retraction notices publishers deposit. Major when the notice came out before this paper was published.
Rated major: it would touch a result — a value a result rests on, reported and recomputed p-values on opposite sides of the significance level, two passages that conflict with no sign which is right, or a cited work retracted before this paper was published.
In the paper
“10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02172.x”
Cited work 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02172.x · retracted 2011-03-31 · notice 10.1177/0956797611404902 · this paper published 2016-07
A note, not an issue: for example, a cited work that was retracted only after this paper was published, which its authors could not have known.
In the paper
“10.1073/pnas.1018601108”
Cited work 10.1073/pnas.1018601108 · retracted 2025-05-01 · notice 10.1073/pnas.2508040122 · this paper published 2016-07
Citations
Cites
2 retracted
RETRACTED: Role of test motivation in intelligence testing
Duckworth, A. L., Quinn, P. D., Lynam, D. R., Loeber, R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (2011) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1018601108 · Cited by 344
RetractedPersson, J., & Reuter‐Lorenz, P. A. (2008) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02172.x · Cited by 109
RetractedCochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series
(2008) · doi:10.1002/9780470712184 · Cited by 25,048
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009) · doi:10.1002/9780470743386 · Cited by 14,225
Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000) · Biometrics · doi:10.1111/j.0006-341x.2000.00455.x · Cited by 14,099
(2002) · Cited by 13,211
Wasserman, S. S., Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1988) · Journal of Educational Statistics · doi:10.2307/1164953 · Cited by 10,377
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2021) · doi:10.1002/9781119558378 · Cited by 9,799
Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science
Open Science Collaboration (2015) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aac4716 · Cited by 8,515
Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience
Button, K. S., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Mokrysz, C., Nosek, B. A., Flint, J., Robinson, E. S. J., & Munafò, M. R. (2013) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn3475 · Cited by 7,641 · cited 1×
“Given the tendency for small sample sizes to produce inflated effect-size estimates (Button et al., 2013), future studies should include larger samples to produce more precise effect-size estimates.”
Research works printed but not linked: 17
- *Alloway T. P., 2012, Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 23, 197
- 10.1037/00332909.128.4.612 · DOI
- Borenstein M., 2005, Comprehensive meta-analysis (Version 2) [Software]
- Buschkuehl M., 2010, Swiss Medical Weekly, 140, 266
- *Feiyue Q., 2009, The 1st international conference on information science and engineering, 3459
- 10.371/journal.pone.0007141
- *Horvat M. (2014). Vpliv treninga delovnega spomina na kognitivne sposobnosti [The effect of working memory training on cognitive abilities] (Master’s thesis). University of Maribor, Slovenia. (Grey)
- **Netto T. M., 2013, Psychology: Reflection and Review, 26, 122
- Passolunghi M. C., 2006, Working memory and neurodevelopmental condition, 113
- *Redick T. S., 2015, Poster present at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Psychological Science
- 10.1037/0022006X.64.6.1290 · DOI
- *Shavelson R. J., 2008, Contributions of educational psychology to changing institutions, environments, and people, 1
- Unsworth N., 2015, Reasoning as memory, 9
- *Weicker J., 2013, Poster presented at the 4th Joint Meeting of the European Societies of Neuropsychology (ESN) and the 28th Meeting of the German Society of Neuropsychology (GNP)
- 10.1037/neu00002 · DOI
- *Zhang Q., 2014, Poster presented at the 26th annual convention of the Association for Psychological Science
- 10.1159/000324240007 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 801–891 of 891
Cognitive Mechanisms and Intervention Strategies for Learning Disabilities in Children
龚, 逸. (2024) · Advances in Social Sciences · doi:10.12677/ass.2024.13121121
Gaurav, A., Mishra, A. K., Kumar, S., & Singh, D. K. (2024) · NPG. Neurologie, psychiatrie, gériatrie/NPG · doi:10.1016/j.npg.2024.11.005
Orthophonie, fonctions exécutives, motivation et métacognition ?
Clair-Bonaime, M. (2020) · Ortho magazine · doi:10.1016/s1262-4586(22)00079-6
(2025) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781394184507.refs
Seerup, J. K., Dietrichson, J., Jensen, V. M., & Bingley, P. (2025) · Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR) · doi:10.1080/10824669.2025.2468701 · Cited by 1
“…which solely focus on building EF skills has substantial effects on academic skills (see e.g., Cortese et al., 2015; Jacob & Parkinson, 2015; Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016; Melby‐Lervåg & Hulme, 2013; Rapport et al., 2013; Redick et al., 2015; Sala & Gobet, 2017; and Schwaighofer et al., 2015…”
The relationship between visuospatial and analogical reasoning
Corral, D., & Burte, H. (2025) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1177/17470218251327076
“…abilities through training can be rather challenging (Gobet, 2016; Gobet & Sala, 2023; Sala & Gobet, 2017, 2019; Melby-Lervåg & Hulme, 2013; Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016; Simon & Chase, 1973), it might be prudent for such work to incorporate multiple rounds of training over an extended…”
Seiffer, B., & Wolf, S. (2025) · German Journal of Exercise and Sport Research · doi:10.1007/s12662-025-01032-1 · Cited by 1
Rogers, F., Erdem, E., & Metzler‐Baddeley, C. (2025) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-6023523/v1
Felton, J. W., Cinader, M. K., Spencer, J., Hampton, T., Mulheron, M., Key, K., Johnson, J. E., & Yi, R. (2025) · Applied Neuropsychology Child · doi:10.1080/21622965.2025.2490096
Georgoula, E., Koustriava, E., & Papadopoulos, K. S. (2025) · British Journal of Special Education · doi:10.1111/1467-8578.70026 · Cited by 2
Romero-López, M., Pichardo, M. C., Riba, S. S. I., & Cano, F. (2025) · Children · doi:10.3390/children12050596
Caetano, T., Pinho, M. S., Freire, H., Mota, D., Ramadas, E., Lopes, J., Freire-Santos, F., & Dixe, M. D. A. (2025) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-00922-6
“Many authors have questioned the possibility of “far-transfer” - where training in one cognitive domain leads to improvements in unrelated domains - resulting from cognitive training 12–14 , questioning whether these effects can lead to generalized cognitive benefits.”
The Working Memory Modifiability: Effects of Mediation on Working Memory and Analogical ThinkingPreprint
Tzuriel, D., Hanuka-Levy, D., & Weiss, T. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5254501
How Can We Characterize Human Generalization and Distinguish It From Generalization in Machines?
Thalmann, M., & Schulz, E. (2025) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/09637214251336212 · Cited by 1
“This lack of generalized training gains (e.g., Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016) is somewhat surprising given the large positive correlation between working memory and fluid intelligence (e.g. De Simoni & von Bastian, 2018).”
Rehabilitation and Prognosis of Literacy Development Disorders
Ahmed, T. A. K. A.-S., Bamiou, D., Campbell, N. G., Duranović, M., Fiori, A., Föcker, M., Hofmann, R., Maciejewska, B., Moore, D. R., Reiter, R., et al. (2025) · European manual of medicine · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-25175-7_15
Educational needs of children with dyscalculia
van Hoogmoed, A. H., Kroesbergen, E. H., Ruijssenaars, W. A. J. J. M., & Luit, J. E. H. V. (2025) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-443-22224-5.00008-4
Kristensen, A. M., Blurton, S. P., & Vangkilde, S. (2025) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1574860 · Cited by 1
Minimal training duration inducing near transfer in two-phase working memory training paradigm
Ni, N., Tsubomi, H., & Saito, S. (2025) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1177/17470218251369061
“Traditional WM training studies have relied on a pre-test–posttest design with multiple training sessions in between, focusing on measuring pre–post changes in transfer tasks (Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016).”
Does Emotional Working Memory Training Ameliorate Anxiety and Depression? A Meta-Analytic ReviewPreprint
Ou, J., Mou, H., Zhou, T., et al. (2025) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-7409661/v1
McAlister, K. L., Baez, L. M., Braunsdorf, A., Yang, Y., Kessler, D., & Huberty, J. (2025) · JMIR Formative Research · doi:10.2196/80027
“…studies of research-based and commercial platforms have shown improvements in cognitive performance on specific trained tasks, research linking app-based cognitive training to related untrained tasks (ie, near-transfer effects) and real-world functioning (ie, far-transfer effects) is mixed [20,21].”
Methods for a fully online automated cognitive training study on Prolific
Joëssel, F., Denkinger, S., Joessel, P.-E., Green, C. S., & Bavelier, D. (2025) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.105704
Venelinova, N., & Beloeva, S. (2025) · Education and human development · doi:10.5772/intechopen.1012559 · Cited by 1
Coyle, T. R. (2025) · Intelligence & Cognitive Abilities · doi:10.65550/001c.146460 · Cited by 1
Tang, Y., & Tang, R. (2025) · Journal of Integrative Neuroscience · doi:10.31083/jin46733
LMX1A and APOE ɛ Genotype Associations With Working Memory Training Effects in HIV and Non-HIV
Chang, L., Liang, H., Ernst, T., Cunningham, E. P., Wang, J. C., Baptiste, J., & Løhaugen, G. C. C. (2025) · Neurology Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation · doi:10.1212/nxi.0000000000200519
Bayrami, M., & Mazraeh, S. D. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5870442
The impact of memory training on abstinence among individuals with alcohol use disorder
Cabanis, M., Kuhl, M.-C., Wetterling, T., Margraf, M., Nikoo, M., Westenberg, J. N., & Junghanns, K. (2025) · Frontiers in Psychiatry · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2025.1668684
What should replicate in intelligence research? Setting the bar for a cumulative science
Iliescu, D., & Greiff, S. (2025) · Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.intell.2025.101992
Kamal, A. (2025) · Emirati Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.54878/0fysjx45
Impact of unemployment on skill depreciation: Evidence from China's labor market
Feng, H., & Gao, T. (2026) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.106165 · Cited by 2
MacLellan, A., Fairchild, G. F., & Button, K. S. (2026) · doi:10.2196/preprints.91564
Sequential learning in neural decoders reveals interpretable neural representations
Klawitter, J., & Michmizos, K. P. (2026) · Neurocomputing · doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2026.132742 · Cited by 1
Cognitive flexibility versus stability via activation-based and weight-based adaptations
Xu, S., Verguts, T., & Braem, S. (2026) · Communications Psychology · doi:10.1038/s44271-026-00397-9 · Cited by 5
Rivas-García, M., Vidal-Ramírez, C., Toledano-González, A., Rodríguez-Martínez, M. D. C., Molina-Torres, E., Marín-Marín, J.-A., Triviño-Juárez, J. M., Gea, M., & Ayuso, D. M. R. (2026) · Healthcare · doi:10.3390/healthcare14030323
Эффективность тренингов рабочей памяти: обзор поведенческих и нейрофизиологических данных
Panikratova, Y. R., Pchelintseva, M. E., Егорова, М. В., Фомина, М. А., & Печенкова, Е. В. (2025) · Психиатрия психотерапия и клиническая психология · doi:10.34883/pi.2025.16.4.006
Chen, S., Li, Q., Wang, Y., & Wan, Q. (2026) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2026.106279
Rogers, F., McNabb, C. B., Erdem, E., et al. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.01.28.702269
Fargier, P., Cece, V., Lentillon‐Kaestner, V., & Roure, C. (2026) · JMIR Serious Games · doi:10.2196/82610 · Cited by 1
Walton, L., Neely, A. S., Bäckström, D. C., & Domellöf, M. E. (2026) · Neuropsychological Rehabilitation · doi:10.1080/09602011.2026.2613961
“…are not trained in the actual training yet aim to measure the same or closely related cognitive domains to those that were part of the cognitive training programme) in both healthy populations and people with cognitive impairments (Kelly et al., 2014; Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2019).”
The role of working memory for learning with context-personalized tasks in elementary school
Laufs, A.-K., Meyer, A., Krüger, M., & Kempert, S. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1671810 · Cited by 1
Mao, Z., Yang, Y., & Jiang, Y. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1739818
Román-Caballero, R., Trujillo, L., Martín-Sánchez, P. D. C., Martín‐Arévalo, E., & Lupiáñez, J. (2026) · British Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1111/bjop.70068
Güçlü, D. M. (2026) · Cyprus Turkish Journal of Psychiatry and Psychology · doi:10.35365/ctjpp.26.1.09
Cabelguen, C., Challet‐Bouju, G., Thiabaud, E., Donnio, Y., Lefebvre, L., Hardouin, J.-B., & Grall‐Bronnec, M. (2026) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2025-111698
Vargek, P., Karakatič, S., & Bakračevič, K. (2026) · Journal of Intelligence · doi:10.3390/jintelligence14040056
“This result is expected since studies show higher near-transfer effects than far transfer (Basak et al., 2020; Mewborn et al., 2017) or even no far-transfer effects at all (Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016; Sala et al., 2019).”
Verhoog, E. M., Fasotti, L., Kessels, R. P. C., & Bertens, D. (2026) · Neuropsychology Review · doi:10.1007/s11065-025-09682-6
Learning to read : new remediation strategies and underlying cognitive mechanisms
Andreola, C. (2023) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/5c762d33zbc28z4a74zb9daz2e6c21738de6
What is Working Memory? Can It be Improved? How Would This Go?
Li, Y., & Ouyang, G. (2026) · Journal of Cognitive Enhancement · doi:10.1007/s41465-026-00357-5 · Cited by 3
“…transfer , i.e., improvements on tasks structurally similar to the training paradigm, and far transfer , i.e., improvements on broader cognitive domains such as fluid reason - ing, academic achievement, or general intelligence (Hicks & Engle, 2020; Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016; Sala et al., 2019).”
InfluentialBharadwaj, S. V., Al-Mutawa, C., Hulla, R., & Henry, M. (2026) · Applied Neuropsychology Child · doi:10.1080/21622965.2026.2654719
The Executive Function Training on Students With Mathematics Difficulty: Is More Always Better?
Wang, H., Wang, L., Yu, X., Cui, Y., & Cai, D. (2026) · Applied Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1002/acp.70208
Zhang, H., Zhang, B., & Xiaofeng, M. (2026) · Biological Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2026.109281
Giaouri, S., Charitaki, G., & Alevriadou, A. (2026) · Journal of Mathematics and Science Teacher · doi:10.29333/mathsciteacher/18528
“Interventions that target working memory, such as computerized training, chunking strategies, and task simplification, have shown promise across both groups (Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016).”
Dupuy, E. G., Blanchette, C., Besnier, F., Gagnon, C., Vincent, T. L., Vrinceanu, T., Breton, J., Saillant, K., Iglesies‐Grau, J., Belleville, S., et al. (2026) · European Review of Aging and Physical Activity · doi:10.1186/s11556-026-00415-z
Neurodiversity in Organisations: Taking Stock and Shaping Future Research
Doyle, N., Moeller, M., Ott, D. L., & Rašković, M. M. (2026) · International Journal of Management Reviews · doi:10.1111/ijmr.70030 · Cited by 2
Neuronaukowe podstawy inteligencji
Haier, R. J., Kabziński, P., & Mąka, S. (2026) · Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego eBooks · doi:10.18778/8331-892-9
Perry, R. C., Tolmie, A. K., Toledano, M. B., Shen, C., Thomas, M. S. C., & Dumontheil, I. (2026) · Mind Brain and Education · doi:10.1111/mbe.70048
Zheng, H. E. (2026) · The Asian Educational Therapist · doi:10.64663/aet.79
Sürmeli, T., Ertem, A., Bukhari, N. A., Cantor, D. S., Eralp, E., & Jahrami, H. (2026) · Clinical EEG and Neuroscience · doi:10.1177/15500594261452764
Neuromodulation of Working Memory: Mechanisms, Targets, and Behavioral Outcomes
Rafiei, S. K. S., Ghorbani, F., Rezaei, J., et al. (2026) · Neuroscience Insights · doi:10.1177/26331055261458642
“133 Under a gain-and-timing framework, such limits are expected: transfer should occur primarily when real-world demands recruit the same control primitives engaged by the intervention.”
Liu, T., Saif, S., Tang, M., & Mo, L. (2026) · doi:10.2196/preprints.104881
Psychometric Properties and Transfer Measures of Working Memory in Older Adults: A Scoping Review
Muñoz-Olano, J. F., & Vargas, S. F. P. (2026) · Ageing International · doi:10.1007/s12126-026-09657-9
“…et al., 2024; Syed et al., 2024), in which the widespread use of working memory tasks contrasts with limited and inconsistent evidence regarding their psychometric adequacy and their capacity to support claims of transfer (Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016; Sala et al., 2019; Teixeira-Santos et al., 2019).”
Bayrami, M., & Dadashi, S. (2026) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2026.107319
Kimura, K., Valdez, M. R., & Bowman, C. R. (2026) · Psychological Research · doi:10.1007/s00426-026-02334-1
“However, we note that evi - dence for cognitive training is limited, with studies indicating that individuals learn task-specific strategies rather than broad changes in underlying cognitive abilities (Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016; Watrin et al., 2022).”
Padulo, C., Cascone, A., Crescenzo, F. D., Gigliotta, O., & Fairfield, B. (2026) · Journal of Intelligence · doi:10.3390/jintelligence14070124
Şanal, S. Ö. (2026) · Educational Technology Research and Development · doi:10.1007/s11423-026-10664-5 · Cited by 1
Bekteshi, S., Kalkantzi, A., Martens, E., Dan, B., & Pueyo, R. (2026) · Disability and Rehabilitation Assistive Technology · doi:10.1080/17483107.2026.2705168 · Cited by 1
Tzuriel, D., & Hanuka-Levy, D. (2026) · Cognitive Development · doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2026.101751
Bridging the Science of Reading and the Science of Learning
Hurford, D. P., & Fender, A. C. (2026) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-7887-9.ch001
From Memory to Strategy: Exploring Strategy Use During Working Memory Training in Brazilian Children
Barbosa‐Pereira, D., Martins, P. S. R., & Alves, M. M. (2026) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1177/17470218261477569
Fan, T., Liu, C., Liu, Y., & Li, G. (2026) · Brain Sciences · doi:10.3390/brainsci16080861
“Gains are typically largest for trained tasks and near-transfer outcomes, whereas far-transfer effects and broad improvements in general cognition are smaller and less consistent [5,9,11].”
InfluentialChildren’s willingness to engage cognitive control
Niebaum, J. C., Laurence, P. G., Lin, T.-C., & Munakata, Y. (2026) · Advances in child development and behavior · doi:10.1016/bs.acdb.2026.07.005
Hasan, M. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.7370159
Naughton, C., & Kemp, S. (2026) · Frontiers in Organizational Psychology · doi:10.3389/forgp.2026.1835216
Melgarejo, T. F. V., Yale, F. A. G., Nájera, G. J. O., et al. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1779389
Aronsson, I., Neely, A. S., Boraxbekk, C., Eskilsson, T., & Gavelin, H. M. (2026) · Stress and Health · doi:10.1002/smi.70218
Technology-Based Interventions in Mathematics Learning for Students with ADHD: A Scoping Review
Κωνσταντοπούλου, Ε., Πέλλας, Ν., & Tzivinikou, S. (2026) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app16178899 · Cited by 1
ÖZDEMİR, A. A., & Erol, A. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-10739493/v1
Tronelli, V., Barbon, A., & Mazza, V. (2026) · Brain Sciences · doi:10.3390/brainsci16090981
Cummins, J. D., Meijer, Z., Cassidy, S., & Houwer, J. D. (2026) · Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science · doi:10.1016/j.jcbs.2026.101032
Arenas, D. A. M., Morales, D. M., Rodríguez, Á. P. A., & Acevedo, D. A. (2026) · Revista de Psicología Universidad de Antioquia · doi:10.17533/udea.rp.e362916
The ımpact of visual attention and visual memory exercises on athletes’ ımagery skills
Yılmaz, E., Şıktar, E., & Bedir, D. (2026) · Слобожанський науково-спортивний вісник · doi:10.15391/snsv.2026-3.07
Liu, T., Saif, S., Tang, M., & Mo, L. (2026) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/104881
Efecto de un entrenamiento de memoria de trabajo en jóvenes universitarios
Mariscal-Rentería, E., Gallardo‐Moreno, G. B., & González‐Garrido, A. A. (2026) · Psiquiatría Biológica · doi:10.1016/j.psiq.2026.100958
Ramezani, M. H., Behzadipour, S., Pourghayoomi, E., Joghataei, M. T., Shirazi, E., & Fawcett, A. J. (2021) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.16625572
Yhnell, E., Furby, H., Lowe, R., Brookes‐Howell, L., Drew, C. J. G., Playle, R., Watson, G. L., Metzler-Baddeley, C., Rosser, A., & Busse, M. E. (2020) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.12519254
Eide, L. S., Rike, P.-O., Reme, S. E., Snekkevik, H., Rössner, S., Rosén, G., Lindeløv, J. K., & Løvstad, M. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.24934183
Sala, G., & Gobet, F. (2019) · Collabra: Psychology · doi:10.2478/collabra.2019.5.1.18
Metadata
- Authors
- Melby-Lervåg, M., Redick, T. S., & Hulme, C.
- Affiliations
- Department of Special Needs Education, University of Oslo
- Purdue University West Lafayette (US)
- University of Oslo (NO)
- Corresponding author
- Redick, Thomas S.
- Venue
- Perspectives on Psychological Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2016-07
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 512-534
- ISSN
- 1745-6916 (ISSN-L)
- 1745-6924
- PMC
- PMC4968033
- OpenAlex
- W2480700159
- Semantic Scholar
- 57a161286f16efa63b0704de7a0a219ef8c9a24b
- Cited by
- 983
- References
- 212
- Citations by year
- 2026: 87 · 2025: 91 · 2024: 95 · 2023: 83 · 2022: 87 · 2021: 118 · 2020: 130 · 2019: 97 · 2018: 111 · 2017: 69 · 2016: 15
- FWCI
- 9.91
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Perspectives on Psychological Science (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research Bank (Australian Catholic University) (submittedVersion)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
- Oxford University Research Archive (ORA) (University of Oxford) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Funders
- Norges Forskningsråd
- National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (R01AA013650)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Cognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skills
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology
- Keywords
- working memory training, far transfer, intelligence, nonverbal ability, verbal ability, word decoding, reading comprehension, arithmetic, mediation analysis, publication bias, computer-based training, cognitive training
- MeSH terms
- Cognitive Remediation, Humans, Intelligence, Memory, Short-Term, Transfer, Psychology
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-05, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-05 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
