The DOI matches its Crossref record; 62 of the 64 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Failure of Working Memory Training to Enhance Cognition or Intelligence
Open accessAbstract
Fluid intelligence is important for successful functioning in the modern world, but much evidence suggests that fluid intelligence is largely immutable after childhood. Recently, however, researchers have reported gains in fluid intelligence after multiple sessions of adaptive working memory training in adults. The current study attempted to replicate and expand those results by administering a broad assessment of cognitive abilities and personality traits to young adults who underwent 20 sessions of an adaptive dual n-back working memory training program and comparing their post-training performance on those tests to a matched set of young adults who underwent 20 sessions of an adaptive attentional tracking program. Pre- and post-training measurements of fluid intelligence, standardized intelligence tests, speed of processing, reading skills, and other tests of working memory were assessed. Both training groups exhibited substantial and specific improvements on the trained tasks that persisted for at least 6 months post-training, but no transfer of improvement was observed to any of the non-trained measurements when compared to a third untrained group serving as a passive control. These findings fail to support the idea that adaptive working memory training in healthy young adults enhances working memory capacity in non-trained tasks, fluid intelligence, or other measures of cognitive abilities.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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 says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“However, evidence on transfer of improved WM into more general cognitive domains such as fluid intelligence (Gf) has been more equivocal.”
From Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis (2015) · cites this paper as Thompson et al., 2013
In the citing paper
“However, such near transfer effects may not be surprising since many of these outcome measures are very similar to the training tasks themselves and improvement may be the result of a learned strategy instead of improved cognitive capacity [87].”
In the citing paper
“While there are numerous reports of transfer in the literature, there is also substantial evidence for failure of transfer (Thompson et al. 2013; Jackson et al. 2012).”
From Divergent Research Methods Limit Understanding of Working Memory Training (2020) · cites this paper as Thompson et al. 2013
In the citing paper
“in several studies comparing dual n-back working memory training to either active or no contact control groups, training related gains were not identified in any one group relative to another for any outcome [24–26].”
From Dual N-back working memory training in healthy adults: A randomized comparison to processing speed training. (2016) · cites this paper as [25]
In the citing paper
“Our findings support previous work which fails to replicate near and far transfer benefits of dual n-back working memory training when directly compared to an active control condition (see [24–26]).”
From Dual N-back working memory training in healthy adults: A randomized comparison to processing speed training. (2016) · cites this paper as [25]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/bf03193146 · Cited by 65,971
Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974) · Psychology of Learning and Motivation · doi:10.1016/s0079-7421(08)60452-1 · Cited by 9,860
Cohen, J. (1992) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037//0033-2909.112.1.155 · Cited by 8,771
Mindset: The New Psychology of Success
(2006) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.44-2397 · Cited by 7,804
Grit: perseverance and passion for long-term goals
Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.1087 · Cited by 6,911
(1999) · Cited by 6,308
The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory
(2010) · The Psychology of learning and motivation/The psychology of learning and motivation · doi:10.1016/c2009-0-62209-1 · Cited by 6,035
Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence
Dumont, R., Willis, J. O., Veizel, K., & Zibulsky, J. (2014) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781118660584.ese2519 · Cited by 5,546
Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence
Wechsler, D. (1999) · PsycTESTS Dataset · doi:10.1037/t15170-000 · Cited by 4,681
Blackwell, L. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Dweck, C. S. (2007) · Child Development · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.00995.x · Cited by 3,784
Flagged first, then by citations
2 of the 64 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Raven JC, Court JH, Raven J (1998) Raven’s Progressive Matrices. Oxford: Oxford Psychological Press.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 201–209 of 209
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
Zhao, X., Ji, C., Zhang, C., Huang, C., Zhou, Y., & Wang, L. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26596481
Zhao, X., Ji, C., Zhang, C., Huang, C., Zhou, Y., & Wang, L. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26596484
Zhao, X., Ji, C., Zhang, C., Huang, C., Zhou, Y., & Wang, L. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26596478
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
Zhilyaeva, T. V., Толстоброва, Е. М., Насонова, У. А., Klekochko, O. S., Taraday, Y. M., & Romanova, E. S. (2026) · Psychological Science and Education · doi:10.17759/pse.2026310203
Neuronaukowe podstawy inteligencji
Haier, R. J., Kabziński, P., & Mąka, S. (2026) · Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego eBooks · doi:10.18778/8331-892-9
Wilson, T. W., Bravo, M. A., Huang, P., McDonald, K. M., John, J. A., Garrison, G. M., Kress, K. A., Webert, L. K., Son, J. J., Okelberry, H. J., et al. (2026) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2026.122087
N-Back: impacto de la estética del estímulo en la eficacia de la respuesta
Bento, S. D. A., Rodrigues, P., Nascimento, C. S., & Maia, L. A. C. R. (2026) · Revista Electrónica de PortalesMedicos com · doi:10.64396/v21-0210
Metadata
- Authors
- Thompson, T. W., Waskom, M. L., Garel, K.-L. A., Cardenas-Iniguez, C., Reynolds, G. O., Winter, R., Chang, P., Pollard, K., Lala, N., Alvarez, G. A., & Gabrieli, J. D. E.
- Affiliations
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
- Boston University (US)
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (US)
- Harvard University (US)
- McGovern Institute for Brain Research (US)
- Corresponding author
- Thompson, Todd W.
- ORCID
- Venue
- PLoS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2013-05-22
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- e63614
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC3661602
- OpenAlex
- W2054335768
- Cited by
- 208
- References
- 64
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 29 · 2015: 24 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 7
- FWCI
- 34.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Knowledge@UChicago (University of Chicago) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- University of Chicago (cc-by)
- Funders
- U.S. Department of Defense
- National Institutes of Health
- Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (NBCHC070105)
- Advanced Research Projects Agency
- National Defense Science and Engineering Graduate
- National Institute on Drug Abuse (T90DA022759, R90DA023427)
- NIH Blueprint for Neuroscience Research (R90DA023427, T90DA022759/R90DA023427, T90DA022759)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Keywords
- working memory training, fluid intelligence, adaptive training, transfer of training, cognitive enhancement, processing speed, reading skills, attentional tracking, young adults, intelligence
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Cognition, Education, Female, Humans, Intelligence, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Reading, Young Adult
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
