Cited by 47Cognitive Abilities and TestingCognitive Functions and MemoryNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

Transfer after working memory updating training

Open access
Waris, Otto, Soveri, Anna, Laine, Matti·2015·PLOS ONE

Abstract

During the past decade, working memory training has attracted much interest. However, the training outcomes have varied between studies and methodological problems have hampered the interpretation of results. The current study examined transfer after working memory updating training by employing an extensive battery of pre-post cognitive measures with a focus on near transfer. Thirty-one healthy Finnish young adults were randomized into either a working memory training group or an active control group. The working memory training group practiced with three working memory tasks, while the control group trained with three commercial computer games with a low working memory load. The participants trained thrice a week for five weeks, with one training session lasting about 45 minutes. Compared to the control group, the working memory training group showed strongest transfer to an n-back task, followed by working memory updating, which in turn was followed by active working memory capacity. Our results support the view that working memory training produces near transfer effects, and that the degree of transfer depends on the cognitive overlap between the training and transfer measures.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0138734

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Task similarity has dominated transfer frameworks for more than a century.

    “Since Thorndike’s common elements theory was established in the 1900 s, task similarity has dominated transfer frameworks for more than a century, centering on similarity as a primary determinant of training transfer likelihood (Waris et al., 2015; Woodworth & Thorndike, 1901).”

    From The asymmetry of working memory training transfer: A systematic review and meta-analysis (2026) · cites this paper as Waris et al., 2015

    The Introduction and Discussion (pages unavailable) treat cognitive overlap between training and transfer tasks as a predictor of transfer strength. They do not establish that task similarity has dominated transfer frameworks since Thorndike’s theory or for more than a century. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The active control group played two casual video games used in previous training studies, which do not specifically tap WM processes.

    “This active control group played two casual video games used in previous training studies [15, 54–57], which do not specifically tap WM processes.”
  • A lack of transfer effects from WMU training to fluid intelligence has been reported in a number of studies, and some meta-analyses have addressed this issue.

    “A lack of transfer effects from WMU training to fluid intelligence has been reported in a number of studies too (e.g., [14–17, 27]), and some meta-analyses have addressed this issue.”
  • In four studies, participants trained on other updating working memory tasks in addition to N-back, which prevents understanding the separate contributions of these tasks to transfer.

    “In four studies, participants trained on other types of updating WM tasks in addition to the N-back, which precludes understanding of the individual contributions of these training tasks to transfer (Maraver et al. 2016; Waris et al. 2015; Kühn et al. 2013; Loosli et al. 2016).”

    From Divergent Research Methods Limit Understanding of Working Memory Training (2020) · cites this paper as Waris et al. 2015

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Waris, O., Soveri, A., & Laine, M.
Affiliations
Åbo Akademi University (FI)
Corresponding author
Waris, Otto
Venue
PLOS ONE
Published
2015-09-25
Volume
10
Issue
9
Pages
e0138734
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2342180986
Cited by
47
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 3
FWCI
7.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Åbo Akademi University Research Portal (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Åbo Akademi
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, transfer, near transfer, working memory updating, n-back task, working memory capacity, video games, cognitive training
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Finland, Humans, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Neuropsychological Tests, Random Allocation, Transfer, Psychology, Young Adult, Healthy Volunteers

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