Nearest transfer effects of working memory training: A comparison of two programs focused on working memory updating

May combine two claims.

The WMU training produced gains in only some of the WMU tasks structurally similar to those used in the training, not in those lacking the same structure, or in WM or fluid intelligence tasks.

“The results showed that the WMU training produced gains in only some of the WMU tasks structurally similar to those used in the training, not in those lacking the same structure, or in WM or fluid intelligence tasks.”

May combine two claims.

The interaction between session and practice distribution and the main effect of practice distribution did not reach significance for the letter n-back task (p > .356).

“The interaction between session and practice distribution and the main effect of practice distribution did not reach significance (p > .356)”

May combine two claims.

In the Bejeweled game, the effect of session was not significant (p = .087), but the linear trend was significant (F(1, 62) = 5.71, p = .020, η2p = .08), explaining 69.91% of the variance.

“In the Bejeweled game, the effect of session was not significant (p = .087), but the linear trend was, F(1, 62) = 5.71, p = .020, ŋ2p = .08, and explained 69.91% of the variance.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The sample included 193 psychology and social work undergraduates (Mage = 21.36, SD = 3.49; 40 males, 153 females).

“Participants were recruited from the University of Jaén, southern Spain and included 193 psychology and social work undergraduates (Mage = 21.36, SD = 3.49; 40 males, 153 females).”

May combine two claims.

The practice distribution effect was significant in the comparison between the arithmetical and the n-back training groups on the numerical n-back task, massed practice being associated with larger gains (Mdiff = 0.68) than spaced practice (Mdiff = 0.48).

“The practice distribution effect was significant in the comparison between the arithmetical and the n-back training groups, massed practice being associated with larger gains (Mdiff = 0.68) than spaced practice (Mdiff = 0.48).”

May combine two claims.

Neither the interaction nor the practice distribution effect reached significance for the categorical n-back task.

“Neither the interaction nor the practice distribution effect reached significance”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The cubic component for session in the letter n-back task was significant (F(1, 61) = 7.51, p = .008, η2p = .11), accounting for 0.60% of the variance.

“The trend analysis revealed that the linear component, F(1, 61) = 140.98, p < .001, ŋ2p = .70, the quadratic component, F(1, 61) = 22.04, p < .001, ŋ2p = .27, and the cubic component, F(1, 61) = 7.51, p = .008, ŋ2p = .11, were all significant, accounting for 92.97%, 6.30% and 0.60% of the variance, respectively.”

May combine two claims.

Neither the interaction between session and practice distribution nor the main effect of practice distribution reached significance for the number size updating task (p > .199).

“Neither the interaction between session and practice distribution nor the main effect of practice distribution reached significance (p > .199)”

May combine two claims.

For the arithmetical updating task, the arithmetical training group showed larger performance gains (Mdiff = 13.59) than the n-back training group (Mdiff = 1.50) or the active control group (Mdiff = -1.29).

“For the arithmetical updating task, the arithmetical training group showed larger performance gains (Mdiff = 13.59) than the n-back training group (Mdiff = 1.50) or the active control group (Mdiff = -1.29).”

May combine two claims.

Neither the practice distribution effect nor the interaction were significant for the categorical updating task.

“Neither the practice distribution effect nor the interaction were significant”

May combine two claims.

Neither the main effect of practice distribution nor the interaction between session and practice distribution were significant for the Dodge the Meteor game (p > .112).

“Neither the main effect of practice distribution nor the interaction between session and practice distribution were significant (p > .112)”

May combine two claims.

In the numerical n-back task, performance gains were significantly greater for the n-back training group (Mdiff = 0.92) than for the arithmetical training group (Mdiff = 0.24) or the active control group (Mdiff = 0.14), with no differences in performance gains between the two latter groups.

“In the numerical n-back task, performance gains were significantly greater for the n-back training group (Mdiff = 0.92) than for the arithmetical training group (Mdiff = 0.24) or the active control group (Mdiff = 0.14), with no differences in performance gains between the two latter groups.”

May combine two claims.

The main effect of practice distribution was significant for the Bejeweled game (F(1, 62) = 5.26, p = .025, η2p = .08), with performance after spaced practice higher than after massed practice (Mdiff = 0.314).

“The main effect of practice distribution was also significant, F(1, 62) = 5.26, p = .025, ŋ2p = .08, since performance after spaced practice was higher than after massed practice (Mdiff = 0.314).”

May combine two claims.

The interaction between session and practice distribution and the main effect of practice distribution were not significant for the numerical n-back task (p > .428).

“The interaction between session and practice distribution and the main effect of practice distribution were not significant (p > .428)”

May combine two claims.

No other effects of practice distribution nor the interaction were significant for the numerical n-back task.

“No other effects of practice distribution nor the interaction were significant”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The cubic component for session in the number size updating task was significant (F(1, 62) = 7.82, p = .007, η2p = .11), explaining 2.29% of the variance.

“The quadratic component, F(1, 62) = 31.03, p < .001, ŋ2p = .33, and the cubic component, F(1, 62) = 7.82, p = .007, ŋ2p = .11, were significant as well, explaining 12.42% and 2.29% of the variance, respectively.”

May combine two claims.

Neither the main effect of practice distribution nor the interaction were significant for the arithmetical updating task.

“Neither the main effect of practice distribution nor the interaction were significant”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

No differences emerged between the groups (p = .159) or practice distributions (p = .471) in expectations concerning improvement at the start of training.

“No differences emerged between the various groups (p = .159), and practice distributions (p = .471) at the start of the training.”

May combine two claims.

Neither the practice distribution effect nor the interaction proved significant for the operation span task.

“Neither the practice distribution effect nor the interaction proved significant”

May combine two claims.

The n-back training group showed gains only in the trained numerical n-back task, not in the similar categorical n-back task.

“As for the n-back training group, gains were only evident in the trained numerical n-back task, not in the similar categorical n-back task.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in overall self-perceived improvement (p = .138), but the practice distribution effect neared significance (F(1, 185) = 3.49, p = .063, η2p = .02).

“there were no statistically significant differences between the groups (p = .138), but the practice distribution effect neared significance, F(1, 185) = 3.49, p = .063, ŋ2p = .02.”

May combine two claims.

Neither the practice distribution effect nor any interaction between practice distribution and group were significant on any task (p > .166).

“Neither the practice distribution effect nor any interaction between practice distribution and group were significant on any task (p > .166).”

May combine two claims.

The practice distribution effect and the interaction also lacked significance for the Cattell test.

“The practice distribution effect and the interaction also lacked significance”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Overall self-perceived improvement tended to be somewhat higher for the massed practice (M = 7.12) than for the spaced practice (M = 6.70).

“overall self-perceived improvement tended to be somewhat higher for the massed practice (M = 7.12) than for the spaced practice (M = 6.70).”

May combine two claims.

The arithmetical updating group showed a large effect for the same trained task, and an effect higher than 0.75 for the categorical updating task.

“the arithmetical updating group showed a large effect for the same trained task, and an effect higher than 0.75 for the categorical updating task.”

May combine two claims.

For massed practice, the effect of session was significant (F(2, 188) = 3.17, p = .044, η2p = .03), due to greater motivation from the middle of training to the end (Mdiff = 0.32, p = .028).

“For massed practice, the effect of session was significant, F(2, 188) = 3.17, p = .044, ŋ2p = .03, due to a greater motivation from the middle of training to the end (Mdiff = 0.32, p = .028).”

May combine two claims.

The arithmetical training group improved not only in the same trained task, but also in the structurally similar categorical updating task.

“The arithmetical training group improved not only in the same trained task, but also in the structurally similar categorical updating task.”

• Also stated in: § Transfer effects · plain

  “To summarize, the present study found specific training gains, while there was nearest transfer only to a structurally similar WMU task involving one updating paradigm (arithmetical updating), not the other (n-back).”

May combine two claims.

Differences in levels of motivation had no impact on performance: the massed practice group did not outperform the spaced practice group.

“That said, it is worth mentioning that differences in levels of motivation had no impact on performance: the massed practice group did not outperform the spaced practice group.”

May combine two claims.

The advantage for the spaced groups during the training only applied to two tasks, and there was no effect on transfer task performance.

“The advantage for the spaced groups during the training only applied to two tasks, however, and there was no effect on transfer task performance.”

May combine two claims.

Jaeggi et al. found that n-back training produced far transfer effects on fluid intelligence measures but no near transfer to measures of WM capacity.

“In support of this idea, Jaeggi et al. [32] found that n-back training produced far transfer effects on fluid intelligence measures, which share a good deal of variance with WMU, but no near transfer to measures of WM capacity, which share little variance with WMU”

• cites [32] SM Jaeggi, 2010, The relationship between <italic>n</italic>-back performance and matrix reasoning—implications for training and transfer, Intelligence sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

May combine two claims.

WMU predicts fluid intelligence and is related to academic achievement.

“Its role in predicting fluid intelligence [1–3], and its relationship to academic achievement [4–6] have prompted numerous studies on the extent to which WMU training effects may generalize to other tasks dissimilar to those used in the training.”

• cites [1] C Belacchi, 2010, The role of working memory and updating in Coloured Raven Matrices performance in typically developing children, European Journal of Cognitive Psychology sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

• cites [2] T Chen, 2007, The roles of working memory updating and processing speed in mediating age-related differences in fluid intelligence, Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

• cites [3] NP Friedman, 2006, Not all executive functions are related to intelligence, Psychological Science sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

• cites [4] B Carretti, 2005, Updating in working memory: A comparison of good and poor comprehenders, Journal of Experimental Child Psychology sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

• cites [5] P Palladino, 2001, Working memory and updating processes in reading comprehension, Memory & Cognition sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

• cites [6] S Pelegrina, 2015, Magnitude representation and working memory updating in children with arithmetic and reading comprehension disabilities, Journal of Learning Disabilities sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The effectiveness of n-back training in eliciting transfer to other different tasks remains unclear.

“The effectiveness of training based on the n-back task in eliciting transfer to other different tasks thus remains unclear.”

• cites [20] MR Dougherty, 2016, Reevaluating the effectiveness of <italic>n</italic>-back training on transfer through the Bayesian lens: Support for the null, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

• cites [21] M Melby-Lervåg, 2013, Is working memory training effective? A meta-analytic review, Developmental Psychology sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

• cites [22] M Melby-Lervåg, 2016, Working memory training does not improve performance on measures of intelligence or other measures of “far transfer” evidence from a meta-analytic review, Perspectives on Psychological Science sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

• cites [23] DJ Simons, 2016, Do “brain-training” programs work?, Psychological Science in the Public Interest sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

• cites [24] A Soveri, 2017, Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of <italic>n</italic>-back training studies, Psychonomic Bulletin & ReviewNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

There is substantial evidence that spaced practice is superior to massed practice, and that performance benefits more after a longer rather than a shorter lag.

“Generally speaking, there is substantial evidence of spaced practice being superior to massed practice, and of performance benefiting more after a longer rather than a shorter lag ([46], for review).”

• cites [46] NJ Cepeda, 2009, Optimizing distributed practice: Theoretical analysis and practical implications, ExperimentalPsychologyNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

Alloway et al. found that a group trained four times a week for 8 weeks (massed distribution) outperformed a group trained once a week for 8 weeks (spaced distribution), but this may have been due to the different amount of practice involved.

“A different pattern emerged in a study by Alloway et al.[43], in which a group trained four times a week for 8 weeks (massed distribution) outperformed another group trained with the same WM tasks only once a week for 8 weeks (spaced distribution), but this may have been due to the different amount of practice involved (one group attended 28 sessions, the other only 8).”

• cites [43] TP Alloway, 2013, Computerized working memory training: Can it lead to gains in cognitive skills in students?, Computers in Human Behavior sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

May combine two claims.

Linares et al. trained participants on numerical WMU tasks and found nearest transfer to other WMU tasks structurally similar to those used in the training, but no far transfer to fluid intelligence or near transfer to complex WM tasks, nor nearest transfer to other WMU tasks dissimilar to those used in the training.

“Linares et al. [29] trained participants on numerical WMU tasks, and found nearest transfer to other WMU tasks structurally similar to those used in the training. The authors saw no far transfer to fluid intelligence or near transfer to complex WM tasks, however, nor even any nearest transfer to other WMU tasks dissimilar to those used in the training.”

• cites [29] R Linares, 2017, Training working memory updating in young adults, Psychological ResearchNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

May combine two claims.

Laine et al. only found transfer to structurally similar untrained tasks, not to structurally different tasks.

“For example, Laine et al. [40] only found transfer to structurally similar untrained tasks (to which the same strategy could be applied), not to structurally different tasks.”

• cites [40] M Laine, 2018, The early effects of external and internal strategies on working memory updating training, Scientific reports sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

Using the running memory paradigm as a training task, studies found no near transfer to WM span tasks, nor far transfer to selective attention, perceptual speed, fluid intelligence, verbal fluency, or other episodic memory measures.

“They found no near transfer to WM span tasks [27], however, nor any far transfer to selective attention [26], perceptual speed, fluid intelligence, verbal fluency, or other episodic memory measures [27].”

• cites [26] E Dahlin, 2008, Transfer of learning after updating training mediated by the striatum, Science sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

• cites [27] E Dahlin, 2008, Plasticity of executive functioning in young and older adults: immediate training gains, transfer, and long-term maintenance, Psychology and Aging sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Penner et al. found that a group trained twice weekly (spaced distribution) performed better in different cognitive domains than a group trained four times a week (massed distribution) using the BrainStim program over 16 sessions.

“In the study by Penner et al. [44], two groups were trained using the BrainStim program, which included some WMU measures, over the course of 16 sessions. Performance in different cognitive domains was better in the training group that trained twice weekly (spaced distribution) than the performance shown by a group trained four times a week (massed distribution).”

• cites [44] IK Penner, 2012, Computerised working memory training in healthy adults: A comparison of two different training schedules, Neuropsychological Rehabilitation sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Some authors have attributed near transfer to the acquisition of a strategy.

“In fact, some authors have attributed near transfer to the acquisition of a strategy ([9, 29, 38]; see [21, 39] for a review)”

• cites [9] SC Li, 2008, Working memory plasticity in old age: practice gain, transfer, and maintenance, Psychology and Aging sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

• cites [29] R Linares, 2017, Training working memory updating in young adults, Psychological ResearchNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

• cites [38] C De Simoni, 2018, Working memory updating and binding training: Bayesian evidence supporting the absence of transfer, Journal of Experimental Psychology General sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

May combine two claims.

Using the running memory paradigm as a training task, studies demonstrated nearest transfer effects on other WMU tasks such as the n-back task, and far transfer to episodic memory tasks.

“using the running memory paradigm as a training task, different authors demonstrated nearest transfer effects on other WMU tasks, such as the n-back task [25–28], and far transfer to episodic memory tasks [27].”

• cites [25] L Bäckman, 2011, Effects of working-memory training on striatal dopamine release, Science sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

• cites [26] E Dahlin, 2008, Transfer of learning after updating training mediated by the striatum, Science sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

• cites [27] E Dahlin, 2008, Plasticity of executive functioning in young and older adults: immediate training gains, transfer, and long-term maintenance, Psychology and Aging sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

• cites [28] L Xiu, 2016, Working memory training improves emotion regulation ability: Evidence from HRV, Physiology & Behavior sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Participants were allocated to one of six study groups using a stratified random sampling method that took into account their pretest score in the Cattell test and their university degree course.

“They were allocated to a given group using a stratified random sampling method that took into account their pretest score in the Cattell test [65], and their university degree course (psychology or social work).”

• cites [65] RB Cattell, 1963, Measuring intelligence with the Culture Fair TestsNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

May combine two claims.

The arithmetical updating and categorical updating tasks were structurally dissimilar to the n-back training paradigm, and the numerical n-back and categorical n-back tasks were structurally dissimilar to the arithmetical training paradigm.

“The other two WMU tasks (numerical n-back and categorical n-back) served to assess nearest transfer to tasks associated with the other updating training paradigm, and were therefore structurally dissimilar.”

• Also stated in: § The present study · plain

  “The arithmetical updating task and categorical updating task were used to shed light on nearest transfer effects to the structurally dissimilar WMU tasks associated with the other updating training paradigm.”

May combine two claims.

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.”

• cites [15] O Waris, 2015, Transfer after working memory updating training, PLoS ONE sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

• cites [54] AC Oei, 2013, Enhancing cognition with video games: a multiple game training study, PLoS ONE sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

• cites [55] CV Russoniello, 2009, The effectiveness of casual video games in improving mood and decreasing stress, Journal of Cyber Therapy and RehabilitationNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

• cites [56] MJ Stroud, 2015, Casual video games as training tools for attentional processes in everyday life, Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

• cites [57] SK Whitbourne, 2013, Reasons for playing casual video games and perceived benefits among adults 18 to 80 years old, Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The arithmetical updating task was the same as a trained one for the arithmetical training program.

“In the arithmetical training program, one transfer task was the same as a trained one (the criterion task: arithmetical updating), enabling us to measure specific effects in the group attending this training.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

The arithmetical and categorical WMU tasks shared updating subprocesses that needed to be applied in the same order, including focus switching and cued item information retrieval, item comparison, judgment about updating, and substitution of information.

“These arithmetical and categorical WMU tasks shared some updating subprocesses that needed to be applied in the same order, including: focus switching and cued item information retrieval, item comparison, judgment about updating, and substitution of information.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The numerical and categorical n-back tasks required a similar set of cognitive processes combined in a similar sequence: maintaining an active subset of n items in memory, making a recognition judgment, selecting a yes/no response, removing the first item in the subset, and adding the one presented more recently.

“The numerical and categorical n-back tasks required a similar set of cognitive processes that had to be combined in a similar sequence: maintaining an active subset of n items in memory, making a recognition judgment to decide if the new item matched the first one in the subset, selecting a yes/no response, removing the first item in the subset, and adding the one presented more recently.”

May combine two claims.

The arithmetical updating task has been used in a previous training study and shown to produce specific training gains.

“The n-back task is probably the most widely used in WMU training programs (e.g., [9–11]), and the arithmetical updating task has already been used in a previous training study and shown to produce specific training gains, at least [29].”

• cites [29] R Linares, 2017, Training working memory updating in young adults, Psychological ResearchNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The same results are obtained using z-scores.

“The same results are obtained using z-scores.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The n-back task is probably the most widely used in WMU training programs.

“The n-back task is probably the most widely used in WMU training programs (e.g., [9–11]), and the arithmetical updating task has already been used in a previous training study and shown to produce specific training gains, at least [29].”

• cites [9] SC Li, 2008, Working memory plasticity in old age: practice gain, transfer, and maintenance, Psychology and Aging sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

• cites [10] M Minear, 2016, A simultaneous examination of two forms of working memory training: Evidence for near transfer only, Memory & Cognition sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

• cites [11] L Lilienthal, 2013, Dual <italic>n</italic>-back training increases the capacity of the focus of attention, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

A classical WM task measuring the same narrow ability as the one trained and a fluid intelligence test were administered to assess near and far transfer effects.

“A classical WM task that measures the same narrow ability as the one trained, and a fluid intelligence test were also administered to assess near and far transfer effects, respectively.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The numerical n-back task mirrored the task practiced during n-back training.

“In the case of the n-back training program, one task (the criterion task: numerical n-back) mirrored the task practiced during the training, and elucidated specific effects in this training group.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

Wilhelm et al. reported a very high correlation (r = .92) between a latent factor consisting of n-back tasks and another factor comprising tasks similar to the arithmetical updating task, and argued that both types of task measure the same updating construct.

“Wilhelm et al. [48] reported a very high correlation (r = .92) between a latent factor consisting of n-back tasks and another factor comprising tasks similar to the arithmetical updating task, and they argued that both types of task measure the same updating construct.”

• cites [48] O Wilhelm, 2013, What is working memory capacity, and how can we measure it?, Frontiers in Psychology sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The categorical updating task was structurally similar to the tasks used to train the arithmetical WMU group.

“This task was structurally similar to those used to train the arithmetical WMU group.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The categorical n-back task was structurally similar to the tasks used to train the n-back WMU group.

“This task was structurally similar to those used to train the n-back WMU group.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). The quote only partly states this claim.

Some participants were excluded from the analyses on transfer effects for various reasons, including non-completion, task misunderstanding, and data loss.

“Some participants were excluded from the analyses on transfer effects for the following reasons:”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

All study participants took an active interest, as indicated by performance improvements in the active control group.

“Performance improved with training for all WMU training groups, and also for the active control group, indicating that the training was effective, and that all study participants took an active interest.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Some explanations for specific transfer effects, such as those observed in this study, are that they are due to knowledge gained from the training and to familiarity with the task and computer-based assessment methods.

“Some explanations have been suggested for specific transfer effects (such as those observed in this study), which would be due to knowledge gained from the training (e.g., [72]) and to familiarity with the task and computer-based assessment methods.”

• cites [72] M Lövdén, 2010, A theoretical framework for the study of adult cognitive plasticity, Psychological Bulletin sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

After the training, 93.78% of participants completed a final online questionnaire about their self-perceived improvement in each assessment task.

“After the training, 93.78% of participants completed a final online questionnaire about their self-perceived improvement in each assessment task.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

In the present study, similar tasks shared the same presentation and could be solved following similar procedural steps, whereas they differed in superficial features such as operations and material.

“In the present study, similar tasks shared the same presentation and could be solved following similar procedural steps, whereas they differed in superficial features, such as the operations to perform (semantic vs. arithmetical), or the material to be remembered (words vs. numbers).”

May combine two claims.

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.”

• cites [14] T Salminen, 2012, On the impacts of working memory training on executive functioning, Frontiers in Human Neuroscience sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

• cites [15] O Waris, 2015, Transfer after working memory updating training, PLoS ONE sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

• cites [16] K Küper, 2016, Increased training complexity reduces the effectiveness of brief working memory training: evidence from short-term single and dual <italic>n</italic>-back training interventions, Journal of Cognitive Psychology sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

• cites [17] TS Redick, 2013, No evidence of intelligence improvement after working memory training: a randomized, placebo-controlled study, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

• cites [27] E Dahlin, 2008, Plasticity of executive functioning in young and older adults: immediate training gains, transfer, and long-term maintenance, Psychology and Aging sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

May combine two claims.

A greater motivation coincided with the massed practice, while motivation decreased when spaced practice was used.

“In short, a greater motivation coincided with the massed practice, while motivation decreased when spaced practice was used.”

May combine two claims.

The training was effective, as indicated by performance improvements in all WMU training groups and the active control group.

“Performance improved with training for all WMU training groups, and also for the active control group, indicating that the training was effective, and that all study participants took an active interest.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Since the Cattell is a timed task, any general improvements in this measure may be due to participants becoming faster.

“Since the Cattell is a timed task, any general improvements in this measure may be due to participants becoming faster.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The Cattell test is a timed task.

May combine two claims.

The lack of nearest transfer between the two updating paradigms may be because, although the two types of paradigm share an updating requirement, they vary in other processes such as retrieval operations (recognition vs. recall) and how the item to be updated is selected (external or internal cues), and thus on the general strategy or approach used by the participant.

“These results may come down to the fact that, although the two types of paradigm share an updating requirement, they vary in other processes. For example, they may differ in terms of the retrieval operations (recognition vs. recall), and in how the item to be updated is selected (external or internal cues), and thus on the general strategy or approach used by the participant.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The two updating paradigms (arithmetical updating and n-back) share an updating requirement.

May combine two claims.

The pattern of transfer to structurally similar tasks in Laine et al. [40] is comparable with the one seen here for arithmetical updating training, but not with our n-back training findings, since there was no evidence of transfer to the structurally similar task in the latter case.

“The pattern of transfer to structurally similar tasks in the Laine et al. study [40] is comparable with the one seen here for arithmetical updating training, but not with our findings with the n-back training, since there was no evidence of transfer to the structurally similar task in the latter case.”

• cites [40] M Laine, 2018, The early effects of external and internal strategies on working memory updating training, Scientific reports sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Harrison et al. [71] used structurally similar training and transfer WM tasks that differed in both material and distractors.

“Harrison et al. [71] used structurally similar training and transfer WM tasks that differed in both material and distractors.”

• cites [71] TL Harrison, 2013, Working memory training may increase working memory capacity but not fluid intelligence, Working memory training may increase working memory capacity but not fluid intelligenceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

May combine two claims.

Laine et al. [40] demonstrated that teaching participants a strategy improved performance in trained n-back with digits and in structurally similar untrained n-back with letters and colors, but not in structurally dissimilar tasks such as running memory span.

“Laine et al. [40] demonstrated that teaching participants a strategy improved their performance in trained tasks (n-back with digits), and in other structurally similar untrained tasks (n-back with letters and colors), but not in other, structurally dissimilar tasks (e.g., running memory span).”

• cites [40] M Laine, 2018, The early effects of external and internal strategies on working memory updating training, Scientific reports sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

May combine two claims.

Differences in participants' engagement and self-perceived improvement did not relate to their performance in the present study: the massed practice groups were reportedly more motivated, but they did not outperform the spaced practice group.

“Taken together, differences in participants’ engagement and self-perceived improvement did not relate to their performance in the present study: the massed practice groups were reportedly more motivated, but they did not outperform the spaced practice group.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Melby-Lervag et al. [22] claimed that there is no evidence to support the notion that WM training improves performance in far-related abilities.

“Melby-Lervag et al. [22] claimed that there is no evidence to support the notion that WM training improves performance in far-related abilities.”

• cites [22] M Melby-Lervåg, 2016, Working memory training does not improve performance on measures of intelligence or other measures of “far transfer” evidence from a meta-analytic review, Perspectives on Psychological Science sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

A recent review on cognitive training [23] emphasized that the strongest evidence for post-training gains tends to be in favor of nearest transfer, while broader transfer is considerably less frequent.

“A recent review on cognitive training [23] also emphasized that the strongest evidence for post-training gains tends to be in favor of nearest transfer, while broader transfer is considerably less frequent.”

• cites [23] DJ Simons, 2016, Do “brain-training” programs work?, Psychological Science in the Public Interest sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

May combine two claims.

Compared to the active control group, both training groups perceived that they had improved in the majority of tasks, and especially in the trained tasks.

“In short, compared to the active control group, both training groups perceived that they had improved in the majority of tasks, and especially in the trained tasks.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

Participants who showed no improvement in some tasks, such as the categorical n-back, may not have realized that the previously practiced strategy was applicable to the new task too.

“For example, participants who showed no improvement in some tasks, such as the categorical n-back, may not have realized that the previously practiced strategy was applicable to the new task too.”

May combine two claims.

Our participants developed a specific strategy or set of strategies for updating information, but specific for the trained n-back task.

“Looking at the results it seemed that, our participants have developed a specific strategy (or a set of strategies) for updating information (as demonstrated from the increase during the training), but specific for the trained n-back task (as suggested from the lack of transfer).”

May combine two claims.

The learnt strategy was not adapted to the new task, although it made similar requests with apparently slight variations.

“In other words, the learnt strategy was not adapted to the new task, although it made similar requests with apparently slight variations.”

May combine two claims.

Transfer effects may depend on the decision to use a strategy and on how successfully a learned strategy is applied.

“Transfer effects may depend on the decision to use a strategy and on how successfully a learned strategy is applied.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

The involvement of metacognitive knowledge may have had a part to play in strategy use too.

“The involvement of metacognitive knowledge may have had a part to play in strategy use too.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Such additional processes may have hampered participants' successful use of their previously-learned strategy.

“Such additional processes may have hampered participants’ successful use of their previously-learned strategy.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The categorical n-back task may require an additional inhibitory process as participants may have needed to refrain from responding to some items.

“It may also require an additional inhibitory process as participants may have needed to refrain from responding to some items.”

May combine two claims.

Transfer may be undermined when a new task involves an additional processing step, or requires a different type of response.

“Transfer may be undermined when a new task involves an additional processing step, or requires a different type of response.”