CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 55Cognitive Abilities and TestingCognitive Functions and MemoryCognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skills

Are Working Memory Training Effects Paradigm-Specific?

Open access
Holmes, Joni, Woolgar, Francesca, Hampshire, Adam, Gathercole, Susan E.·2019·Frontiers in Psychology
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01103PMC PMC6542987

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

A randomized controlled trial compared complex span and n-back training regimes to investigate the generality of training benefits across materials and paradigms. The memory items and training intensities were equated across programs, providing the first like-with-like comparison of transfer in these two widely used training paradigms. The stimuli in transfer tests of verbal and visuo-spatial n-back and complex span differed from the trained tasks, but were matched across the untrained paradigms. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three training groups: complex span training, n-back training, or no training. Pre- to- post training changes were observed for untrained n-back tasks following n-back training. Following complex span training there was equivocal evidence for improvements on a verbal complex span task, but no evidence for changes on an untrained visuo-spatial complex span activity. Relative to a no intervention group, the evidence supported no change on an untrained verbal complex span task following either n-back or complex span training. Equivocal evidence was found for improvements on visuo-spatial complex span and verbal and visuo-spatial n-back tasks following both training regimes. Evidence for selective transfer (comparing the two active training groups) was only found for an untrained visuo-spatial n-back task following n-back training. There was no evidence for cross-paradigm transfer. Thus transfer is constrained by working memory paradigm and the nature of individual processes executed within complex span tasks. However, within-paradigm transfer can occur when the change is limited to stimulus category, at least for n-back.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

A randomized controlled trial matched complex span and n-back training on memory items and intensity to test whether working memory training transfer is paradigm-specific. It found no cross-paradigm transfer, but n-back training transferred within paradigm to untrained n-back tasks with new stimulus materials.

Key findings

  • There was no evidence for cross-paradigm transfer: complex span training did not reliably improve n-back, and n-back training did not reliably improve complex span.
  • N-back training produced strong within-paradigm transfer to untrained verbal n-back (BF = 23.18/23.19) and visuo-spatial n-back (BF = 20.02) tasks.
  • Selective transfer relative to the other active training group was found only for visuo-spatial n-back following n-back training (BF10 = 9.702).
  • Complex span training showed equivocal evidence for verbal complex span improvement (BF = 0.58) and evidence favoring no transfer to visuo-spatial complex span (BF = 0.325/0.33); relative to no intervention, there was substantial evidence for no transfer to verbal complex span (BF = 0.291).

Methods

  • Randomized controlled trial with 48 native-English-speaking adults aged 18–35 years (12 males, mean age 28 years 9 months), pseudo-randomly assigned to complex span training, n-back training, or no training (n = 16 per group), with 20 training sessions.
  • Transfer tasks were verbal and visuo-spatial complex span and n-back; trained and transfer tasks were matched across paradigms but differed in stimulus category (trained letters/spatial locations vs. transfer digits/visual objects) and, for complex span, interpolated distractor activity (lexical decision/rhyme judgment; symmetry judgment/mental rotation).
  • Bayesian ANOVAs, general linear regressions, and t-tests were run in JASP; BF values <0.33 were interpreted as evidence for the null, 0.33–3 as equivocal, and >3 as evidence for the alternative.

Limitations

  • The paper states that the findings do not distinguish between process-specific and paradigm-specific accounts of transfer; doing so would require tracking transfer across paradigms sharing a common working memory process.
  • The paper notes that the cognitive routine theory was not sufficiently specified to generate strong predictions about which levels of complex span task structure can adapt to untrained tasks.
  • Evident from the text: the sample was small (N = 48) and powered only for a large effect (f2 = 0.35 or d = 0.8), the control condition was no intervention rather than an active control, and training-order effects were equivocal for several training tasks.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01103

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 40 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    Pre- to post-training changes were observed for untrained n-back tasks following n-back training.

    “Pre- to- post training changes were observed for untrained n-back tasks following n-back training.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Equivocal evidence was found for improvements on visuo-spatial n-back following complex span training.

    “Equivocal evidence was found for improvements on visuo-spatial complex span and verbal and visuo-spatial n-back tasks following both training regimes.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Equivocal evidence was found for improvements on visuo-spatial n-back following n-back training.

    “Equivocal evidence was found for improvements on visuo-spatial complex span and verbal and visuo-spatial n-back tasks following both training regimes.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Following complex span training, there was equivocal evidence for improvements on a verbal complex span task.

    “Following complex span training there was equivocal evidence for improvements on a verbal complex span task, but no evidence for changes on an untrained visuo-spatial complex span activity.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Evidence for selective transfer, comparing the two active training groups, was only found for an untrained visuo-spatial n-back task following n-back training.

    “Evidence for selective transfer (comparing the two active training groups) was only found for an untrained visuo-spatial n-back task following n-back training.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 24
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 19

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    There was equivocal evidence for order effects on gains for the verbal complex span (BF10 = 2.458) and visuo-spatial complex span (BF10 = 1.478) training tasks.

    “There was equivocal evidence for order effects for gains on the verbal complex span, BF10 = 2.458 and the visuo-spatial complex span training tasks, BF10 = 1.478.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Findingown data

    There was equivocal evidence for an order effect for the verbal n-back (BF10 = 2.435) and visuo-spatial n-back (BF10 = 0.48) training tasks.

    “There was equivocal evidence for an order effect for the verbal n-back, BF10 = 2.435 and the visuo-spatial n-back training tasks, BF10 = 0.48.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    There was strong evidence for transfer for the n-back training group on both verbal (BF = 23.18) and visuo-spatial (BF = 20.02) n-back transfer tasks.

    “There was strong evidence for transfer for the n-back training group on both the verbal and visuo-spatial n-back transfer tasks (BF = 23.18 for verbal and BF = 20.02 for visuo-spatial n-back transfer tasks).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    A 4×19 Bayesian repeated measures ANOVA with session (2-20) and training task (four training tasks) provided evidence for main effects of session (BF10 >100) and condition (BF10 >100).

    “A 4 × 19 Bayesian repeated measures ANOVA with session (2–20) and training task (four training tasks) provided evidence for main effects of session, BF10 = >100 and condition BF10 = >100.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Following complex span training, there was equivocal evidence for transfer to verbal complex span, verbal n-back, and visuo-spatial n-back, and evidence favoring a null effect for transfer to visuo-spatial complex span (BF = 0.325).

    “There was equivocal evidence for transfer to verbal complex span, verbal n-back and visuo-spatial n-back following complex span training, with evidence favoring a null effect for transfer to visuo-spatial complex span following complex span training (BF = 0.325).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Evidence for differences in transfer on the verbal n-back transfer task between n-back and complex span training groups was equivocal (BF = 0.542), as were differences between n-back and no intervention groups.

    “Evidence for differences in transfer on the verbal n-back transfer task between the n-back and complex span training groups was equivocal (BF = 0.542), as for equivocal differences between the n-back and no intervention groups on this transfer measure.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Transfer is constrained by working memory paradigm and the nature of individual processes executed within complex span tasks.

    “Thus transfer is constrained by working memory paradigm and the nature of individual processes executed within complex span tasks.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Study design and conductnone given

    The stimuli in transfer tests of verbal and visuo-spatial n-back and complex span differed from the trained tasks but were matched across the untrained paradigms.

    “The stimuli in transfer tests of verbal and visuo-spatial n-back and complex span differed from the trained tasks, but were matched across the untrained paradigms.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Holding the matched features constant provides a direct test of whether paradigm is the critical factor constraining transfer.

    “Holding these features constant provides a direct test of whether paradigm is the critical factor constraining transfer.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Premisecitation

    In its present form the cognitive routine theory is not sufficiently well specified to generate strong predictions about the levels of task structure in a complex span routine that can and cannot be adapted to an untrained task and hence to generate transfer.

    “In its present form the cognitive routine theory (Gathercole et al., 2019) is not sufficiently well specified to generate strong predictions about the levels of task structure in a complex span routine that can and cannot be adapted to an untrained task and hence to generate transfer.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Gathercole et al., 2019 source

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Study design and conductown data

    Session 1 was not included in training gain analyses because participants were reaching baseline during this session.

    “Note that Session 1 was not included as participants were reaching baseline during this session.”
    • Also stated in: § Training Task Progress · plain
      “Note that Data for Session 1 is not included because participants were reaching baseline during this session.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Data failed to upload for the final two sessions for eight participants (five in complex span training, three in n-back training) due to the server failing to respond.

    “All participants completed 20 training sessions, but the data failed to upload for the final two sessions for five participants in the complex span training group.”
    • Also stated in: § Procedure · plain
      “Data failed to upload for the final two sessions for three participants on the n-back training tasks.”
    • Also stated in: § Training Task Progress · plain
      “NB although all participants completed 20 sessions, the data did not upload for the final two sessions for 8 participants due to the server failing to respond.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Study design and conductnone given

    Target recruitment was 16 participants per group (total N = 48), yielding power of 0.86 to detect a large effect size, f2 = 0.35 or Cohen's d = 0.8, with linear regression.

    “Target recruitment was 16 participants per group (total N = 48), yielding power of 0.86 to detect a large effect size, f2 = 0.35 or Cohen’s d = 0.8, with linear regression.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Minear et al. (2016) reported transfer to an object n-back task but not to a letter n-back task following training on a verbal complex span task.

    “Minear et al. (2016) reported transfer to an object n-back task but not to a letter n-back task following training on a verbal complex span task.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Minear et al. (2016) source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Previous evidence has pointed to transfer across tasks sharing only the paradigm and not either the stimuli or distractor activity.

    “Previous evidence has pointed to transfer across tasks sharing only the paradigm and not either the stimuli or distractor activity (Harrison et al., 2013; von Bastian et al., 2013; Henry et al., 2014; Richmond et al., 2014; Minear et al., 2016).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Harrison et al., 2013 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites von Bastian et al., 2013

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Henry et al., 2014 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The complex span training tasks had the same task structure as the transfer tasks, with storage items interpolated with a same-domain processing task.

    “The training tasks had the same task structure as the transfer tasks with storage items interpolated with a same-domain processing task.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Study design and conductown data

    There was substantial evidence for a null effect for differences in the intervals between Time 1 and Time 2 between groups (BF10 = 0.185).

    “There was substantial evidence for a null effect for differences in the intervals between Time 1 and Time 2 between groups, BF10 = 0.185: Complex span training, M = 60.31, SD = 26.95 days; n-back training, M = 62.25, SD = 29.39 days; no training, M = 66.50, SD = 22.98 days.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The memory items and training intensities were equated across the complex span and n-back training programs.

    “The memory items and training intensities were equated across programs, providing the first like-with-like comparison of transfer in these two widely used training paradigms.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    There was equivocal evidence for group differences at baseline on verbal complex span (BF10 = 0.478, d = 0.530), visuo-spatial complex span (BF10 = 0.782, d = 0.639), and visuo-spatial n-back (BF10 = 1.176).

    “There was equivocal evidence for group differences at baseline on the verbal complex span, BF10 = 0.478, Cohen’s d = 0.530, visuo-spatial complex span, BF10 = 0.782, Cohen’s d = 0.639, and visuo-spatial n-back tasks, BF10 = 1.176.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Study design and conductown data

    Participants were assigned to one of three training groups (complex span training, n-back training, or no training) using stratified randomization to match groups at baseline on age and gender.

    “Participants were randomly assigned to one of three training groups: complex span training, n-back training, or no training.”
    • Also stated in: § Procedure · plain
      “Participants were pseudo-randomly assigned to complex span training, n-back training or no training at recruitment (n = 16 per group). Stratified randomization was used to ensure the groups were matched at baseline in terms of age and gender: Complex span Mage = 31.61 (7.27), males n = 4; n-back Mage = 26.97 (6.08), males n = 3; no training Mage = 27.75 (7.40), males n = 5.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Study design and conductnone given

    Data were excluded for eight participants who failed to complete all training sessions and four participants who did not attend for the Time 2 assessment.

    “Data were excluded for eight participants who failed to complete all training sessions and four participants who did not attend for the Time 2 assessment.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Study design and conductnone given

    The n-back training tasks differed from the transfer tasks only in the stimuli; all other features including the presentation rate of the stimuli were the same as in the transfer tasks.

    “The n-back training tasks differed from the transfer tasks only in the stimuli – all other features including the presentation rate of the stimuli were the same as in the transfer tasks.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Study design and conductnone given

    Training task order was counterbalanced across participants, with half completing the verbal then visuo-spatial task and half completing the visuo-spatial then verbal task in each session.

    “Training task order was counterbalanced across participants with half of the participants completing the verbal then the visuo-spatial task in each session, and half completing the visuo-spatial then the verbal task in each session.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Study design and conductown data

    Product terms were not significantly associated with post-training scores, so final GLMs were run without product terms or centered scores.

    “The product terms were not significantly associated with post-training scores, meaning the GLMs could be run without the product term or centered scores in the final analyses (i.e., with post-training scores as the dependent variable and group and pre-training scores as independent variables).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The present findings suggest that a sub-routine controlling the process is likely specific to the particular memory items and distractor activities engaged by the training task, not operating at a more general level.

    “The present findings suggest that a sub-routine that controls such a process is likely to be specific the particular memory items and distractor activities engaged by the training task: it does not operate at a more general level that would generalize across these changes in materials.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Study design and conductnone given

    Ethical approval was obtained from the University of Cambridge's Psychology Research Ethics Committee (PRE.2012.86).

    “Ethical approval was obtained from the University of Cambridge’s Psychology Research Ethics Committee (PRE.2012.86).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The two training paradigms (n-back and complex span) were matched for memory items (letters and spatial locations) and training intensity, and outcome measures were matched for memory items (digits and objects).

    “This training study compared transfer patterns from two working memory training paradigms (n-back and complex span) matched for memory items (letters and spatial locations) and training intensity to outcome measures that were also matched for memory items (digits and objects).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The coordinated processes necessary for n-back and complex span have little in common beyond maintaining recent information under distraction, and hence show little transfer.

    “Other than a common broad requirement to maintain recent information under conditions of distraction, the coordinated set of processes necessary to accomplish n-back (in which the greatest challenge is to keep track of the last n items) and complex span (requiring maintenance of stimulus items in the face of distraction) have little in common and hence, as indeed found here, show little transfer.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Study design and conductown data

    Participants provided informed consent prior to participation.

    “Participants were recruited through the MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit research participation system and provided informed consent prior to participation.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Transfer does not extend across global changes in working memory paradigm and is even limited within task.

    “The data clearly establish that transfer does not extend across global changes in working memory paradigm and is even limited within task.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    The present findings add to evidence for lack of transfer across complex span tasks and contrast with reports of transfer across different memory items and distraction activities.

    “The present findings both add to other evidence for lack of transfer across complex span tasks (Minear et al., 2016; Blacker et al., 2017) and stand in contrast to other reports of transfer across different memory items and interpolated distraction activities (e.g., Harrison et al., 2013; von Bastian et al., 2013; Henry et al., 2014; Richmond et al., 2014).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Minear et al., 2016 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Blacker et al., 2017 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Harrison et al., 2013 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Benefits of training extended to n-back tasks employing novel stimuli, indicating that for these tasks material specificity is not a boundary condition for transfer.

    “The benefits of training extended to n-back tasks employing novel stimuli, indicating that for these tasks material specificity is not a boundary condition for transfer.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Dahlin et al. (2008) proposed that updating the contents of working memory is trainable.

    “Dahlin et al. (2008), for example, proposed that updating the contents of working memory is trainable.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Dahlin et al., 2008 source

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Interpretationcitation

    The finding of no evidence for cross-paradigm transfer is consistent with many previous studies using less systematic designs.

    “This is consistent with many previous studies in which less systematic designs have been used to map transfer (Jaeggi et al., 2008, 2010; Li et al., 2008; Chooi and Thompson, 2012; Lilienthal et al., 2013; Oelhafen et al., 2013; Redick et al., 2013; Sprenger et al., 2013; von Bastian et al., 2013; Bürki et al., 2014; Minear et al., 2016; Schwarb et al., 2016).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Jaeggi et al., 2008, 2010

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Li et al., 2008

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Chooi and Thompson, 2012 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Dahlin et al. (2008) found improvements in the untrained task but lacked an active control condition.

    “Although Dahlin et al. (2008) did this and found improvements in the untrained task, the study lacked an active control condition.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Dahlin et al., 2008 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The cognitive changes resulting from intensive working memory training are relatively specific not only to the training paradigms but, in the case of complex span, to the particular distractor activities.

    “In summary, the current findings provide evidence that the cognitive changes resulting from intensive working memory training are relatively specific not only to the training paradigms but, in the case of complex span, to the particular distractor activities.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
36 of 36

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The transfer tasks within and across paradigms are equally sensitive to training-related change.

    “Holding these features constant provides a direct test of whether paradigm is the critical factor constraining transfer.”
1 of 1

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?

  • As transfer effects within and between cognitive domains were shown to be of equivalent magnitude when comparing different WM training paradigms, it is reasonable to assume that our results are generalizable to other WM training paradigms.

    “As transfer effects within and between cognitive domains were shown to be of equivalent magnitude when comparing different WM training paradigms (e.g., n-back training and complex span training) [81], it is reasonable to assume that our results are generalizable to other WM training paradigms.”

    From Adaptive working memory training does not produce transfer effects in cognition and neuroimaging (2022) · cites this paper as [81]

    The Results > Transfer (page unavailable) report strong evidence of transfer to verbal and visuo-spatial n-back tasks after n-back training, but not comparable evidence of transfer after complex-span training. The Discussion (page unavailable) describes within-paradigm transfer to n-back but not complex span, and no cross-paradigm transfer. These findings contradict the attributed claim that transfer effects were equivalent across the training paradigms. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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.

  • BF = 0.34 is classified as favoring the null despite the stated cutoff

    Minor

    The results say BF = 0.34 favors a null effect, but the analysis plan places values from 0.33 to 3 in its equivocal category.

  • Selective-transfer Bayes factor differs from Table 5

    Minor

    The text reports BF = 0.287 for the visuo-spatial complex span comparison, whereas Table 5 reports 0.242 for that comparison.

2 of 2

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 36 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Jeffreys, 1961, Theory of Probability.
  2. Love, 2015, JASP (Version 0.6. 6). Computer Software.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Holmes, J., Woolgar, F., Hampshire, A., & Gathercole, S. E.
Affiliations
  • MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit (GB)
  • Imperial College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Holmes, Joni
ORCID
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2019-05-24
Volume
10
Pages
1103-1103
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01103
PMC
PMC6542987
OpenAlex
W2952681786
Semantic Scholar
a5b3271f0ffde24db44ac420d1e64cada053ff17
Cited by
55
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 5
FWCI
7.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) (submittedVersion)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Apollo (cc-by)
Funders
Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Cognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skills
Keywords
working memory training, complex span, N-back, transfer of training, selective transfer, verbal working memory, visuospatial working memory, stimulus category

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-08.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-08.

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