Cited by 117Cognitive Abilities and TestingNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesCognitive Functions and Memory

Neural effects of short-term training on working memory

Open access
Buschkuehl, Martin, Hernandez-Garcia, Luis, Jaeggi, Susanne M., Bernard, Jessica A., Jonides, John·2014·Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience

Abstract

Working memory training has been the focus of intense research interest. Despite accumulating behavioral work, knowledge about the neural mechanisms underlying training effects is scarce. Here, we show that 7 days of training on an n-back task led to substantial performance improvements in the trained task; furthermore, the experimental group showed cross-modal transfer, as compared with an active control group. In addition, there were two neural effects that emerged as a function of training: first, increased perfusion during task performance in selected regions, reflecting a neural response to cope with high task demand; second, increased blood flow at rest in regions where training effects were apparent. We also found that perfusion at rest was correlated with task proficiency, probably reflecting an improved neural readiness to perform. Our findings are discussed within the context of the available neuroimaging literature on n-back training.

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 · 10.3758/s13415-013-0244-9

Cites

70 of 70 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?

  • Fluid intelligence and n-back performance rely on overlapping cognitive and neural processes, including shared working memory and interference-resolution demands.

    “On theoretical grounds, the observed improvements are plausible, since Gf and n-back performance draw upon overlapping cognitive and neural processes, including shared demands on WM and interference resolution (Burgess et al., 2011;Buschkuehl, Hernandez-Garcia, Jaeggi, Bernard, & Jonides, 2014;von Bastian & Oberauer, 2013).”

    From Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis (2015) · cites this paper as Buschkuehl, Hernandez-Garcia, Jaeggi, Bernard, & Jonides, 2014

    The Discussion (page unavailable) proposes that n-back and reasoning tasks may engage overlapping brain regions and psychological processes. The paper also identifies working memory as relevant to both in its introductory text, but it does not establish a shared interference-resolution demand; the only retrieved mention of interference control is in a reference title. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Training on N-back improves performance on N-back tasks that were not trained.

    “While there is little doubt that N-back training leads to improved performance on untrained N-back tasks13,25–27”
  • It is plausible that transfer occurs when training and transfer tasks engage overlapping processes and neural circuits.

    “Extending this to the neural level, it is plausible that transfer occurs if the training and transfer tasks engage overlapping processes and neural circuits26,51.”

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

1 of the 71 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Buschkuehl, M., Hernandez-Garcia, L., Jaeggi, S. M., Bernard, J. A., & Jonides, J.
Affiliations
  • MIND Research Institute (US)
  • University of California, Irvine (US)
  • University of Colorado Boulder (US)
  • University of Michigan (US)
Corresponding author
Buschkuehl, Martin
Venue
Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
Published
2014-02-05
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
147-160
ISSN
  • 1530-7026 (ISSN-L)
  • 1531-135X
OpenAlex
W2063604392
Cited by
117
References
71
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 4
FWCI
19.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Aging (T32AG000114)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
Keywords
working memory training, n-back task, cross-modal transfer, blood flow, task proficiency
MeSH terms
Auditory Perception, Brain, Brain Mapping, Cerebrovascular Circulation, Female, Humans, Learning, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Neuropsychological Tests, Practice, Psychological, Rest, Task Performance and Analysis, Transfer, Psychology, Visual Perception, 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