Cited by 113Cognitive Abilities and TestingNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesCognitive Functions and Memory

Dual n-back training increases the capacity of the focus of attention

Lilienthal, Lindsey, Tamez, Elaine, Shelton, Jill Talley, Myerson, Joel, Hale, Sandra·2013·Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

Abstract

Working memory (WM) training has been reported to benefit abilities as diverse as fluid intelligence (Jaeggi et al., Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105:6829-6833, 2008) and reading comprehension (Chein & Morrison, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17:193-199, 2010), but transfer is not always observed (for reviews, see Morrison & Chein, Psychonomics Bulletin & Review, 18:46-60, 2011; Shipstead et al., Psychological Bulletin, 138:628-654, 2012). In contrast, recent WM training studies have consistently reported improvement on the trained tasks. The basis for these training benefits has received little attention, however, and it is not known which WM components and/or processes are being improved. Therefore, the goal of the present study was to investigate five possible mechanisms underlying the effects of adaptive dual n-back training on working memory (i.e., improvements in executive attention, updating, and focus switching, as well as increases in the capacity of the focus of attention and short-term memory). In addition to a no-contact control group, the present study also included an active control group whose members received nonadaptive training on the same task. All three groups showed significant improvements on the n-back task from pretest to posttest, but adaptive training produced larger improvements than did nonadaptive training, which in turn produced larger improvements than simply retesting. Adaptive, but not nonadaptive, training also resulted in improvements on an untrained running span task that measured the capacity of the focus of attention. No other differential improvements were observed, suggesting that increases in the capacity of the focus of attention underlie the benefits of adaptive dual n-back training.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3758/s13423-012-0335-6

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lilienthal, L., Tamez, E., Shelton, J. T., Myerson, J., & Hale, S.
Affiliations
  • Washington University in St. Louis (US)
  • Lee University (US)
Corresponding author
Lilienthal, Lindsey
Venue
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
Published
2012-11-27
Volume
20
Issue
1
Pages
135-141
ISSN
  • 1069-9384 (ISSN-L)
  • 1531-5320
OpenAlex
W2151290103
Cited by
112
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 6
FWCI
10.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychonomic Bulletin & Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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, adaptive training, attentional focus, executive attention, updating, short-term memory, transfer of training, fluid intelligence, reading comprehension
MeSH terms
Attention, Humans, Memory, Short-Term, Practice, Psychological, Transfer, Psychology

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