The DOI matches its Crossref record; 71 of the 73 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 6 of the 28 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis
Open accessAbstract
Working memory (WM), the ability to store and manipulate information for short periods of time, is an important predictor of scholastic aptitude and a critical bottleneck underlying higher-order cognitive processes, including controlled attention and reasoning. Recent interventions targeting WM have suggested plasticity of the WM system by demonstrating improvements in both trained and untrained WM tasks. However, evidence on transfer of improved WM into more general cognitive domains such as fluid intelligence (Gf) has been more equivocal. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis focusing on one specific training program, n-back. We searched PubMed and Google Scholar for all n-back training studies with Gf outcome measures, a control group, and healthy participants between 18 and 50 years of age. In total, we included 20 studies in our analyses that met our criteria and found a small but significant positive effect of n-back training on improving Gf. Several factors that moderate this transfer are identified and discussed. We conclude that short-term cognitive training on the order of weeks can result in beneficial effects in important cognitive functions as measured by laboratory tests.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
37 Own result · 15 Own interpretation · 13 No full text of the sources · 5 Own method · 2 Partly supported · 2 No basis given · 1 Supported · 1 Supported so far · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Conclusions
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Burgess et al., 2011 source
The Introduction (page unavailable) describes the n-back task as involving working-memory updating and interference control, and reports links between fluid intelligence, n-back lure accuracy, and activity in frontal and parietal regions. The Discussion (page unavailable) concludes that neural interference-control mechanisms account for some, though not all, of the relationship between fluid intelligence and working-memory span. (LLM, conf=0.91)
- Partly supportedcites Buschkuehl, Hernandez-Garcia, Jaeggi, Bernard, & Jonides, 2014 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
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)
- Not matchedcites von Bastian & Oberauer, 2013
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although none of our analyzed parameters (session length, number of sessions, starting nback level, and rate of improvement) reached significance in our main regression analyses”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although our meta-analysis did reveal significantly greater transfer in studies that used passive controls”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Classic fail-safe N calculation: The observed studies, with weighted g = 0.24, led to a combined weighted ES of g = 5.78.Adding the 59 null effect studies would increase the sample size to n = 83.Average ES in the new sample would be: 5:78 83 ¼ :069 .”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Conclusions
plaindirectn = 83- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Additionally, we found no difference depending on whether studies used dual or single n-back, which corroborates previous findings (Jaeggi et al., 2014;Jaeggi et al., 2010).”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Subgroup analyses
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, there was no difference in ES between research conducted by the present study authors, S.M.J. and M.B. and research conducted by other groups (Table 1).”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, there was no difference in the performance of either type of control group when compared directly with each other (Ctrl ES; p = .2)”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Subgroup analyses
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The most striking moderator of the observed transfer effect is geographic region.International studies tend to find more transfer than U.S. studies.”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“but there was significant improvement in the performance of treatment groups (Tx ES; p = .04)within those studies that also use passive controls.”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Subgroup analyses
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, there was no statistical difference in ES between the 7 studies involving study authors S.J.M. and M.B. and the 13 studies that did not.”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Subgroup analyses
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 28
- Probably not a substantial claim. 17
- The quote only partly states this claim. 2
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“However, evidence on transfer of improved WM into more general cognitive domains such as fluid intelligence (Gf) has been more equivocal.”
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
“Despite many promising studies (e.g., Jaeggi, Buschkuehl, Jonides, & Perrig, 2008;Rudebeck, Bor, Ormond, O'Reilly, & Lee, 2012;Stephenson & Halpern, 2013), the aforementioned quote reflects results from other well-controlled, rigorous attempts at replication that have failed to find transfer (Redick et al., 2013;Thompson et al., 2013).”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Redick et al., 2013 source
- Supportedcites Thompson et al., 2013 source
The Introduction reports both studies finding gains in fluid intelligence after working-memory training and studies finding no such gains. The Discussion (Implications for Working Memory Training) adds that three published replication attempts, including this study, failed to find transfer. Together, these passages support describing the evidence as equivocal. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“neuroimaging evidence has demonstrated functional overlap in the lateral prefrontal and parietal cortices, implicating shared neural resources that underlie both constructs (Burgess, Gray, Conway, & Braver, 2011).”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Abstract
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Burgess, Gray, Conway, & Braver, 2011 source
The Introduction’s “Common neural substrates” section identifies prefrontal and parietal regions as related to both fluid intelligence and working-memory span. The Abstract also reports that activity in dorsolateral prefrontal and parietal cortex correlated with both measures, supporting the claim of overlapping neural resources. Page numbers were not provided in the copy. (LLM, conf=0.93)
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Furthermore, we have previously described a dose-dependent relationship between training and transfer, such that more training leads to more gain (Jaeggi et al., 2008).”
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
“This relationship has been replicated in some studies (Basak, Boot, Voss, & Kramer, 2008;Dahlin, Backman, Neely, & Nyberg, 2009;Stepankova et al., 2014;Tomic & Klauer, 1996), but not others (Redick et al., 2013).”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Abstract
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Jaeggi et al., 2008 source
The Results report that transfer to fluid intelligence varied with training time (8, 12, 17, or 19 days). The Discussion explicitly calls the gain dose-responsive and says its amount depends on training time, supporting the statement attached to this citation. The verbatim citing sentence does not attribute the separate claim about replications in other studies to this paper. (LLM, conf=0.94)
- Partly supportedcites Basak, Boot, Voss, & Kramer, 2008 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The General Discussion reports that transfer benefits were mostly observed after 23.5 hours of video-game training, while about half that time was not enough. This supports a relationship between training time and transfer in this study, but the paper does not establish that the relationship was replicated in some studies but not others. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Redick et al., 2013 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although we did find a negative correlation, the effect lost significance (from p = .05to p = .22)after trimming outliers (SOM, Table S1).Nevertheless, the slope of the effect (-.07) remained the same”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In total, we included 20 studies in our analyses that met our criteria”
- Also stated in: § Study selection · plain
“In the end, 20 studies remained in the final meta-analysis (Fig. 2).”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Also stated in: § Study selection · plain
In the paper
“Egger's regression (Egger, Davey Smith, Schneider, & Minder, 1997), which is based on the association between standard error and ES, revealed no relationship (p = .68).”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Description of studies
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Egger, Davey Smith, Schneider, & Minder, 1997 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Passive control groups were mostly enrolled in international studies (10/12), as compared with active control groups (3/12)”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Both individually appeared to contribute toward the effect observed in passive controls and, together, reduced the ES gain caused by the condition of having a passive control from .31 to .09,rendering the p-value nonsignificant.”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Regression analyses
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: For the posttest effect size calculation, the authors assumed that treatment and control groups did not differ at pretest.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First is that these results are based on a restricted range of the general population: healthy, young adults between 18 and 50 years of age who were largely at the peak of cognitive functioning.Within this restricted range of young adults, the majority of participants were college undergraduates, thereby skewing our samples even younger (mean age ± SD: 22.85 ± 2.60).”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Some heterogeneity (I 2 = 27.88%,p = .08)was found in Tx ES, which only looked at improvements within the treatment groups, but this heterogeneity was largely controlled out in Post ES (I 2 = 6.92%, p = .37),which directly compares treatment to control groups at posttest.”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Description of studies
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In total, we analyzed data from 98 Gf outcome measures among 559 n-back trained participants and 463 controls.”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Description of studies
plainn = 559- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No other predictors reached significance, but session length (p = .06,b = -.03) and starting n-back level (p = .06,b = -.33) both correlated marginally and negatively with Post ES when outliers were removed (SOM, Table S1).”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Regression analyses
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: For the posttest effect size calculation, the authors assumed that treatment and control groups did not differ at pretest.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the effect lost significance when outliers were trimmed (p = .22,b = -.07;SOM, Table S1), although the slope remains the same.”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Regression analyses
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: For the posttest effect size calculation, the authors assumed that treatment and control groups did not differ at pretest.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The treatment/control group difference in Gf at posttest (g = 0.24, SE = 0.07) is significantly greater than the treatment/control group difference at baseline (g = -0.003,SE = 0.08; group difference: p = .03).”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Overall effect size
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: For the posttest effect size calculation, the authors assumed that treatment and control groups did not differ at pretest.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Transfer seemed to occur equally to both verbal and visual Gf tasks, although there were only a minority of studies that employed any form of verbal reasoning (n = 5), making this finding preliminary.”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Subgroup analyses
hedgedn = 5- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Importantly, the shortest session length in our sample was only 18.5 min”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With a baseline ES of essentially 0, we conclude that no preexisting differences are present at the group level between treatment and control groups.”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Overall effect size
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“large improvements were found in Tx ES (Table 1), which is calculated independently of the control group.”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“international (outside the U.S.) studies demonstrated an average ES of .44 (SE = .10),while U.S. studies only averaged .06(SE = .09).The difference is significant at the p < .01level.”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Subgroup analyses
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: For the posttest effect size calculation, the authors assumed that treatment and control groups did not differ at pretest.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our regression analysis equivocally supports this hypothesis.”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Discussion
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The 20 studies included here were all completed between 2008 and 2013.”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Description of studies
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Second, studies that used passive controls demonstrated more net transfer (g = 0.44, SE = .10)than those with active controls (g = 0.06, SE = .09),a difference that is also statistically significant at p < .01.”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Subgroup analyses
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: For the posttest effect size calculation, the authors assumed that treatment and control groups did not differ at pretest.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the SOM contains alternate regression models with trimmed outliers that revealed marginally significant negative trends between Gf transfer and both starting n-back level (p = .06)and session length (p = .06;Table S1).”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These factors, individually and together, account for a sizable portion of the passive control effect and reduce its estimated effect to the point of statistical insignificance (Table 3).”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“suggesting cultural differences in attrition that may be reflective of issues surrounding general compliance and investment in research.”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“even small improvements can have profound societal ramifications”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Conclusions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: Fluid intelligence is a fundamental cognitive ability that underpins many life functions.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These effects may contribute to differences not only between international and U.S. research participants, but also between methodological practices of researchers.”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A note of caution is warranted here regarding these regression results: given the heavy influence of outliers (SOM, Table S1) and the relatively small sample sizes, these results should be viewed as preliminary”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“so it is not clear what would happen below this data range.”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The former suggests that those who start with more room to improve (i.e., lower n-back level on day 1) may also gain the most.”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“There is a substantial body of literature available on the effects of culture on cognition (cf.Muggleton & Banissy, 2014).”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Muggleton & Banissy, 2014 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, while the precise nature of the effects of remuneration for n-back training are still unclear”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“While this does control for important test-retest practice effects, it does not control for potential motivational or Hawthorne effects associated with being enrolled in an intervention study (Shipstead, Redick, & Engle, 2012).”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Shipstead, Redick, & Engle, 2012 source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, due to the plurality of cultures (mostly European and American) represented in our meta-analysis, the precise reasons for the observed regional differences are not immediately clear.”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Percent agreement on the coding (interrater reliability) was high (94.14%),with κ = 0.88 (SE = 0.03) using a conservative expected agreement estimate of 50% (i.e., match or no match).”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Coding
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“thereby suggesting that the transfer of n-back training may not be restricted to matrix reasoning tests (Shipstead et al., 2012) but, rather, may reflect a more global improvement in Gf.”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Subgroup analyses
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Shipstead et al., 2012 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“thereby ruling out preexisting differences between cultures or differences in participant characteristics due to the highly selective universities in which certain U.S. studies were conducted.”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“It is important to note, however, that their active control groups did not improve over baseline, nor did they outperform their associated passive control groups, suggesting that the failure to find transfer was irrespective of control type.”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Abstract
What the sources say
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“this meta-analysis of 20 different studies, 30 different treatment groups, and 24 different control groups, with data collected from 98 different Gf outcome measures, is a first step toward providing this extraordinary evidence.”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Moreover, the effects of rewards and compensation on performance have an extensive body of literature behind them, which at times can also show mixed results (Cameron, Banko, & Pierce, 2001).”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Cameron, Banko, & Pierce, 2001 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The authors state this as an assumption.
For the posttest effect size calculation, the authors assumed that treatment and control groups did not differ at pretest.
“under the assumption that no group differences existed at pretest.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Fluid intelligence is a fundamental cognitive ability that underpins many life functions.
“Since Gf is a fundamental cognitive skill that underlies a wide range of life functions”
The paper relies on this without support.
The healthy young adults in the meta-analysis are representative of society's workforce.
“particularly given the healthy young adults in our analyses, representative of society's workforce.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Prior claims about n-back training's effect on fluid intelligence are usually based on single studies with methodological limitations.
“Although claims to date are ordinarily based on single studies, each with various methodological limitations”
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“For example, the meta-analysis of Au et al. [16] reported a small, but significant positive transfer effect on fluid intelligence in healthy young adults.”
From Adaptive working memory training does not produce transfer effects in cognition and neuroimaging (2022) · cites this paper as [16]
In the citing paper
“Cognitive training has shown to have an impact on task performance and on fluid intelligence (Gf) tests [13-15].”
Statistics recomputed
Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.
- Consistentt(34) = 2reported p = .05 · recomputed p = .054
“t(34) = 2.0, p = .05”
- Consistentt(14) = 2.23reported p = .04 · recomputed p = .043
“t(14) = 2.23, p = .04”
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.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Conclusions
“| Active Control | 12 | .06 (.09) | .01* | 13 | .25 (.10) | .04* | 12 | .08 (.10) | .20 | | Passive Control | 12 | .44 (.10) | | 17 | .54 (.90) | | 12 | .28 (.10) | |”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Subgroup analyses
“there was significant improvement in the performance of treatment groups (Tx ES; p = .04)within those studies that also use passive controls.”
Citations
Cites
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 · Cited by 63,139
Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 · Cited by 56,722
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009) · doi:10.1002/9780470743386 · Cited by 14,225
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2021) · doi:10.1002/9781119558378 · Cited by 9,799
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.627 · Cited by 7,176 · cited 1×
“This idea is based on a broader literature demonstrating negative effects of extrinsic rewards (e.g., money) on intrinsic motivation (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999).”
(2005) · PubMed · Cited by 7,011
Grit: perseverance and passion for long-term goals
Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.1087 · Cited by 6,911
Effect size estimates: Current use, calculations, and interpretation.
Fritz, C. O., Morris, P. E., & Richler, J. J. (2012) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/a0024338 · Cited by 5,199 · cited 1×
“A common property of statistics holds that sampling from restricted ranges of the total population usually biases ES downward, due to reduced variability (Bobko, Roth, & Bobko, 2001; Fritz, Morris, & Richler, 2012).”
Meta-Analytic Procedures for Social Research
Rosenthal, R. (1991) · doi:10.4135/9781412984997 · Cited by 4,635
Meta-Analytic Procedures for Social Research.
Metcalfe, A., & Rosenthal, R. (1994) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series D (The Statistician) · doi:10.2307/2348600 · Cited by 4,249
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Borenstein, M., Higgins, J., & Rothstein, H. (2005). Comprehensive meta-analysis version 2. Englewood: Biostat.
- Dunst, C. J., Hamby, D. W., & Trivette, C. M. (2004). Guidelines for Calculating Effect Sizes for Practice-Based Research Syntheses. Centerscope, 3(1), 1–10.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Do “brain-training” programs work?
Simons, D. J., Boot, W. R., Charness, N., Gathercole, S. E., Chabris, C. F., Hambrick, D. Z., & Stine-Morrow, E. A. L. (2016) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1177/1529100616661983 · Cited by 1,183
“Several recent meta-analyses have grappled with the conflicting evidence that complex span training can enhance Gf (Au et al., 2014; Karbach & Verhaeghen, 2014; Melby-Lervåg & Hulme, 2013), but they have drawn conflicting conclusions.”
BackgroundMethodDiamond, A., & Ling, D. S. (2016) · Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.dcn.2015.11.005 · Cited by 1,177
“Au et al. (2015) add another interesting dimension into the mix. hey found an inverse relationship between the size of the extrinsic eward for participating in training (i.e., the amount of money subects were offered for participating) and how much N-back training mproved reasoning.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialMelby-Lervåg, M., Redick, T. S., & Hulme, C. (2016) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691616635612 · Cited by 983
Anxiety and working memory capacity: A meta-analysis and narrative review.
Moran, T. P. (2016) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000051 · Cited by 776
Neurocognitive Architecture of Working Memory
Eriksson, J., Vogel, E. K., Lansner, A., Bergström, F., & Nyberg, L. H. (2015) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2015.09.020 · Cited by 709
Persistence and Fadeout in the Impacts of Child and Adolescent Interventions
Bailey, D. H., Duncan, G. J., Odgers, C. L., & Yu, W. (2016) · Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness · doi:10.1080/19345747.2016.1232459 · Cited by 609
“The existence of broad transfer resulting from cognitive training remains contested (see Au et al., 2015; Melby-Lerva g, Redick, & Hulme, 2016; Miles et al., 2016; Roberts et al., 2016).”
Self-citationAnderson, J. A. E., Mak, L., Chahi, A. K., & Bialystok, E. (2017) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-017-0867-9 · Cited by 485
“This difference in Gf is larger than many effects found for cognitive training programs (for a recent meta-analysis, see Au et al., 2015).”
MethodCan emotional intelligence be trained? A meta-analytical investigation
Mattingly, V. P., & Kraiger, K. (2018) · Human Resource Management Review · doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2018.03.002 · Cited by 516
Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies
Soveri, A., Antfolk, J., Karlsson, L., Salo, B., & Laine, M. (2017) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-016-1217-0 · Cited by 371
“The Au et al. (2015) meta-analysis was challenged by Melby-Lervåg and Hulme (2016) who criticized the exclusion of relevant studies, the calculation of effect sizes without taking pretest differences between groups into account, and the interpretation of the results comparing active and passive…”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialZhu, X., Yin, S., Lang, M., He, R., & Li, J. (2016) · Ageing Research Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.arr.2016.07.003 · Cited by 340
Cognitive Training Does Not Enhance General Cognition
Sala, G., & Gobet, F. (2019) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2018.10.004 · Cited by 303
“Another meta-analysis reported that practicing n-back tasks – a particular sub-category of WM tasks – exerts a small, yet significant, effect on fluid intelligence [46].”
Placebo effects in cognitive training
Foroughi, C. K., Monfort, S. S., Paczynski, M., McKnight, P. E., & Greenwood, P. M. (2016) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1601243113 · Cited by 270
“(25) only two provided sufficient detail to determine whether participants were recruited overtly [e.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialKoster, E. H. W., Hoorelbeke, K., Onraedt, T., Owens, M., & Derakshan, N. (2017) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2017.02.002 · Cited by 289
Enhancing Attentional Control: Lessons from Action Video Games
Bavelier, D., & Green, C. S. (2019) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2019.09.031 · Cited by 301
Working Memory Capacity and Fluid Intelligence: Maintenance and Disengagement
Shipstead, Z., Harrison, T. L., & Engle, R. W. (2016) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691616650647 · Cited by 238
“At this point, there does seem to be a weak effect of n-back training on improved performance of fluid intelligence tasks (although we note that this effect is not apparent in studies with tight controls; see Au et al., 2015).”
BackgroundDiamond, A. D., & Ling, D. S. (2019) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780199974467.003.0008 · Cited by 343
Development and Plasticity of Cognitive Flexibility in Early and Middle Childhood
Buttelmann, F., & Karbach, J. (2017) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01040 · Cited by 294
“…meta-analyses have tested effects related to the intensity, frequency and adaptivity of training, just to name a few (e.g., Karbach and Verhaeghen, 2014; Au et al., 2015; Schwaighofer et al., 2015), other features – such as the instructional design of training – have received less attention.”
BackgroundWorking memory training involves learning new skills
Gathercole, S. E., Dunning, D. L., Holmes, J., & Norris, D. (2019) · Journal of Memory and Language · doi:10.1016/j.jml.2018.10.003 · Cited by 225
“Many systematic reviews and meta-analyses of WM training have been published in recent years and with some exceptions (Au et al., 2015; Spencer-Smith & Klingberg, 2015), the consensus is that training benefits are largely confined to near transfer to other similar WM tasks (Cortese et al.”
BackgroundImproving Methodological Standards in Behavioral Interventions for Cognitive Enhancement
Green, C. S., Bavelier, D., Kramer, A. F., Vinogradov, S., Ulrich Ansorge, A., Ball, K., Bingel, U., Chein, J. M., Colzato, L. S., Edwards, J. D., et al. (2019) · Journal of Cognitive Enhancement · doi:10.1007/s41465-018-0115-y · Cited by 257
“…to processing speed, working memory, perceptual abilities, attention, and general intelligence, can be improved by dedicated behavioral training (Au et al. 2015; Ball et al. 2002; Bediou et al. 2018; Deveau et al. 2014a; Karbach and Unger 2014; Kramer et al. 1995; Schmiedek et al.…”
BackgroundSelf-citationLimitations of PET-PEESE and Other Meta-Analysis Methods
Stanley, T. D. (2017) · Social Psychological and Personality Science · doi:10.1177/1948550617693062 · Cited by 229
“Nonetheless, these sample sizes are found in at least one psychological meta-analysis on the transfer of working memory to fluid intelligence (Au et al., 2015; Boggs & Lasecki, 2015).”
BackgroundWorking memory training in typically developing children: A meta-analysis of the available evidence.
Sala, G., & Gobet, F. (2017) · Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1037/dev0000265 · Cited by 216
“However, although several reviews of the available experimental evidence have upheld the idea that WM training is a valuable cognitive enhancement tool (Au et al., 2015; Au, Buschkuehl, Duncan, & Jaeggi, 2016; Klingberg, 2010; Morrison & Chein, 2011), others have challenged the hypothesis according to which WM trainin…”
BackgroundModafinil for cognitive neuroenhancement in healthy non-sleep-deprived subjects: A systematic review
Battleday, R. M., & Brem, A.-K. (2015) · European Neuropsychopharmacology · doi:10.1016/j.euroneuro.2015.07.028 · Cited by 215
“Fluid intelligence is the ability to cope with novelty, to think rapidly and flexibly, and to see relations amongst items independent of acquired knowledge, and is predictive of life outcomes such as income, performance at work, and health (Au et al., 2014; Sternberg et al., 2013).”
Efficient multitasking: parallel versus serial processing of multiple tasks
Fischer, R., & Plessow, F. (2015) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01366 · Cited by 226
“…further specifying the currently investigated link between core executive control competencies and fluid intelligence as well as flexible adaptation to environmental changes as a hallmark of fluid intelligence (Duncan et al., 2008; Jaeggi et al., 2008; Duncan, 2010; Diamond, 2013; Au et al., 2015).”
Sarı, B. A., Koster, E. H. W., Pourtois, G., & Derakshan, N. (2015) · Biological Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2015.09.008 · Cited by 214
“Although improvement on a trait-like measure in a short time period (3 weeks) is remarkable, trait-like improvements like fluid intelligence (Au et al., 2014; Schweizer et al., 2011) or WM capacity (Schweizer et al., 2013; Owens et al., 2011) were observed as a function of WM training in many other…”
BackgroundThe Neuroscience of Intelligence
Haier, R. J. (2016) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781316105771 · Cited by 209
“Their analysis supported a 4-point IQ increase due to n-back training (Au et al., 2015).”
BackgroundMelby-Lervåg, M., & Hulme, C. (2016) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-015-0862-z · Cited by 189
“Our focus in the current paper has been on two recent metaanalyses (Au et al., 2014; Karbach & Verhaeghen 2014) that have examined the effects of working memory training.”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialNguyen, L., Murphy, K. A., & Andrews, G. (2019) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000196 · Cited by 206
Nguyen, L., Murphy, K. A., & Andrews, G. (2019) · Ageing Research Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.arr.2019.100912 · Cited by 205
Retest effects in cognitive ability tests: A meta-analysis
Scharfen, J., Peters, J. M., & Holling, H. (2018) · Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.intell.2018.01.003 · Cited by 184
“…on retest effects and on training or coaching effects in cognitive ability tests, which allowed us to find relevant studies published before 2005 (Au et al., 2015; Ball, Edwards, & Ross, 2007; Becker, 1990; DerSimonian & Laird, 1983; Hausknecht et al., 2007; Karch, Albers, Renner, Lichtenauer, &…”
BackgroundEnhancing cognition using transcranial electrical stimulation
Santarnecchi, E., Brem, A., Levenbaum, E., Thompson, T. W., Kadosh, R. C., & Pascual‐Leone, Á. (2015) · Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2015.06.003 · Cited by 160
“However, recent evidence demonstrates small, but significant effects for cognitive training (mainly working memory) [3].”
Enhancing Working Memory Training with Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation
Au, J., Katz, B., Buschkuehl, M., Bunarjo, K., Senger, T., Zabel, C., Jaeggi, S. M., & Jonides, J. (2016) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00979 · Cited by 156
“These results are meaningful amidst the controversy surrounding the efficacy of WM training, particularly with respect to far transfer, which is often found in meta-analyses (Au et al., 2015; Schwaighofer et al., 2015; Weicker et al., 2016; Karbach & Verhaeghen, 2014) but not consistently among primary studies.”
ResultSelf-citationLifting cognition: a meta-analysis of effects of resistance exercise on cognition
Landrigan, J.-F., Bell, T. R., Crowe, M. G., Clay, O. J., & Mirman, D. (2019) · Psychological Research · doi:10.1007/s00426-019-01145-x · Cited by 166
Mechanisms underlying training-induced cognitive change
von Bastian, C. C., Belleville, S., Udale, R. C., Reinhartz, A., Essounni, M., & Strobach, T. (2022) · Nature Reviews Psychology · doi:10.1038/s44159-021-00001-3 · Cited by 147
Video games, cognitive exercises, and the enhancement of cognitive abilities
Anguera, J. A., & Gazzaley, A. H. (2015) · Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2015.06.002 · Cited by 140
Kable, J. W., Caulfield, M. K., Falcone, M., McConnell, M., Bernardo, L., Parthasarathi, T., Cooper, N., Ashare, R., Audrain-McGovern, J., Hornik, R., et al. (2017) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.2832-16.2017 · Cited by 124
“…be enhanced through adaptive computerized cognitive training (Ball et al., 2002; Willis et al., 2006; Morrison and Chein, 2011; Nouchi et al., 2013; Au et al., 2015; Hardy et al., 2015), and that cognitive training can alter dlPFC activity in a manner reflecting increased capacity or recruitment…”
BackgroundSelf-beliefs: Strong correlates of mathematics achievement and intelligence
Stankov, L., & Lee, J. (2016) · Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.intell.2016.12.001 · Cited by 125
Basak, C., Qin, S., & O'Connell, M. A. (2020) · Psychology and Aging · doi:10.1037/pag0000442 · Cited by 138
Cognitive training for substance use disorders: Neuroscientific mechanisms
Verdejo‐García, A. (2016) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.05.018 · Cited by 133
Controversies in Computerized Cognitive Training
Harvey, P. D., McGurk, S. R., Mahncke, H. W., & Wykes, T. (2018) · Biological Psychiatry Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging · doi:10.1016/j.bpsc.2018.06.008 · Cited by 121
The use of commercial computerised cognitive games in older adults: a meta-analysis
Bonnechère, B., Langley, C., & Sahakian, B. J. (2020) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-020-72281-3 · Cited by 124
Metzler‐Baddeley, C., Caeyenberghs, K., Foley, S. F., & Jones, D. K. (2016) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.01.007 · Cited by 123
“Recent meta-analyses of transfer effects of working memory (Au et al., 2015) concluded that generalisation effects may occur in healthy adults but that effect sizes are small and large sample sizes seem to be required to detect them (Corbett et al.”
Intensive Working Memory Training Produces Functional Changes in Large-scale Frontoparietal Networks
Thompson, T. W., Waskom, M., & Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2016) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00916 · Cited by 125
“Second, perhaps owing to the many WM processes engaged by this task, there has been some evidence that training on the dual n-back task transfers to other cognitive domains (Au et al., 2015; Kundu et al., 2013; Jaeggi et al., 2008).”
BackgroundNilsson, J., Lebedev, A. V., Rydström, A., & Lövdén, M. (2017) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797617698139 · Cited by 118
“However, evidence on the transfer of improvements to untrained tasks and broad cognitive abilities is more limited, and the credibility and size of these effects remain debatable (Au, Buschkuehl, Duncan, & Jaeggi, 2016; Au et al., 2015; Dougherty, Hamovitz, & Tidwell, 2016; Karbach & Verhaeghen, 2014; Melby-Lervåg, Re…”
BackgroundInfluentialSystematic review and meta-analyses of useful field of view cognitive training
Edwards, J. D., Fausto, B. A., Tetlow, A. M., Corona, R. T., & Valdés, E. G. (2017) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.11.004 · Cited by 118
“For example, recent meta-analyses have focused on working memory training (Au et al., 2015).”
BackgroundA meta-analysis of virtual reality training programs
Howard, M. C., Gutworth, M. B., & Jacobs, R. R. (2021) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2021.106808 · Cited by 134
“Prior research has supported that general mental abilities are relatively difficult to substantially improve via training approaches, especially compared to skills and declarative knowledge (Au et al., 2015; Colom et al., 2013; Harrison et al., 2013).”
BackgroundAu, J., Buschkuehl, M., Duncan, G. J., & Jaeggi, S. M. (2015) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-015-0967-4 · Cited by 122
“1 of Au et al., 2015).”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialSelf-citationWorking memory training and interpreting interactions in intelligence interventions
Redick, T. S. (2015) · Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.intell.2015.01.014 · Cited by 107
“…that there is limited evidence for so-called far transfer to outcomes that are different from the practiced WM training materials (Lampit, Hallock, & Valenzuela, 2014; Melby-Lervåg & Hulme, 2013; Rapport, Orban, Kofler, & Friedman, 2013; but see Au et al., 2014; Karbach & Verhaeghen, 2014).”
BackgroundMethodWorking memory and language learning: A review
Archibald, L. M. D. (2016) · Child Language Teaching and Therapy · doi:10.1177/0265659016654206 · Cited by 105
“…Recently, direct training of working memory has come under considerable scrutiny with the publication of several meta-analyses reporting consistent post-training effects in near transfer to similar tasks only (e.g. Melby-Lervåg and Hulme, 2013; Schwaighofer et al., 2015; but see Au et al., 2015).”
BackgroundDisruption and rescue of interareal theta phase coupling and adaptive behavior
Reinhart, R. M. G. (2017) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1710257114 · Cited by 107
Dougherty, M. R., Hamovitz, T., & Tidwell, J. W. (2016) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-015-0865-9 · Cited by 112
“Au et al. (2015) made an excellent attempt to reduce the potential influence of publication bias, with many studies included from nonpublished reports.”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialJohann, V. E., & Karbach, J. (2019) · Developmental Science · doi:10.1111/desc.12866 · Cited by 125
Charvet, L. E., Shaw, M., Dobbs, B., Frontario, A., Sherman, K., Bikson, M., Datta, A., Krupp, L., Zeinapour, E., & Kasschau, M. (2017) · Neuromodulation Technology at the Neural Interface · doi:10.1111/ner.12583 · Cited by 105
An ecological approach to cognitive enhancement: Complex motor training
Moreau, D., Morrison, A. B., & Conway, A. R. A. (2015) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2015.02.007 · Cited by 115
Hoorelbeke, K., & Koster, E. H. W. (2016) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/ccp0000128 · Cited by 112
“It is noteworthy that recent meta-analytic findings indicate that performing CCT at home (instead of in the lab) does not affect cognitive transfer (Au et al., 2015), while performing the intervention online provides a more ecological valid training context which may foster transfer on…”
BackgroundDynamics of the human structural connectome underlying working memory training
Caeyenberghs, K., Metzler-Baddeley, C., Foley, S., & Jones, D. K. (2016) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.1973-15.2016 · Cited by 91
EEG Microstate Correlates of Fluid Intelligence and Response to Cognitive Training
on behalf of Honeywell SHARP Team authors, Santarnecchi, E., Khanna, A. R., Musaeus, C. S., Benwell, C., Davila-Pérez, P., Farzan, F., Matham, S., Pascual‐Leone, Á., & Shafi, M. M. (2017) · Brain Topography · doi:10.1007/s10548-017-0565-z · Cited by 119
Retest effects in working memory capacity tests: A meta-analysis
Scharfen, J., Jansen, K., & Holling, H. (2018) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-018-1461-6 · Cited by 113
“, 2015; Au, Buschkühl, Duncan, & Jaeggi, 2016; Karbach & Verhaeghen, 2014; Melby-Lervåg & Hulme, 2013, 2016; Shipstead, Redick, & Engle, 2012; Soveri, Antfolk, Karlsson, Salo, & Laine, 2017), while neglecting the effect that results from simple retesting. Working memory was first introduced by Baddeley and Hitch (1974…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialAdaptive working memory training can reduce anxiety and depression vulnerability in adolescents
Beloe, P., & Derakshan, N. (2019) · Developmental Science · doi:10.1111/desc.12831 · Cited by 115
Traut, H. J., Guild, R. M., & Munakata, Y. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.662139 · Cited by 100
“This variation among findings is welldocumented and presents serious problems for determining the true effectiveness or utility of cognitive training in both clinical and research contexts (Shipstead et al., 2012; MelbyLervåg and Hulme, 2013; von Bastian and Oberauer, 2014; Au et al., 2015; Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016;…”
BackgroundTraining on Working Memory and Inhibitory Control in Young Adults
Maraver, M. J., Bajo, M. T., & Gomez-Ariza, C. J. (2016) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2016.00588 · Cited by 96
“, 2012; Melby-Lervåg and Hulme, 2013) and in favor of it (Morrison and Chein, 2011; Au et al., 2014).”
BackgroundResultHow to build better memory training games
Deveau, J., Jaeggi, S. M., Zordan, V. B., Phung, C., & Seitz, A. R. (2015) · Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnsys.2014.00243 · Cited by 101
Self-citationWickens, C. D., & Carswell, C. M. (2021) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781119636113.ch5 · Cited by 112
Blumberg, F. C., Deater-Deckard, K., Calvert, S. L., Flynn, R. M., Green, C. S., Arnold, D., & Brooks, P. J. (2019) · Child Policy Nexus · doi:10.1002/sop2.3 · Cited by 96
“Efforts also have been underway to examine the positive impact of gamelike training paradigms (not involving exercise) designed to enhance executive function (EF) skills (Au et al., 2015), particularly among adult participants.”
BackgroundIndividual differences and long-term consequences of tdcs-augmented cognitive training
Katz, B., Au, J., Buschkuehl, M., Abagis, T., Zabel, C., Jaeggi, S. M., & Jonides, J. (2017) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/jocn_a_01115 · Cited by 93
“As mentioned earlier, the study location (e.g., university vs. small college but also different countries; cf. Au et al., 2015) may influence the outcome of training, although it is difficult to identify which element of geographic location, including cultural factors, actually may play a role in…”
BackgroundSelf-citationAu, J., Gibson, B. C., Bunarjo, K., Buschkuehl, M., & Jaeggi, S. M. (2020) · Journal of Cognitive Enhancement · doi:10.1007/s41465-020-00164-6 · Cited by 100
Self-citationPasqualotto, A., Mazzoni, N., Bentenuto, A., Mulè, A., Benso, F., & Venuti, P. (2021) · Brain Sciences · doi:10.3390/brainsci11101280 · Cited by 112
Cognitive Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Healthy and Clinical Populations
Berryhill, M. E., & Martin, D. M. (2018) · Journal of Ect · doi:10.1097/yct.0000000000000534 · Cited by 95
Looi, C. Y., Duta, M. D., Brem, A., Huber, S., Nuerk, H., & Kadosh, R. C. (2016) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep22003 · Cited by 90
A simultaneous examination of two forms of working memory training: Evidence for near transfer only
Minear, M., Brasher, F., Guerrero, C. B., Brasher, M., Moore, A., & Sukeena, J. (2016) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/s13421-016-0616-9 · Cited by 85
“Working-memory training and transfer remains a contentious area of research with some arguing that the evidence for far transfer is clear (Au et al., 2015; Jaeggi et al., 2014), while others remain skeptical (Haier, 2014; Redick, Melby-Lervåg, Hulme, & Grovak, 2014; Shipstead, Redick, & Engle, 2012…”
BackgroundResultInfluentialSantarnecchi, E., Emmendorfer, A. K., & Pascual‐Leone, Á. (2017) · Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.intell.2017.04.008 · Cited by 95
Teixeira-Santos, A. C., Moreira, C. S., Magalhães, R., Magalhães, C., Pereira, D. R., Leite, J., Carvalho, S., & Sampaio, A. (2019) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.05.009 · Cited by 87
Karbach, J., Könen, T., & Spengler, M. (2017) · Journal of Cognitive Enhancement · doi:10.1007/s41465-017-0054-z · Cited by 95
“…(near transfer) and oftentimes also to performance on tasks measuring untrained related abilities (far transfer), even though these far transfer have not been reported consistently across the literature (for meta-analyses see Au et al. 2015; Karbach and Verhaeghen 2014; Schwaighofer et al. 2015).”
BackgroundDoes working memory training have to be adaptive?
von Bastian, C. C., & Eschen, A. (2016) · Psychological Research · doi:10.1007/s00426-015-0655-z · Cited by 83
Working memory updating and binding training: Bayesian evidence supporting the absence of transfer.
De Simoni, C., & von Bastian, C. C. (2018) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/xge0000453 · Cited by 84
Working memory training mostly engages general-purpose large-scale networks for learning
Salmi, J., Nyberg, L., & Laine, M. (2018) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.03.019 · Cited by 70
“This could be the case, for instance, if WM training influences the executive system (Karbach and Verhaeghen, 2014; Karr et al., 2014; Au et al., 2015).”
Working memory training in older adults: Bayesian evidence supporting the absence of transfer.
Guye, S., & von Bastian, C. C. (2017) · Psychology and Aging · doi:10.1037/pag0000206 · Cited by 91
How to play 20 questions with nature and lose: Reflections on 100 years of brain-training research
Katz, B., Shah, P., & Meyer, D. E. (2018) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1617102114 · Cited by 85
Metzler-Baddeley, C., Foley, S., de Santis, S., Charron, C., Hampshire, A., Caeyenberghs, K., & Jones, D. K. (2017) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/jocn_a_01127 · Cited by 78
“There is an ongoing debate in the training literature regarding the far transfer effects of WM training (Au et al., 2015; Corbett et al., 2015; Melby-Lervag & Hulme, 2016; Owen et al., 2010), which goes beyond the scope of the current article.”
BackgroundWebb, S. L., Loh, V., Lampit, A., Bateman, J. E., & Birney, D. P. (2018) · Neuropsychology Review · doi:10.1007/s11065-018-9374-8 · Cited by 86
“Despite a growing number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, brief examination of their findings indicates a lack of consensus regarding the efficacy of CCT (Au et al. 2015, 2016; Lampit et al. 2014; Melby-Lervåg and Hulme 2013; Melby-Lervåg et al. 2016; Redick et al. 2013; Soveri et al. 2017).”
BackgroundMethodCaldwell, A. E., Masters, K. S., Peters, J. C., Bryan, A. D., Grigsby, J., Hooker, S. A., Wyatt, H. R., & Hill, J. O. (2018) · Health Psychology Review · doi:10.1080/17437199.2018.1437551 · Cited by 82
“Working memory appears to be the most difficult of these three executive subfunctions to improve, at least with techniques that show a generalisation of improvement beyond performance on the training task and related skills, although certain approaches show a positive effect (Au et al., 2015; Salminen, Kuhn, Frensch,…”
BackgroundCognitive Training for Military Application: a Review of the Literature and Practical Guide
Blacker, K. J., Hamilton, J. A., Roush, G., Pettijohn, K. A., & Biggs, A. T. (2018) · Journal of Cognitive Enhancement · doi:10.1007/s41465-018-0076-1 · Cited by 87
“A full review of the entireWM training literature is beyond the scope of this review (however, for reviews see Konen et al. 2016; Morrison and Chein 2011; Shipstead et al. 2012; Simons et al. 2016; also see Au et al. 2015 for a recent meta-analysis).”
BackgroundMethodDo the effects of working memory training depend on baseline ability level?
Foster, J. L., Harrison, T. L., Hicks, K. L., Draheim, C., Redick, T. S., & Engle, R. W. (2017) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition · doi:10.1037/xlm0000426 · Cited by 76
Guye, S., Simoni, C. D., & von Bastian, C. C. (2017) · Journal of Cognitive Enhancement · doi:10.1007/s41465-017-0049-9 · Cited by 81
“Even on the meta-analytic level, evidence is mixed regarding the effectiveness of cognitive training in both younger and older adults (e.g., Au et al., 2015; Dougherty, Hamovitz, & Tidwell, 2016; Karbach & Verhaeghen, 2014; Kelly et al., 2014; Lampit, Hallock, & Valenzuela, 2014; Melby-Lervåg &…”
BackgroundN-back Versus Complex Span Working Memory Training
Blacker, K. J., Negoita, S., Ewen, J. B., & Courtney, S. M. (2017) · Journal of Cognitive Enhancement · doi:10.1007/s41465-017-0044-1 · Cited by 74
“…many times (e.g., Jaeggi et al. 2014; Jausovec and Jausovec 2012; Rudebeck et al. 2012; Stephenson and Halpern 2013; for a meta-analysis see Au et al. 2015), others have failed to replicate this effect (e.g., Redick et al. 2013; Thompson et al. 2013; for a review see Shipstead et al. 2012).”
Lawlor-Savage, L., & Goghari, V. M. (2016) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0151817 · Cited by 74
“Furthermore, despite Au and colleagues’ [14] attempt to include a wide age range (18–50) in their meta-analysis, healthy adults in dual n-back working memory training studies are consistently of a restricted age range (i.”
BackgroundResultInfluentialA dual process perspective on advances in cognitive science and alcohol use disorder
Lindgren, K. P., Hendershot, C. S., Ramirez, J. J., Bernat, E. M., Rangel‐Gomez, M., Peterson, K. P., & Murphy, J. G. (2018) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2018.04.002 · Cited by 80
Working Memory Training in Alcohol Use Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Khemiri, L., Brynte, C., Stünkel, A., Klingberg, T., & Jayaram‐Lindström, N. (2018) · Alcoholism Clinical and Experimental Research · doi:10.1111/acer.13910 · Cited by 79
“, 2005) and general fluid intelligence (Au et al., 2015; Jaeggi et al., 2008).”
BackgroundResultThe Hype Cycle of Working Memory Training
Redick, T. S. (2019) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0963721419848668 · Cited by 69
“Currently, working memory training seems to be entering a third wave, in which meta-analyses, which are quantitative reviews that combine the results of multiple studies, have indicated that working memory training effects are highly specific to relatively narrow outcomes (Melby-Lervåg, Redick, & Hulme, 2016) or to ce…”
Working Memory Capacity as a Predictor of Cognitive Training Efficacy in the Elderly Population
Matysiak, O., Kroemeke, A., & Brzezicka, A. (2019) · Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnagi.2019.00126 · Cited by 85
“A number of meta-analyses and reviews have addressed this matter (for meta-analysis see: Melby-Lervåg and Hulme, 2013; Karbach and Verhaeghen, 2014; Au et al., 2015; Schwaighofer et al., 2015; Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016; Soveri et al., 2017; for reviews see: Lövdén et al., 2010; Shipstead et al., 2010, 2012; Melby-Lerv…”
BackgroundNguyen, L., Murphy, K. A., & Andrews, G. (2021) · Neuropsychology Review · doi:10.1007/s11065-021-09515-2 · Cited by 76
Transfer after Dual n -Back Training Depends on Striatal Activation Change
Salminen, T., Kühn, S., Frensch, P. A., & Schubert, T. (2016) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.2305-15.2016 · Cited by 70
“Several studies have shown that working memory (WM) can be trained (Lustig et al., 2009; von Bastian and Oberauer, 2014; Au et al., 2015).”
BackgroundExploring N -Back Cognitive Training for Children With ADHD
Jones, M. R., Katz, B., Buschkuehl, M., Jaeggi, S. M., & Shah, P. (2020) · Journal of Attention Disorders · doi:10.1177/1087054718779230 · Cited by 64
“Previous work has demonstrated improvements in working memory and fluid reasoning in typically developing young adults following n-back training (Au, Buschkuehl, Duncan, & Jaeggi, 2016; Au et al., 2015).”
BackgroundSelf-citationN ‐back training and transfer effects revealed by behavioral responses and EEG
Pergher, V., Wittevrongel, B., Tournoy, J., Schoenmakers, B., & Hulle, M. M. V. (2018) · Brain and Behavior · doi:10.1002/brb3.1136 · Cited by 80
A Review of US Army Research Contributing to Cognitive Enhancement in Military Contexts
Brunyé, T. T., Brou, R. J., Doty, T. J., Gregory, F. D., Hussey, E. K., Lieberman, H. R., Loverro, K. L., Mezzacappa, E. S., Neumeier, W. H., Patton, D. J., et al. (2020) · Journal of Cognitive Enhancement · doi:10.1007/s41465-020-00167-3 · Cited by 78
Kourtesis, P., Kouklari, E.-C., Ρούσσος, Π., Mantas, V., Papanikolaou, Κ., Skaloumbakas, C., & Pehlivanidis, A. (2023) · Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.3390/bs13040336 · Cited by 93
“However, it should be noted that cognitive training studies in ASD have been designed only in recent years, and thus, their limited and mixed results as well as their lack of ecological validity are the subject of ongoing discussion (e.g., [42–44]).”
BackgroundWorking memory training in children: Effectiveness depends on temperament
Studer-Luethi, B., Bauer, C. E., & Perrig, W. J. (2015) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/s13421-015-0548-9 · Cited by 77
The role of strategy use in working memory training outcomes
Fellman, D., Jylkkä, J., Waris, O., Soveri, A., Ritakallio, L., Haga, S., Salmi, J., Nyman, T. J., & Laine, M. (2020) · Journal of Memory and Language · doi:10.1016/j.jml.2019.104064 · Cited by 64
Jones, K. T., Peterson, D. J., Blacker, K. J., & Berryhill, M. E. (2017) · Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2017.05.005 · Cited by 68
Buitenweg, J. I. V., van de Ven, R. M., Prinssen, S., Murre, J. M. J., & Ridderinkhof, K. R. (2017) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2017.00529 · Cited by 68
“Finally, two more functions often found to diminish in older adults are reasoning ability and verbal long term memory (Davis et al., 2003; Harada et al., 2013), which have also seen improvements after similar interventions (Au et al., 2015; Barban et al., 2015).”
Backgroundde Voogd, E. L., Wiers, R. W. H. J., Zwitser, R. J., & Salemink, E. (2016) · Australian Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1111/ajpy.12134 · Cited by 63
Metadata
- Authors
- Au, J., Sheehan, E., Tsai, N., Duncan, G. J., Buschkuehl, M., & Jaeggi, S. M.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Irvine (US)
- MIND Research Institute (US)
- Corresponding author
- Au, Jacky
- Venue
- Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
- Published
- 2014-08-08
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 366-377
- ISSN
- 1069-9384 (ISSN-L)
- 1531-5320
- OpenAlex
- W1985948545
- Semantic Scholar
- 669a9f1a189a86de5adae42b90991148d90e53fc
- Cited by
- 727
- References
- 73
- Citations by year
- 2026: 33 · 2025: 39 · 2024: 42 · 2023: 45 · 2022: 57 · 2021: 66 · 2020: 97 · 2019: 73 · 2018: 78 · 2017: 81 · 2016: 63 · 2015: 47 · 2014: 4
- FWCI
- 7.44
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- escholarship.org
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Psychonomic Bulletin & Review (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Cognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skills
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
- Keywords
- working memory training, fluid intelligence, cognitive training, transfer of training, cognitive plasticity, working memory
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Aptitude, Attention, Female, Humans, Intelligence, Learning, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Middle Aged, Practice, Psychological, Transfer, Psychology, Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic, 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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-06, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-06 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
