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
Items 101–200 of 658
Modulating fluid intelligence performance through combined cognitive training and brain stimulation
Brem, A., Almquist, J. N.-F., Mansfield, K. L., Plessow, F., Sella, F., Santarnecchi, E., Orhan, U., McKanna, J. A., Pavel, M., Mathan, S. A., et al. (2018) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2018.04.008 · Cited by 71
The mechanisms of far transfer from cognitive training: Review and hypothesis.
Greenwood, P. M., & Parasuraman, R. (2016) · Neuropsychology · doi:10.1037/neu0000235 · Cited by 62
Trumbo, M., Matzen, L. E., Coffman, B. A., Hunter, M. A., Jones, A. P., Robinson, C. S. H., & Clark, V. P. (2016) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2016.10.011 · Cited by 67
Sala, G., Aksayli, N. D., Tatlidil, K. S., Gondo, Y., & Gobet, F. (2019) · Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.intell.2019.101386 · Cited by 72
Evidence for Narrow Transfer after Short-Term Cognitive Training in Older Adults
Souders, D. J., Boot, W. R., Blocker, K. A., Vitale, T., Roque, N. A., & Charness, N. H. (2017) · Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnagi.2017.00041 · Cited by 65
“…transfer have focused on training working memory, due to its integral and ubiquitous role in many other cognitive and everyday tasks, with pre-to post-training increases sometimes observed in younger adults’ executive functions and reasoning or memory (e.g., Jaeggi et al., 2008; Au et al., 2015).”
BackgroundMohammed, S., Flores, L., Deveau, J., Hoffing, R. C., Phung, C., Parlett, C., Sheehan, E., Lee, D. M., Au, J., Buschkuehl, M., et al. (2017) · Journal of Cognitive Enhancement · doi:10.1007/s41465-017-0047-y · Cited by 72
“…on two cognitive domains which have shown to be particularly susceptible to the effects of N-back training; specifically, we included measures of inhibitory control, interference resolution (Soveri et al. 2017; Novick et al. 2014), and visuospatial reasoning (Au et al. 2015; Jaeggi et al. 2014).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citationZhang, Q., Wang, C., Zhao, Q., Yang, L., Buschkuehl, M., & Jaeggi, S. M. (2019) · Developmental Science · doi:10.1111/desc.12748 · Cited by 61
Self-citationOptimizing Second Language Practice in the Classroom: Perspectives from Cognitive Psychology
Suzuki, Y., Nakata, T., & DEKEYSER, R. M. (2019) · Modern Language Journal · doi:10.1111/modl.12582 · Cited by 67
Divergent Research Methods Limit Understanding of Working Memory Training
Pergher, V., Shalchy, M. A., Pahor, A., Van Hulle, M. M., Jaeggi, S. M., & Seitz, A. R. (2020) · Journal of Cognitive Enhancement · doi:10.1007/s41465-019-00134-7 · Cited by 56
Self-citationWorldview-motivated rejection of science and the norms of science
Lewandowsky, S., & Oberauer, K. (2021) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104820 · Cited by 64
Domain-specific and domain-general training to improve kindergarten children’s mathematics
Ramani, G. B., Jaeggi, S. M., Daubert, E. N., & Buschkuehl, M. (2017) · Journal of Numerical Cognition · doi:10.5964/jnc.v3i2.31 · Cited by 59
“…Redick, & Engle, 2012), the results of several recent meta-analyses are encouraging in that they do show generalizing effects beyond the trained domain (Au et al., 2015, 2016; Karbach & Verhaeghen, 2014; Wass et al., 2012; Weicker, Villringer, & Thöne-Otto, 2016, but see MelbyLervåg & Hulme, 2013).”
BackgroundResultSelf-citationNouchi, R., Saito, T. I., Nouchi, H., & Kawashima, R. (2016) · Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnagi.2016.00302 · Cited by 60
Strategy mediation in working memory training in younger and older adults
Forsberg, A., Fellman, D., Laine, M., Johnson, W., & Logie, R. H. (2020) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1177/1747021820915107 · Cited by 62
Baniqued, P. L., Allen, C. M., Kranz, M. B., Johnson, K., Sipolins, A., Dickens, C., Ward, N., Geyer, A., & Kramer, A. F. (2015) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0142169 · Cited by 64
Drugs, games, and devices for enhancing cognition: implications for work and society
Brühl, A. B., & Sahakian, B. J. (2016) · Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1111/nyas.13040 · Cited by 58
Functional brain activation associated with working memory training and transfer
Clark, C. M., Lawlor‐Savage, L., & Goghari, V. M. (2017) · Behavioural Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2017.07.030 · Cited by 57
Adaptive task difficulty influences neural plasticity and transfer of training
Flegal, K. E., Ragland, J. D., & Ranganath, C. (2018) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.12.003 · Cited by 58
A Latent Factor Analysis of Working Memory Measures Using Large-Scale Data
Waris, O., Soveri, A., Ahti, M., Hoffing, R. C., Ventus, D., Jaeggi, S. M., Seitz, A. R., & Laine, M. (2017) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01062 · Cited by 51
“…some n-back training work has shown that the most consistent transfer effects are observed in visuospatial domains, regardless of whether the n-back training consists of spatial and/or verbal material (Colom et al., 2013; Jaeggi et al., 2014; Au et al., 2015, 2016, but see Soveri et al., 2017).”
BackgroundSelf-citationLee, H., Warschauer, M., & Lee, J. H. (2020) · Modern Language Journal · doi:10.1111/modl.12634 · Cited by 53
Wanmaker, S., Leijdesdorff, S. M. J., Geraerts, E., van de Wetering, B. J. M., Renkema, P. J., & Franken, I. H. A. (2017) · Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology · doi:10.1080/13803395.2017.1372367 · Cited by 54
“…recent studies show that training can increase WMC (Chein & Morrison, 2010; Jaeggi, Buschkuehl, Jonides, & Perrig, 2008; Morrison & Chein, 2011), and that it can lead to substantial improvements in healthy participants when experimental training is compared to a control group (Au et al., 2015).”
BackgroundPayne, B. R., & Stine‐Morrow, E. A. L. (2017) · Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnagi.2017.00256 · Cited by 57
“…untrained tasks that are distal from the trained ability—with studies demonstrating variable effect sizes for transfer (Melby-Lervåg and Hulme, 2013, 2016; MelbyLervåg et al., 2016; Simons et al., 2016; but see Karbach and Verhaeghen, 2014; Au et al., 2015, 2016; Greenwood and Parasuraman, 2016).”
ResultThe Influence of Individual Differences in Cognitive Ability on Working Memory Training Gains
Wiemers, E. A., Redick, T. S., & Morrison, A. B. (2019) · Journal of Cognitive Enhancement · doi:10.1007/s41465-018-0111-2 · Cited by 48
Pergher, V., Au, J., Shalchy, M. A., Santarnecchi, E., Seitz, A. R., Jaeggi, S. M., & Battelli, L. (2022) · Brain stimulation · doi:10.1016/j.brs.2022.11.008 · Cited by 51
Self-citationSeven Pervasive Statistical Flaws in Cognitive Training Interventions
Moreau, D., Kirk, I. J., & Waldie, K. E. (2016) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2016.00153 · Cited by 54
“…groups across the world have come to dramatically opposite conclusions about the effectiveness of cognitive training, based on slight differences in meta-analysis inclusion criteria and models (Melby-Lervåg and Hulme, 2013; Karbach andVerhaeghen, 2014; Lampit et al., 2014; Au et al., 2015).”
BackgroundGavelin, H. M., Boraxbekk, C., Stenlund, T., Järvholm, L. S., & Neely, A. S. (2015) · Stress · doi:10.3109/10253890.2015.1064892 · Cited by 51
“However, previous studies attempting to validate these theoretical claims, by investigating if cognitive training could lead to gains on fluid reasoning tasks, have shown somewhat inconsistent results (Au et al., 2015; Karbach & Kray, 2009; Redick et al., 2013; Sandberg et al., 2014).”
ResultTransfer after working memory updating training
Waris, O., Soveri, A., & Laine, M. (2015) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0138734 · Cited by 47
“However, another meta-analysis studying the effects of n-back WM training on fluid intelligence indicated a small net effect gain in Gf outcome measures [29].”
BackgroundCohavi, O., & Levy‐Tzedek, S. (2022) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2022.102775 · Cited by 49
The benefits of looking at intraindividual dynamics in cognitive training data
Könen, T., & Karbach, J. (2015) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00615 · Cited by 46
Age-specific differences of dualn-back training
Salminen, T. M., Frensch, P. A., Strobach, T., & Schubert, T. (2015) · Aging Neuropsychology and Cognition · doi:10.1080/13825585.2015.1031723 · Cited by 54
“Additionally, recent studies that have compared active and passive control groups have not found significant differences between the groups with regard to transfer effects (Au et al., 2014; Karbach & Verhaeghen, 2014).”
BackgroundThe “other” relationships of self-assessed intelligence: A meta-analysis
Howard, M. C., & Cogswell, J. E. (2018) · Journal of Research in Personality · doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2018.09.006 · Cited by 53
“Knowledge can be gained through conscious practice, and other aspects of intelligence (i.e. logic and reasoning) may also be improved through intentional effort (Au et al., 2015; Harrison et al., 2013; Shipstead et al., 2012).”
BackgroundLuong, T., Martin, N., Raison, A., Argelaguet, F., Diverrez, J.-M., & Lécuyer, A. (2020) · Proceedings - International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality, ISMAR · doi:10.1109/ismar50242.2020.00068 · Cited by 55
“While it is true task difficulty has shown to be correlated to users’ mental workload [4], it does not take into account the users’ subjective impressions.”
Song, X., Long, J., Wang, C., Zhang, R., & Lee, T. M. C. (2022) · Psychoradiology · doi:10.1093/psyrad/kkac002 · Cited by 43
Beyond “Use It or Lose It”: The Impact of Engagement on Cognitive Aging
Stine‐Morrow, E. A. L., & Manavbasi, I. E. (2022) · Annual Review of Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-devpsych-121020-030017 · Cited by 52
Heinzel, S., Rimpel, J., Stelzel, C., & Rapp, M. A. (2017) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2017.00085 · Cited by 45
The relationship between bilingual language use and executive functions
Lehtonen, M., Fyndanis, V., & Jylkkä, J. (2023) · Nature Reviews Psychology · doi:10.1038/s44159-023-00178-9 · Cited by 59
Zhang, H., Chang, L., Chen, X., Ma, L., & Zhou, R. (2018) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2018.00154 · Cited by 53
“Whether WM updating training is able to improve fluid intelligence has been strongly debated in recent years (Harrison et al., 2013; MelbyLervåg and Hulme, 2013; Redick et al., 2013; Au et al., 2014; Bogg and Lasecki, 2015).”
BackgroundCovey, T. J., Shucard, J. L., & Shucard, D. W. (2018) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2018.08.012 · Cited by 44
Individual Differences and Motivational Effects
Katz, B., Jones, M. R., Shah, P., Buschkuehl, M., & Jaeggi, S. M. (2016) · Cognitive Training · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-42662-4_15 · Cited by 41
Self-citationDurable memories and efficient neural coding through mnemonic training using the method of loci
Wagner, I. C., Konrad, B. N., Schuster, P., Weisig, S., Repantis, D., Ohla, K., Kühn, S., Fernández, G., Steiger, A., Lamm, C., et al. (2021) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.abc7606 · Cited by 46
Expectation effects in working memory training
Parong, J. A., Seitz, A. R., Jaeggi, S. M., & Green, C. S. (2022) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2209308119 · Cited by 49
Self-citationEvaluating the Effectiveness of Commercial Brain Game Training with Working-Memory Tasks
Strobach, T., & Huestegge, L. (2017) · Journal of Cognitive Enhancement · doi:10.1007/s41465-017-0053-0 · Cited by 44
“Further, there is a large bulk of studies showing such effects as a result of training with working memory tasks (e.g., Au et al. 2015; Klingberg 2010; Koenen et al. 2016; Morrison and Chein 2011; Salminen et al. 2016a, b) ( however, for critical view, see Melby-Lervåg and Hulme 2013; Shipstead et…”
BackgroundResultCan SMART Training Really Increase Intelligence? A Replication Study
Colbert, D., Tyndall, I. T., Roche, B. T., & Cassidy, S. (2018) · Journal of Behavioral Education · doi:10.1007/s10864-018-9302-2 · Cited by 49
Brain network modularity predicts cognitive training-related gains in young adults
Baniqued, P. L., Gallen, C. L., Kranz, M. B., Kramer, A. F., & D’Esposito, M. (2019) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2019.05.021 · Cited by 44
“Although previous studies have suggested that cognitive training can improve aspects of cognition in healthy young adults (Au et al., 2015; Baniqued et al., 2015; Boot, Kramer, Simons, Fabiani, & Gratton, 2008; Karbach & Verhaeghen, 2014; Strobach, Frensch, & Schubert, 2012; but see Boot & Kramer, 2014; Dougherty, Ham…”
ResultPan, D., Hoid, D., Wang, X., Jia, Z., & Li, X. (2020) · Psychological Medicine · doi:10.1017/s0033291720002275 · Cited by 46
“Since WM (as a basic processing) is implicated in a variety of advanced cognitive functions, training specifically targeted on it can lead to extensive and profound transfer effects, such as increased reading comprehension, mathematical reasoning, and fluid intelligence (Au et al., 2015; Melbylervåg & Hulme, 2013).”
BackgroundPappa, K., Biswas, V., Flegal, K. E., Evans, J. J., & Baylan, S. (2020) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2020.07.027 · Cited by 46
Bogg, T., & Lasecki, L. (2015) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01589 · Cited by 41
“…be noted though, that even with few conventionally significant effects, very wide confidence intervals, and some vibration of the observed effects, there was still visual evidence of small positive skew among the individual study effects depicted in the forest plot presented by Au et al. (2014).”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialLimitations of working memory capacity: The cognitive and social consequences
Gruszka, A., & Nȩcka, E. (2017) · European Management Journal · doi:10.1016/j.emj.2017.07.001 · Cited by 43
“In a recent metaanalysis of 20 n-back training studies with fluid intelligence as outcome measures, Au et al. (2015) showed small but significant positive effects.”
BackgroundNeubauer, A. C., Wammerl, M., Benedek, M., Jauk, E., & Jaušovec, N. (2017) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.paid.2017.04.016 · Cited by 44
“However, recent reviews and meta-analyses come to inconsistent conclusions, either showing that intelligence scores cannot be increased through cognitive training (Haier, 2014; Melby-Lervåg, Monica, & Hulme, 2016), or finding support for the beneficial effect of systematic cognitive training (Au et al., 2015; Karbach…”
BackgroundNeural signatures for active maintenance and interference during working memory updating
Vilà‐Balló, A., Salmi, J., Soveri, A., Rodríguez‐Fornells, A., Lehtonen, M., & Laine, M. (2018) · Biological Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2018.01.007 · Cited by 42
“Verification of a neural marker for active maintenance in the n-back task can increase the usefulness of this task paradigm, for instance, in revealing the alterations of WM function associated with clinical conditions or training (see Muller & Knight, 2006; Au et al., 2015; Soveri et al., 2017).”
MethodPan, D., Hoid, D., Gu, R., & Li, X. (2020) · NeuroImage Clinical · doi:10.1016/j.nicl.2020.102488 · Cited by 53
Bäckman, L., Waris, O., Johansson, J. J., Andersson, M., Rinne, J. O., Alakurtti, K., Soveri, A., Laine, M., & Nyberg, L. H. (2017) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-017-07577-y · Cited by 41
Hotton, M., Derakshan, N., & Fox, E. (2017) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.brat.2017.10.011 · Cited by 42
Cochrane, A., Simmering, V. R., & Green, C. S. (2019) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0221353 · Cited by 46
Linares, R., Borella, E., Lechuga, M. T., Carretti, B., & Pelegrina, S. (2019) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0211321 · Cited by 38
Bombonato, C., Lucchese, B. D., Ruffini, C., Lieto, M., Brovedani, P., Sgandurra, G., Cioni, G., & Pecini, C. (2023) · Neuropsychology Review · doi:10.1007/s11065-022-09574-z · Cited by 57
“…2014; Kundu et al., 2013; Redick et al., 2013; Stephenson & Halpern, 2013; Thompson et al., 2013), varying from the absence of transfer effects (Melby-Lervåg & Hulme, 2013) to significant effects on skills far from those trained, as fluid intelligence (Au et al., 2015; Karbach & Verhaeghen, 2014).”
BackgroundCardoso, C. D. O., Dias, N. M., Senger, J. E., Colling, A. P. C., Seabra, A. G., & Fonseca, R. P. (2016) · Applied Neuropsychology Child · doi:10.1080/21622965.2016.1241950 · Cited by 46
“In recent metaanalyses on working memory training, there seems not to be a consensus on transfer effects, with positive (Au et al., 2015; Karbach & Verhaeghen, 2014) or negative findings (Melby-Lervåg & Hulme, 2013).”
BackgroundLanguage aptitude: Desirable trait or acquirable attribute?
Singleton, D. (2017) · Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching · doi:10.14746/ssllt.2017.7.1.5 · Cited by 47
Executive Function, Theory of Mind, and Adaptive Behavior
Coulacoglou, C., & Saklofske, D. H. (2017) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-802219-1.00005-5 · Cited by 50
Shining the Light of Research on Lumosity
Bainbridge, K., & Mayer, R. E. (2017) · Journal of Cognitive Enhancement · doi:10.1007/s41465-017-0040-5 · Cited by 43
Training working memory updating in Parkinson’s disease: A randomised controlled trial
Fellman, D., Salmi, J., Ritakallio, L., Ellfolk, U., Rinne, J. O., & Laine, M. (2018) · Neuropsychological Rehabilitation · doi:10.1080/09602011.2018.1489860 · Cited by 40
“In untrained structurally dissimilar WM tasks and in tasks tapping into other cognitive domains, the effect sizes appear to be small, yet still statistically significant in both younger and older healthy adults (Au et al., 2015; Melby-Lervåg, Redick, & Hulme, 2016; Mewborn, Lindbergh, & Stephen Miller, 2017; Soveri et…”
BackgroundEstrada, E., Ferrer, E. E., Román, F. J., Karama, S., & Colom, R. (2019) · Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1037/dev0000716 · Cited by 42
“There is now a growing discussion regarding efficient ways for achieving this goal (Au et al., 2015; Au, Buschkuehl, Duncan, & Jaeggi, 2016; Colom & Román, 2018; Melby-Lervåg & Hulme, 2016), or even questioning if this is possible at all (Sala, Tatlidil, & Gobet, 2018; Simons et al., 2016).”
BackgroundNissim, N. R., McAfee, D., Edwards, S., Prato, A., Lin, J. X., Lu, Z., Coslett, H. B., & Hamilton, R. H. (2023) · Neuromodulation Technology at the Neural Interface · doi:10.1016/j.neurom.2022.12.014 · Cited by 38
Goghari, V. M., & Lawlor‐Savage, L. (2017) · Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnagi.2017.00039 · Cited by 42
“This concept is termed far transfer (Morrison and Chein, 2011) and is the subject of much debate in the cognitive training literature (Morrison and Chein, 2011; Shipstead et al., 2012; Melby-Lervåg and Hulme, 2013).”
BackgroundGrol, M., Schwenzfeier, A., Stricker, J., Booth, C., Temple-McCune, A., Derakshan, N., Hirsch, C. R., Becker, E. S., & Fox, E. (2018) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.brat.2018.01.005 · Cited by 38
“(Au et al., 2015) while others conclude working memory training does not improve performance (Melby-Lervåg, Redick, & Hulme, 2016).”
Aerobic exercise modulates transfer and brain signal complexity following cognitive training
Wang, C., Moreau, D., Yang, C.-T., Tsai, Y.-Y., Lin, J.-T., Liang, W., & Tsai, C. (2019) · Biological Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2019.03.012 · Cited by 37
“Evidence for reliable transfer effects has been elusive thus far (Au et al., 2015; Jaeggi et al., 2008; Jaeggi, Buschkuehl, Shah, & Jonides, 2014; Melby-Lervåg & Hulme, 2013; Redick et al., 2013), and even near-transfer effects have not been found consistently (Melby-Lervåg, Redick, & Hulme, 2016; Soveri et al.”
Sandry, J. D., DeLuca, J., & Chiaravalloti, N. D. (2014) · Journal of Neurology · doi:10.1007/s00415-014-7523-4 · Cited by 38
“Whether or not changes in WM capacity lead to secondary changes in other cognitive systems remains a contentious issue [25–30] and one deserving of continued exploration.”
BackgroundPositive Traits in the Bipolar Spectrum: The Space between Madness and Genius
Greenwood, T. A. (2016) · Complex Psychiatry · doi:10.1159/000452416 · Cited by 41
Covey, T. J., Shucard, J. L., Benedict, R. H. B., Weinstock‐Guttman, B., & Shucard, D. W. (2018) · Multiple Sclerosis Journal - Experimental Translational and Clinical · doi:10.1177/2055217317747626 · Cited by 39
Does working memory improvement benefit from sleep in older adults?
Sattari, N. S., Whitehurst, L. N., Ahmadi, M., & Mednick, S. C. (2019) · Neurobiology of Sleep and Circadian Rhythms · doi:10.1016/j.nbscr.2019.01.001 · Cited by 40
Narrowing the achievement gap in low-achieving children by targeted executive function training
Wang, C., Jaeggi, S. M., Yang, L., Zhang, T., He, X., Buschkuehl, M., & Zhang, Q. (2019) · Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2019.06.002 · Cited by 43
Self-citationMiró‐Padilla, A., Bueichekú, E., & Ávila, C. (2020) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-020-62067-y · Cited by 36
A Review of the Effects of Abacus Training on Cognitive Functions and Neural Systems in Humans
Wang, C. (2020) · Frontiers in Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnins.2020.00913 · Cited by 46
“In addition, some recent meta-analyses and reviews differ in their conclusions on the beneficial effects of many training programs including working memory training (Au et al., 2015; Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016), video-game training (Wang et al.”
BackgroundCui, X., Zhang, S., Yu, S., Ding, Q., & Li, X. (2024) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.brat.2024.104549 · Cited by 37
Ballester‐Plané, J., Laporta‐Hoyos, O., Macaya, A., Póo, P., Meléndez-Plumed, M., Méndez, E. V., Delgado, I., Zubiaurre‐Elorza, L., Narberhaus, A., Tamargo, E. T., et al. (2016) · Research in Developmental Disabilities · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2016.04.009 · Cited by 34
Stojanoski, B. B., Lyons, K., Pearce, A., & Owen, A. M. (2018) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2018.07.013 · Cited by 41
“, 2008; Tulbure and Siberescu, 2013), to performance gains on unrelated cognitive tasks and domains (far transfer;(Au et al., 2014; Caeyenberghs et al., 2016; Chein and Morrison, 2010; Jaeggi et al., 2008; Morrison and Chein, 2010).”
King, M., Kelly, L. P., Wallack, E. M., Hasan, S. M. M., Kirkland, M. C., Curtis, M. E., Chatterjee, T., McCarthy, J., & Ploughman, M. (2019) · Neurological Research · doi:10.1080/01616412.2018.1564451 · Cited by 36
“Indeed, the prefrontal [74,75] and parietal [5] cortices are areas thought to be important for fluid intelligence [65].”
BackgroundA Review of Working Memory Training in the Management of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Al-Saad, M. S. H., Al-Jabri, B. A., & Almarzouki, A. F. (2021) · Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnbeh.2021.686873 · Cited by 45
Pahor, A., Seitz, A. R., & Jaeggi, S. M. (2022) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-022-01384-w · Cited by 40
Self-citationPattern of Near Transfer Effects Following Working Memory Training With a Dual N-Back Task
Soveri, A., Karlsson, E. P. A., Waris, O., Grönholm-Nyman, P., & Laine, M. (2017) · Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1027/1618-3169/a000370 · Cited by 34
“Au, Buschkuehl, Duncan, and Jaeggi (2016) have later responded to this critique by maintaining that the discrepancy between effect sizes in the Au et al. (2015) and Melby-Lervåg and Hulme (2015) analyses is mainly related to differences in meta-analytic decisions, regarding, for example, effect…”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialEffects of cognitive training on the structure of intelligence
Protzko, J. (2016) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-016-1196-1 · Cited by 37
Gordon, S. C., Todder, D., Deutsch, I., Garbi, D., Alkoby, O., Shriki, O., Rabani, A. S., Shahar, N., & Meiran, N. (2019) · Psychological Research · doi:10.1007/s00426-019-01170-w · Cited by 36
Yu, R. W. L., & Chan, A. H. S. (2021) · Applied Ergonomics · doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2021.103477 · Cited by 33
Küper, K., & Karbach, J. (2016) · Journal of Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1080/20445911.2015.1118106 · Cited by 33
“A recent meta-analysis by Au et al. (2014) similarly found a small but significant transfer effect from n-back training to fluid intelligence which was equivalent for single and dual versions of the task.”
BackgroundInfluentialThe influence of media exposure on anxiety and working memory during lockdown period in Italy.
Fabio, R. A., & Suriano, R. (2021) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph18179279 · Cited by 33
“The n indicates the load factor, a variable number that can be adjusted up or down, respectively, to increase or decrease the cognitive load and to make the task more or less difficult [42].”
BackgroundNiklas, F., Cohrssen, C., & Tayler, C. (2015) · Early Childhood Education Journal · doi:10.1007/s10643-015-0726-1 · Cited by 33
“The ability to reason, form concepts and solve problems, whilst simultaneously incorporating novel information and rules, can be described as fluid reasoning (Au et al. 2015).”
BackgroundKüper, K., Gajewski, P. D., Frieg, C., & Falkenstein, M. (2017) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2017.00184 · Cited by 35
“Cognitive training regimen which focus on a single domain or task, such as working memory or task switching, have been shown to consistently improve performance in the trained task (for meta-analyses, see Karbach and Verhaeghen, 2014; Lampit et al., 2014b; Au et al., 2015).”
BackgroundMost evidence for the compensation account of cognitive training is unreliable
Smoleń, T., Jastrzębski, J., Estrada, E., & Chuderski, A. (2018) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/s13421-018-0839-z · Cited by 33
The effect of monetary compensation on cognitive training outcomes
Katz, B., Jaeggi, S. M., Buschkuehl, M., Shah, P., & Jonides, J. (2018) · Learning and Motivation · doi:10.1016/j.lmot.2017.12.002 · Cited by 31
Self-citationIs adaptive control in language production mediated by learning?
Freund, M. C., & Nozari, N. (2018) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2018.03.009 · Cited by 35
Enhanced decision-making through multimodal training
Zwilling, C. E., Daugherty, A. M., Hillman, C. H., Kramer, A. F., Cohen, N. J., & Barbey, A. K. (2019) · npj Science of Learning · doi:10.1038/s41539-019-0049-x · Cited by 38
Derakhshan, N. (2020) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-816660-4.00012-x · Cited by 36
Takeuchi, H., Magistro, D., Kotozaki, Y., Motoki, K., Nejad, K. K., Nouchi, R., Jeong, H., Sato, C., Sessa, S., Nagatomi, R., et al. (2020) · Neural Plasticity · doi:10.1155/2020/3859824 · Cited by 33
“[11] and nonverbal reasoning [12, 13], and the observed”
BackgroundEstrada, E., Ferrer, E. E., Abad, F. J., Román, F. J., & Colom, R. (2015) · Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.intell.2015.02.004 · Cited by 34
“The meta-analysis by Au et al. (2014), focused on reports analyzing the effect of cognitive training programs based on the n-back task, showed a positive, albeit small, impact on fluid intelligence measures.”
Buckley, J., Seery, N., Canty, D., & Gumaelius, L. (2018) · International Journal of Educational Research · doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2018.05.007 · Cited by 32
“Finally, while there is currently contention surrounding the possibility of developing fluid intelligence through cognitive interventions (Au et al., 2015), the possibility to develop the constructs of visualization and inductive reasoning may both contribute to this debate and to students’…”
BackgroundAdaptive working memory training does not produce transfer effects in cognition and neuroimaging
Ripp, I., Emch, M., Wu, Q., Lizarraga, A., Udale, R., von Bastian, C. C., Koch, K., & Yakushev, I. (2022) · Translational Psychiatry · doi:10.1038/s41398-022-02272-7 · Cited by 41
“[16] reported a small, but significant positive transfer effect on fluid intelligence in healthy young adults.”
BackgroundFikkers, K. M., Piotrowski, J. T., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2019) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1093/joc/jqz003 · Cited by 31
“Most gaming studies either measure fluid intelligence via intelligence (sub)tests (the approach taken in this study) or via related cognitive constructs, such as working memory, executive function, visuospatial skills, or problem solving (see, for example, Au et al., 2015; Powers et al., 2013).”
BackgroundGray matter responsiveness to adaptive working memory training: a surface-based morphometry study
Román, F. J., Lewis, L. B., Chen, C., Karama, S., Burgaleta, M., Martínez, K., Lepage, C., Jaeggi, S. M., Evans, A. C., Kremen, W. S., et al. (2015) · Brain Structure and Function · doi:10.1007/s00429-015-1168-7 · Cited by 34
“The recent meta-analysis by Au et al. (2014) concluded that cognitive training programs based on the n-back task has a positive impact on fluid intelligence (d = 0.24: 3.6 IQ points).”
BackgroundInfluentialSelf-citationMomi, D., Smeralda, C. L., Sprugnoli, G., Ferrone, S., Rossi, S., Rossi, A., Lorenzo, G. D., & Santarnecchi, E. (2018) · Behavioural Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2018.06.013 · Cited by 30
“Even though a debate about the validity of a no-contact control condition for videogame training is open [35], several evidences have shown how any game induces game type-specific cognitive and brain changes (e.”
Kolskår, K. K., Richard, G., Alnæs, D., Dørum, E. S., Sanders, A., Ulrichsen, K. M., Sánchez, J. M., Ihle‐Hansen, H., Formoe, H., Nordvik, J. E., et al. (2020) · Human Brain Mapping · doi:10.1002/hbm.25284 · Cited by 28
“A recent meta-analysis revealed small but significant improvements on cognitive functioning in response to CCT in healthy participants (Au et al., 2015).”
The brain-games conundrum: does cognitive training really sharpen the mind?
Boot, W. R., & Kramer, A. F. (2014) · PubMed · Cited by 30
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
