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 301–400 of 658
The Effects of Sustained Literacy Engagement on Cognition and Sentence Processing Among Older Adults
Stine‐Morrow, E. A. L., McCall, G. S., Manavbasi, I. E., Ng, S., Llano, D. A., & Barbey, A. K. (2022) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.923795 · Cited by 22
Factors for optimizing intervention programs for cognition in older adults: the value of exergames
Perrot, A., & Maillot, P. (2023) · npj Aging · doi:10.1038/s41514-023-00103-7 · Cited by 19
Ischemic Stroke and Six Genetic Variants in CRP, EPHX2, FGA, and NOTCH3 Genes: A Meta-Analysis
González‐Giraldo, Y., Barreto, G. E., Fava, C., & Forero, D. A. (2016) · Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases · doi:10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2016.05.020 · Cited by 17
Can brain games help smokers quit?: Results of a randomized clinical trial
Loughead, J., Falcone, M., Wileyto, E. P., Albelda, B., Audrain-McGovern, J. E., Cao, W., Kurtz, M. M., Gur, R. C., & Lerman, C. E. (2016) · Drug and Alcohol Dependence · doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2016.08.621 · Cited by 17
“Some studies suggest that cognitive training targeting working memory and other executive functions can also improve measures of general fluid intelligence and transfer to other cognitive or behavioral outcomes (Au et al., 2015; McGurk et al., 2015, 2007).”
BackgroundN-Back Task Training Helps to Improve Post-error Performance
Li, Q., Long, Q., Hu, N., Tang, Y., & Chen, A. (2020) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00370 · Cited by 17
Lebedev, A. V., Nilsson, J., Lindström, J., Fredborg, W., Akenine, U., Hillilä, C., Andersen, P., Spulber, G., de Lange, E. C. M., van den Berg, D.-J., et al. (2020) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-020-62172-y · Cited by 18
Exploring Individual Differences as Predictors of Performance Change During Dual-N-Back Training
Ørskov, P. T., Norup, A., Beatty, E. L., & Jaeggi, S. M. (2021) · Journal of Cognitive Enhancement · doi:10.1007/s41465-021-00216-5 · Cited by 18
Self-citationWorking Memory and Memory Loss in Neurodegenerative Disease
Sandry, J. D. (2015) · Neurodegenerative Disease Management · doi:10.2217/nmt.14.51 · Cited by 17
Virtuous Play: The Ethics, Pleasures, and Burdens of Brain Training
Wade, M. (2018) · Science as Culture · doi:10.1080/09505431.2018.1458828 · Cited by 20
“Compelling evidence of efficacy remains elusive though, with some studies suggesting moderate improvement in cognitive function (Smith et al. 2009; Au et al. 2015; Corbett et al., 2015), while others find no evidence of generalizable benefit (Owen et al., 2010; Melby-Lervag and Hulme, 2013; Simons…”
BackgroundCubillo, A., Hermes, H., Berger, E., et al. (2020) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2020.11.19.390427 · Cited by 17
Wu, Q., Ripp, I., Emch, M., & Koch, K. (2021) · Human Brain Mapping · doi:10.1002/hbm.25412 · Cited by 16
“…that WM training induced improvements in WM (i.e., trained tasks) as well as in untrained tasks (e.g., inhibition performance or fluid intelligence; Au et al., 2015; This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use,…”
BackgroundTu, C., Nurymov, Y., Umirzakova, Z., & Berestova, A. (2021) · Thinking Skills and Creativity · doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100841 · Cited by 16
RetractedXia, X., Yuan, P., Zhao, X., Jia, F. R., Li, B., & Cai, P. (2024) · Journal of Alzheimer s Disease Reports · doi:10.3233/adr-230137 · Cited by 16
Urbánek, T., & Marček, V. (2015) · Psychological Research · doi:10.1007/s00426-015-0687-4 · Cited by 18
“Meta-analytical studies differ in the conclusion on the presence (Au et al., 2014; Karbach & Verhaeghen, 2014; Schwaighofer, Fischer & Bühner, 2015) or absence of transfer effects (Melby-Lervåg & Hulme, 2013), emphasizing the inconclusiveness of results and the heterogeneity and shortcomings of different methodologies.”
Arithmetic Training Does Not Improve Approximate Number System Acuity
Lindskog, M., Winman, A., & Poom, L. (2016) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01634 · Cited by 14
“Castronovo and Göbel (2012), for example, found a difference in arithmetic ability between university psychology and mathematics students. However, there was no difference in ANS acuity between these groups, and there was no correlation between mathematical ability and ANS acuity. This study, however, used a paradigm…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialA New Framework of Design and Continuous Evaluation to Improve Brain Training
Seitz, A. R. (2017) · Journal of Cognitive Enhancement · doi:10.1007/s41465-017-0058-8 · Cited by 17
“, 2014), improved working memory skills (Au et al., 2015), improved planning and organization skills (Bul et al.”
BackgroundThe predictors of academic interest: fluid intelligence, openness, and their interaction
Zhang, J., Dong, Z., & Yang, X. (2018) · Educational Psychology · doi:10.1080/01443410.2018.1514103 · Cited by 17
Attitudes and Beliefs Toward Computerized Cognitive Training in the General Population
Goghari, V. M., Krzyzanowski, D. J., Yoon, S. J., Dai, Y., & Toews, D. M. (2020) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00503 · Cited by 18
McLoughlin, S., Tyndall, I. T., Pereira, A., & Mulhern, T. (2020) · Journal of Cognitive Enhancement · doi:10.1007/s41465-020-00187-z · Cited by 18
“A meta-analysis conducted by Au et al. (2015) reported that the most notable attempt at raising intelligence with working memory training (N-Back training) yielded a 2–3 point mean rise in IQ across several studies (Au et al., 2015), and even this small increase is disputed (Sala & Gobet, 2017d).”
MethodResultInfluentialRapists and Child Abusers Share Low Levels in Executive Updating, but Do not in Fluid Reasoning
Herrero, Ó., Escorial, S., & Colom, R. (2018) · The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context · doi:10.5093/ejpalc2018a10 · Cited by 16
“…that adaptive cognitive training programs based on the N-Back Task (tapping mainly updating processes) might improve fluid intelligence performance (Au et al., 2014), we suggest that current sex offender treatment programs would benefit from the design and administration of these cognitive…”
BackgroundBarrantes, R., & Vargas, E. (2019) · The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries · doi:10.1002/isd2.12105 · Cited by 16
“However, different studies show that these may be overcome with constant training (Au et al., 2015).”
BackgroundShani, R., Tal, S., Derakshan, N., Cohen, N., Enock, P. M., McNally, R. J., Mor, N., Daches, S., Williams, A. D., Yiend, J., et al. (2021) · Journal of Psychiatric Research · doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2021.03.043 · Cited by 18
Fukumoto, H., Shimoda, M., & Hoshino, S. (2024) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0307934 · Cited by 21
Aasvik, J. K., Woodhouse, A., Stiles, T. C., Jacobsen, H. B., Landmark, T., Glette, M., Borchgrevink, P. C., & Landrø, N. I. (2017) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.02003 · Cited by 16
“Transfer of training effects is a debated topic, and although there are some promising results (Klingberg et al., 2002, 2005; Westerberg et al., 2007; Jaeggi et al., 2008; Brehmer et al., 2012; Salminen et al., 2012; Anguera et al., 2013; Au et al., 2015; Waris et al., 2015), some also report negative findings (Owen e…”
ResultMoral Framing and Mechanisms Influence Public Willingness to Optimize Cognition
Haslam, M., Yaden, D. B., & Medaglia, J. D. (2020) · Journal of Cognitive Enhancement · doi:10.1007/s41465-020-00190-4 · Cited by 14
Working Memory Training in Adolescents Decreases Laboratory Risk Taking in the Presence of Peers
Rosenbaum, G. M., Botdorf, M., Patrianakos, J. L., Steinberg, L. D., & Chein, J. M. (2017) · Journal of Cognitive Enhancement · doi:10.1007/s41465-017-0045-0 · Cited by 14
“…from WMT in performance on measures thought to assess various aspects of self-regulatory control, including response selection, inhibition, planning, and attentional control (Au et al. 2015; Borella et al. 2010; Karbach and Verhaeghen 2014; Morrison and Chein 2011; Salminen et al. 2012).”
Improving innovative decision-making: Training-induced changes in fronto-parietal networks
Crespi, C., Martinez, D. L., Dodich, A., Cappa, S. F., Brusoni, S., Zollo, M., Falini, A., & Canessa, N. (2018) · Brain and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2018.11.004 · Cited by 16
“…studies reported that training working memory can also improve individual performance on complex cognitive abilities such as fluid intelligence (Au et al., 2015; Jaeggi, Buschkuehl, Jonides, & Perrig, 2008; Jaeggi et al., 2011), reading (Chein & Morrison, 2010; García-Madruga et al., 2013;…”
Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for preventing Alzheimer’s disease
Reid, L. D., Avens, F. E., & Walf, A. A. (2017) · Behavioural Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2017.07.024 · Cited by 16
Vartanian, O., Replete, V., Saint, S. A., Lam, Q., Forbes, S., Beaudoin, M. E., Brunyé, T. T., Bryant, D. J., Feltman, K. A., Heaton, K. J., et al. (2022) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.868001 · Cited by 15
Zhang, B., & Robb, N. (2021) · SAGE Open · doi:10.1177/21582440211014507 · Cited by 16
“WM is the ability to temporarily store, process, and manipulate information during mental activities (Au et al., 2015; Jaeggi et al., 2010b).”
BackgroundInfluentialChronotype, Time of Day, and Performance on Intelligence Tests in the School Setting
Jankowski, K. S., Díaz‐Morales, J. F., & Vollmer, C. (2023) · Journal of Intelligence · doi:10.3390/jintelligence11010013 · Cited by 13
Microplastics in lentic environments: implications for Indian ecosystems
Sau, D., Hazra, T., & Shiuly, A. (2023) · Environmental Science and Pollution Research · doi:10.1007/s11356-023-30604-7 · Cited by 13
“It may reduce predation efficiency (de Sá et al. 2015) and hinder the growth of organisms (Au et al. 2015b).”
BackgroundTraining working memory updating in young adults
Linares, R., Borella, E., Lechuga, M. T., Carretti, B., & Pelegrina, S. (2017) · Psychological Research · doi:10.1007/s00426-017-0843-0 · Cited by 14
“Some meta-analyses seem to support the idea that WM training can be effective to enhance other cognitive skills in adulthood (Au et al. 2015) and in old age (Karbach and Verhaeghen 2014).”
BackgroundPull the Andon Rope on Working Memory Capacity Interventions Until We Know More
Gillam, S. L., Holbrook, S., Mecham, J., & Weller, D. (2018) · Language Speech and Hearing Services in Schools · doi:10.1044/2018_lshss-17-0121 · Cited by 15
Du, X., Ji, Y., Chen, T., Tang, Y., & Han, B. (2018) · Psychology and Aging · doi:10.1037/pag0000311 · Cited by 15
Beyond IQ: The Importance of Metacognition for the Promotion of Global Wellbeing
Varshney, L. R., & Barbey, A. K. (2021) · Journal of Intelligence · doi:10.3390/jintelligence9040054 · Cited by 15
“…indicates that training of executive functions can promote specific cognitive skills (e.g., inhibition, interference control, and working memory) but typically does not generalize to improvements beyond the trained tasks (Au et al. 2014; Simons et al. 2016; Soveri et al. 2017; Butler et al. 2018).”
BackgroundShahar, N., & Meiran, N. (2015) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0119992 · Cited by 14
“Second and not less importantly, a recent meta-analysis of workingmemory training in young adults [58] indicated that although control-group type (active vs.”
MethodResultMusical Training: Contributions to Executive Function
Okada, B. M., & Slevc, L. R. (2016) · University Libraries (University of Maryland) · doi:10.13016/m2gm81p70 · Cited by 15
“…2010; Jaeggi, Buschkuehl, Jonides, & Perrig, 2008), although it is debatable whether these programs lead to improvements extending beyond the specific EF skill trained (particularly regarding fluid intelligence; e.g., Au et al., 2015; Dougherty, Hamovitz, & Tidwell, 2015; Owen et al., 2010).”
BackgroundEvidence Against Combined Effects of Stress and Brain Stimulation on Working Memory
Friehs, M. A., & Frings, C. (2020) · Open Psychology · doi:10.1515/psych-2020-0004 · Cited by 14
“Secondly, there is evidence that n-back training improves task-specific performance (Au et al., 2015; Brem et al., 2018; Soveri, Antfolk, Karlsson, Salo, & Laine, 2017).”
BackgroundDoes Blindness Boost Working Memory? A Natural Experiment and Cross-Cultural Study
Rindermann, H., Ackermann, A. L., & Nijenhuis, J. T. (2020) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01571 · Cited by 15
McLoughlin, S., Tyndall, I. T., & Pereira, A. (2020) · Journal of Behavioral Education · doi:10.1007/s10864-020-09399-x · Cited by 16
Cognitive contributions to differences in learning after moderate to severe traumatic brain injury
Chiou, K. S., Sandry, J. D., & Chiaravalloti, N. D. (2015) · Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology · doi:10.1080/13803395.2015.1078293 · Cited by 18
“Importantly, this area of research is controversial with studies in support of (Au et al., 2015; Karbach & Verhaegen, 2014) and in opposition to (Dougherty, Hamovitz, & Tidwell, 2015; MelbyLervåg & Hulme, 2013, 2015; Shipstead, Lindsey, Marshall, & Engle, 2012) cognitive benefits resulting from…”
ResultThorens, G., Billieux, J., Mégevand, P., ZULLINO, D. F., Rothen, S., Achab, S., & Khazaal, Y. (2016) · Frontiers in Psychiatry · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2016.00167 · Cited by 16
Blasi, V., Zanette, M., Baglio, G., Giangiacomo, A., Tella, S. D., Canevini, M. P., Walder, M., Clerici, M., Baglio, F., & the BIF Group (2020) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00679 · Cited by 14
“A metanalysis on the topic showed effective changes in cognitive skills in adults (Au et al., 2015), while another claimed that working memory training produced only short-term effects that do not generalize to tasks remote from the trained ability (Melby-Lervag et al.”
BackgroundSenter, R., Chow, J. C., & Willis, E. C. (2022) · Language Speech and Hearing Services in Schools · doi:10.1044/2022_lshss-22-00013 · Cited by 18
Wang, L., Sheng, A., Chang, L., & Zhou, R. (2022) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1025036 · Cited by 14
“…the training effect to fluid intelligence by improving inhibition control (Kane et al., 2001; Engle, 2002; Klingberg et al., 2002; Klingberg, 2010; Au et al., 2015; Greenwood and Parasuraman, 2015; Au et al., 2016; Ye et al., 2018), which is a core component of the executive function of…”
BackgroundFar-Transfer Effects of Strategy-Based Working Memory Training
Chan, S., Mueller, U., & Masson, M. E. J. (2019) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01285 · Cited by 15
“WM has been linked to general intelligence and reasoning skills (Süß et al., 2002; Kane et al., 2004; Au et al., 2015), and shown to be predictive of academic outcomes such as school readiness and achievement (Bull and Lee, 2014; Müller and Kerns, 2015).”
BackgroundFabio, R. A., Ingrassia, M., & Massa, M. (2021) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph19010078 · Cited by 14
“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 [34].”
BackgroundMarois, A., & Lafond, D. (2022) · Cognition Technology & Work · doi:10.1007/s10111-022-00715-1 · Cited by 16
Lange, S., & Süß, H. (2015) · Applied Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1002/acp.3126 · Cited by 13
The Efficacy of the LearningRx Cognitive Training Program: Modality and Transfer Effects
Hill, O. W., Serpell, Z. N., & Faison, M. O. (2015) · The Journal of Experimental Education · doi:10.1080/00220973.2015.1065218 · Cited by 14
Zhou, H., Geng, F., Wang, T.-F., Wang, C., Xie, Y., Hu, Y., & Chen, F. (2020) · Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2020.02.033 · Cited by 11
Longitudinal white matter changes associated with cognitive training
Nichols, E. S., Erez, J., Stojanoski, B. B., Lyons, K., Witt, S. T., Mace, C., Khalid, S., & Owen, A. M. (2021) · Human Brain Mapping · doi:10.1002/hbm.25580 · Cited by 16
Könen, T., Strobach, T., & Karbach, J. (2016) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-42662-4_6 · Cited by 14
Computerized and Adaptable Tests to Measure Visuospatial Abilities in STEM Students
Castro-Alonso, J. C., Ayres, P., & PAAS, F. G. W. C. (2017) · Advances in intelligent systems and computing · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-60018-5_33 · Cited by 12
No evidence that working memory training alters gray matter structure: A MRI surface -based analysis
Lawlor‐Savage, L., Clark, C. M., & Goghari, V. M. (2018) · Behavioural Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2018.12.008 · Cited by 13
Introduction: Cognitive Foundations for Improving Mathematical Learning
Geary, D. C., Berch, D. B., & Koepke, K. M. (2019) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-815952-1.00001-3 · Cited by 22
Better cognitive efficiency is associated with increased experimental anxiety
Grillon, C., Lago, T. R., Stahl, S., Beale, A. M., Balderston, N. L., & Ernst, M. (2020) · Psychophysiology · doi:10.1111/psyp.13559 · Cited by 13
“, verbal WM), or that any effect can last over time (Au et al., 2015; Melby-Lervåg, Redick, & Hulme, 2016).”
BackgroundTurtola, Z. P., & Covey, T. J. (2020) · Experimental Neurology · doi:10.1016/j.expneurol.2020.113487 · Cited by 11
Improving Language Acquisition and Processing With Cognitive Stimulation
Tapia, J. L., & Duñabeitia, J. A. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.663773 · Cited by 16
“…on improvements in the tasks or domains directly worked (i.e., near transfer effects; see van Heugten et al., 2016, for review), but far transfer effects have been also reported, although to a lesser degree [see Dahlin et al. (2008), Hardy et al. (2015); see Au et al. (2015), for a meta-analysis].”
BackgroundNeural correlates of enhanced executive functions: is less more?
Putkinen, V., & Saarikivi, K. (2018) · Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1111/nyas.13645 · Cited by 12
Exploring the n-back task: insights, applications, and future directions
Huang, S., Chen, C., Mo, Y., Zhao, Y., Zhu, Y., Dong, K., & Xu, T. (2025) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2025.1721330 · Cited by 20
“The TE of n-back to Gf [ g = 0.16, (0.08, 0.24), p 0.001] is in line with that in (Au et al., 2015).”
InfluentialVAR: A Battery of Computer-Based Instruments to Measure Visuospatial Processing
Castro-Alonso, J. C., Ayres, P., & PAAS, F. G. W. C. (2019) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-20969-8_8 · Cited by 11
Wang, H., Zhang, G., Lin, H., Sun, J., Yan, R., Meng, H., Hu, S., & Zhu, H. (2024) · Energy and Buildings · doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2024.115188 · Cited by 11
A Machine Learning Approach to Personalize Computerized Cognitive Training Interventions
Vladisauskas, M., Belloli, L. M. L., Slezak, D. F., & Goldin, A. P. (2022) · Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.3389/frai.2022.788605 · Cited by 11
Lustig, C., & Lin, Z. (2015) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-411469-2.00008-x · Cited by 11
Ariës, R. J. F. J., Ghysels, J., Groot, W. N. J., & van den Brink, H. M. (2016) · Thinking Skills and Creativity · doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2016.10.008 · Cited by 15
Wotherspoon, J., Whittingham, K., Boyd, R. N., & Sheffield, J. K. (2019) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028505 · Cited by 12
“Some researchers have hypothesised that gains in WM could transfer into gains in fluid intelligence.(33) 34 Research into this area is ongoing, and results are mixed.”
BackgroundNeurophysiological indices of the transfer of cognitive training gains to untrained tasks
Wang, X., & Covey, T. J. (2020) · Neurobiology of Learning and Memory · doi:10.1016/j.nlm.2020.107205 · Cited by 10
Hogrefe, A. B., Studer-Luethi, B., Kodzhabashev, S. T., & Perrig, W. J. (2017) · Journal of Cognitive Enhancement · doi:10.1007/s41465-017-0042-3 · Cited by 11
“This development reflects a direct consequence of inconsistent training study outcomes and meta-analytic approaches that contradict each other in their main conclusions (Au et al. 2014; Melby-Lervåg et al. 2016).”
ResultCognitive Abilities and Financial Decision Making
Sobków, A., Garrido, D., & García‐Retamero, R. (2020) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-45500-2_4 · Cited by 11
Parameters, Not Processes, Explain General Intelligence
Oberauer, K. (2016) · Psychological Inquiry · doi:10.1080/1047840x.2016.1181999 · Cited by 11
“Repeated waves of optimism regarding this possibility have been met regularly with a sobering lack of robust and reproducible transfer of training on measures of general intelligence (Au et al., 2015; Melby-Lerva g & Hulme, 2016; Spitz, 1986; von Bastian & Oberauer, 2014).”
BackgroundEditorial: Cognitive and Brain Aging: Interventions to Promote Well-Being in Old Age
Baldwin, C. L., & Greenwood, P. M. (2020) · Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnagi.2019.00353 · Cited by 11
Cai, D., Zhao, J., Chen, Z., & Liu, D. (2022) · Journal of Learning Disabilities · doi:10.1177/00222194221117513 · Cited by 12
The Impact of Working-Memory Training on Children’s Cognitive and Noncognitive Skills
Berger, E., Fehr, E., Hermes, H., Schunk, D., & Winkel, K. (2024) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/732884 · Cited by 22
Grinschgl, S., Ninaus, M., Wood, G. M. D. O., & Neubauer, A. C. (2025) · Physics of Life Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.plrev.2025.05.002 · Cited by 12
Working memory training does not improve executive functioning or fluid intelligence
Rodas, J. A., & Greene, C. M. (2021) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1177/17470218211039502 · Cited by 10
“Email: jose.rodas@ucdconnect.ie most attention, probably due to the significant gains in Gf reported by many studies (for a meta-analysis, see Au et al., 2015).”
BackgroundHuang, D., Yan, S., Shen, S., Lv, S., Lai, S., Zhong, S., & Jia, Y. (2022) · Journal of Psychiatric Research · doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2022.09.049 · Cited by 11
Transparency in Cognitive Training Meta-analyses: A Meta-review
Sandoval‐Lentisco, A., López‐Nicolás, R., Tortajada, M., López-López, J. A., & Sánchez‐Meca, J. (2024) · Neuropsychology Review · doi:10.1007/s11065-024-09638-2 · Cited by 10
“…at least 10 sessions (Giustiniani et al., 2022; Scionti et al., 2020), at least 20 sessions (Spencer-Smith & Klingberg, 2015), at least 1 week (Au et al., 2015), at least 2 weeks (Schwaighofer et al., 2015), from 4 to 12 weeks (Dardiotis et al., 2018), at least 12 weeks (Gates et al., 2020),…”
Tsai, N., Au, J., & Jaeggi, S. M. (2016) · Bilingual processing and acquisition · doi:10.1075/bpa.3.04tsa · Cited by 9
Self-citationStrong, R. W., & Alvarez, G. A. (2017) · Journal of Vision · doi:10.1167/17.4.4 · Cited by 9
“…following their extended break (potentially producing performance gains beyond test-retest improvement), this possibility is very unlikely given that active controls typically perform more similarly to training subjects than nocontact controls (Melby-Lervåg & Hulme, 2013; Au et al., 2015).”
BackgroundEye gaze patterns reveal how reasoning skills improve with experience
Guerra-Carrillo, B., & Bunge, S. A. (2018) · npj Science of Learning · doi:10.1038/s41539-018-0035-8 · Cited by 9
Kang, H., An, S. C., Kim, N. O., Sung, M., Kang, Y.-J., Lee, U. S., & Yang, H. (2020) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00931 · Cited by 13
Takeuchi, H., Maruyama, T., Taki, Y., Motoki, K., Jeong, H., Kotozaki, Y., Shinada, T., Nakagawa, S., Nouchi, R., Iizuka, K., et al. (2020) · Brain Imaging and Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11682-020-00324-4 · Cited by 15
“In addition, meta-analysis showed only small associations of training sessions with effect sizes for far transfer effects among the conducted working memory studies (Au et al. 2014).”
BackgroundAmico, G., & Schaefer, S. (2019) · Journal of Cognitive Enhancement · doi:10.1007/s41465-019-00124-9 · Cited by 11
Mate Marote: Video Games to Stimulate the Development of Cognitive Processes
Nin, V., Goldin, A. P., & Carboni, A. (2019) · IEEE Revista Iberoamericana de Tecnologias del Aprendizaje · doi:10.1109/rita.2019.2909958 · Cited by 11
Jaquerod, M. E., Mesrobian, S. K., Villa, A. E. P., Bader, M., & Lintas, A. (2020) · Brain Sciences · doi:10.3390/brainsci10010038 · Cited by 11
“In addition to increase in dual n-back scores in controls, we observed that WMT improved performance in the WAIS-IV Digit Span in agreement with previous studies [39,65,66].”
ResultChen, J., Kwok, A. P. K., & Li, Y. (2023) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2023.1219022 · Cited by 10
Chartier, C., Godard, J., Durand, S., Humeau‐Heurtier, A., Ménétrier, E., Allain, P., & Besnard, J. (2024) · Neurological Sciences · doi:10.1007/s10072-024-07808-x · Cited by 10
“When there were more than five sessions per week (intensive training), training was less efficient, as it could induce cognitive fatigue, excessive stress, and less adherence in intervention activities, especially for highly challenging training [61, 62].”
BackgroundNoguchi, Y., Ito, M., Mushika, M., Ito, T., & Kawamura, N. (2020) · Renal Replacement Therapy · doi:10.1186/s41100-020-00288-7 · Cited by 9
Peckham, A., Sandler, J. P., Dattolico, D., McHugh, R. K., Johnson, D. S., Björgvinsson, Þ., Pizzagalli, D. A., & Beard, C. (2021) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.brat.2021.103968 · Cited by 8
Intelligence Can Be Used to Make a More Equitable Society but Only When Properly Defined and Applied
Holden, L. R., & Hart, S. A. (2021) · Journal of Intelligence · doi:10.3390/jintelligence9040057 · Cited by 7
Menu, I., Rezende, G., Stanc, L. L., Borst, G., & Cachia, A. (2022) · Cognitive Development · doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2022.101231 · Cited by 14
Zhu, D., Zhu, B., Zhao, J., Zhang, C., He, J., Song, D., & Han, T. (2024) · Games for Health Journal · doi:10.1089/g4h.2022.0183 · Cited by 9
Inteligência e desempenho escolar em crianças entre 6 e 11 anos
de Freitas, P. M. (2018) · Revista Psicologia em Pesquisa · doi:10.24879/201800120010085 · Cited by 9
The role of fluid reasoning in word recognition
Guerin, J. M., Sylvia, A. M., Yolton, K. A., & Mano, Q. R. (2020) · Journal of Research in Reading · doi:10.1111/1467-9817.12287 · Cited by 11
Spawton-Rice, J. H., & Walker, Z. (2020) · Applied Neuropsychology Child · doi:10.1080/21622965.2020.1854094 · Cited by 10
Kim, J., Li, L., Korous, K. M., Valiente, C., & Tsethlikai, M. (2022) · Stress · doi:10.1080/10253890.2021.2024164 · Cited by 9
“Although findings regarding the effectiveness of EF interventions are mixed (Au et al., 2015), a growing number of studies have shown that short- and long-term training and activities designed to improve EF result in increases in various EF skills in early and late childhood (e.”
BackgroundThe prospects of working memory training for improving deductive reasoning
Beatty, E. L., & Vartanian, O. A. (2015) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2015.00056 · Cited by 9
“In addition, a recent meta-analysis demonstrated that training specifically on the n-back family of WM tasks leads to a small but positive effect on fluid intelligence (Au et al., 2014).”
BackgroundBrydges, C. R., Reid, C. L., Campbell, C., French, N., & Anderson, M. B. (2018) · Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.intell.2018.03.013 · Cited by 9
“…programs could be modified to be child-friendly in order to help minimise differences in EF and intelligence in children born VP, though it should be noted that results of these training programs are mixed (see Au et al., 2015, and Melby-Lervåg & Hulme, 2013, for contrasting meta-analyses).”
BackgroundResult
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
