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.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, it should be noted that not all of the active control groups in our analyses were of the same type.”
§ 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
“There is no difference in baseline ES between international and U.S. studies (International vs. U.S.: g = 0.03 vs. g = -0.03;p = .73)”
§ 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
“Training in the laboratory or at home did not make a difference either.”
§ 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.
In the paper
“we also calculated the classic fail-safe N test (Orwin, 1983), which revealed that it would take 59 studies reporting null results (g = 0) to be included in our analyses in order for our findings to lose statistical significance.”
§ 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 Orwin, 1983 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.
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 primary finding from this meta-analysis is a small but statistically significant net effect of n-back training on Gf outcome measures (g = 0.24, SE = .07),about the equivalent of 3-4 points on a standardized IQ test.”
- Also stated in: § Conclusions · boosted
“Our work demonstrates the efficacy of several weeks of nback training in improving performance on measures of Gf.”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Discussion
boosteddirect- 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.
- Also stated in: § Conclusions · boosted
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 present data suggest that every hundred dollars a subject is compensated reduces the ES of Gf transfer by .07.”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Discussion
hedgedcorrelational- 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 effect of remuneration for study participation (in units of hundreds of dollars) was significantly and negatively associated with Post ES (p = .05,b = -.07),controlling for baseline differences (Fig. 4).”
§ 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: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- 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
“To quantify this, we analyzed attrition rates reported in U.S. and international studies and found significant differences (U.S., 21%; International, 5%), t(34) = 2.0, p = .05,d = 0.52, across both treatment and control groups”
§ 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.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When we calculate the ES of pre-to posttest improvement separately for both treatment and control groups and take their difference, we obtain an almost identical overall effect (Tx ES -Ctrl ES = 0.41 -0.18 = 0.23).”
§ 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.
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
“there was no significant difference in performance between the active and passive control groups themselves (Table 1; Ctrl ES)”
§ 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
“Similarly, we saw fairly equal transfer both to matrix reasoning tasks (the most commonly used measure to assess Gf transfer) and to other types of Gf tasks”
§ 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: 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
“and these passively controlled studies also remunerated participants significantly less money, on average, for study participation ($61.75 vs. $220.50),t(14) = 2.23, p = .04,d = 0.87.”
§ 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.
In the paper
“One of the core processes driving Gf, as well as other higher cognitive abilities, is WM (Wiley, Jarosz, Cushen, & Colflesh, 2011).”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Wiley, Jarosz, Cushen, & Colflesh, 2011 source
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.
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
“Estimates report a shared variance of at least 50% (Kane, Hambrick, & Conway, 2005;Oberauer, Schulze, Wilhelm, & Suss, 2005)”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Abstract
What the sources say
hedgedcorrelational- 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 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
“Taken together, we expect that the results reported in this meta-analysis represent a low-end estimate of the true extent of improvement that n-back training can have on measures of Gf.”
§ 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.
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
“Our meta-analysis of n-back training studies in healthy young adults therefore shows an overall low to trivial amount of statistical heterogeneity.This makes sense, given our restricted analysis of only one intervention type (n-back) among only one subpopulation: healthy, young adults.”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Description of studies
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 claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“In our selection of Gf tasks, we followed previously published guidelines that include a list of common metrics that load strongly on Gf (Ackerman, Beier, & Boyle, 2005;Gray & Thompson, 2004).”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Coding
What the sources say
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.
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, the assumption of homogeneity may be premature.The relatively small sample sizes in our studies lead to wide, overlapping confidence intervals between studies (Fig. 2), which contribute toward the statistical assumption of homogeneity.”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Description of studies
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.
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
“With this in mind, two recent, widely publicized training studies used active controls and failed to find transfer to measures of Gf (Harrison et al., 2013;Redick et al., 2013).”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Abstract
What the sources say
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 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
“On theoretical grounds, the observed improvements are plausible”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Conclusions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could 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 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, although experimenter bias is always a prevalent concern in research, it did not significantly alter the ES of training across studies.”
§ 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 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
“In other words, the large gap between treatment groups and passive controls (Post ES) is not due to an underperforming of passive controls, relative to active ones, but rather to an overperforming of the treatment groups (Tx ES).”
§ 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.
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
“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.”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Abstract
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.
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
“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).”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Discussion
What the sources say
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.
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, there is no evidence to support the idea that Hawthorne effects mediate the findings of transfer in studies with passive controls.”
§ 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 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 that the observed effects are likely driven by other confounding variables within passively controlled studies other than the type of control group used.”
§ 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.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 28
- Probably not a substantial claim. 17
- The quote only partly states this claim. 2
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“However, evidence on transfer of improved WM into more general cognitive domains such as fluid intelligence (Gf) has been more equivocal.”
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
“Despite many promising studies (e.g., Jaeggi, Buschkuehl, Jonides, & Perrig, 2008;Rudebeck, Bor, Ormond, O'Reilly, & Lee, 2012;Stephenson & Halpern, 2013), the aforementioned quote reflects results from other well-controlled, rigorous attempts at replication that have failed to find transfer (Redick et al., 2013;Thompson et al., 2013).”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Redick et al., 2013 source
- Supportedcites Thompson et al., 2013 source
The Introduction reports both studies finding gains in fluid intelligence after working-memory training and studies finding no such gains. The Discussion (Implications for Working Memory Training) adds that three published replication attempts, including this study, failed to find transfer. Together, these passages support describing the evidence as equivocal. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“neuroimaging evidence has demonstrated functional overlap in the lateral prefrontal and parietal cortices, implicating shared neural resources that underlie both constructs (Burgess, Gray, Conway, & Braver, 2011).”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Abstract
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Burgess, Gray, Conway, & Braver, 2011 source
The Introduction’s “Common neural substrates” section identifies prefrontal and parietal regions as related to both fluid intelligence and working-memory span. The Abstract also reports that activity in dorsolateral prefrontal and parietal cortex correlated with both measures, supporting the claim of overlapping neural resources. Page numbers were not provided in the copy. (LLM, conf=0.93)
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Furthermore, we have previously described a dose-dependent relationship between training and transfer, such that more training leads to more gain (Jaeggi et al., 2008).”
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
“This relationship has been replicated in some studies (Basak, Boot, Voss, & Kramer, 2008;Dahlin, Backman, Neely, & Nyberg, 2009;Stepankova et al., 2014;Tomic & Klauer, 1996), but not others (Redick et al., 2013).”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Abstract
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Jaeggi et al., 2008 source
The Results report that transfer to fluid intelligence varied with training time (8, 12, 17, or 19 days). The Discussion explicitly calls the gain dose-responsive and says its amount depends on training time, supporting the statement attached to this citation. The verbatim citing sentence does not attribute the separate claim about replications in other studies to this paper. (LLM, conf=0.94)
- Partly supportedcites Basak, Boot, Voss, & Kramer, 2008 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The General Discussion reports that transfer benefits were mostly observed after 23.5 hours of video-game training, while about half that time was not enough. This supports a relationship between training time and transfer in this study, but the paper does not establish that the relationship was replicated in some studies but not others. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Redick et al., 2013 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although we did find a negative correlation, the effect lost significance (from p = .05to p = .22)after trimming outliers (SOM, Table S1).Nevertheless, the slope of the effect (-.07) remained the same”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In total, we included 20 studies in our analyses that met our criteria”
- Also stated in: § Study selection · plain
“In the end, 20 studies remained in the final meta-analysis (Fig. 2).”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Also stated in: § Study selection · plain
In the paper
“Egger's regression (Egger, Davey Smith, Schneider, & Minder, 1997), which is based on the association between standard error and ES, revealed no relationship (p = .68).”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Description of studies
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Egger, Davey Smith, Schneider, & Minder, 1997 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Passive control groups were mostly enrolled in international studies (10/12), as compared with active control groups (3/12)”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Both individually appeared to contribute toward the effect observed in passive controls and, together, reduced the ES gain caused by the condition of having a passive control from .31 to .09,rendering the p-value nonsignificant.”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Regression analyses
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: For the posttest effect size calculation, the authors assumed that treatment and control groups did not differ at pretest.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First is that these results are based on a restricted range of the general population: healthy, young adults between 18 and 50 years of age who were largely at the peak of cognitive functioning.Within this restricted range of young adults, the majority of participants were college undergraduates, thereby skewing our samples even younger (mean age ± SD: 22.85 ± 2.60).”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Some heterogeneity (I 2 = 27.88%,p = .08)was found in Tx ES, which only looked at improvements within the treatment groups, but this heterogeneity was largely controlled out in Post ES (I 2 = 6.92%, p = .37),which directly compares treatment to control groups at posttest.”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Description of studies
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In total, we analyzed data from 98 Gf outcome measures among 559 n-back trained participants and 463 controls.”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Description of studies
plainn = 559- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No other predictors reached significance, but session length (p = .06,b = -.03) and starting n-back level (p = .06,b = -.33) both correlated marginally and negatively with Post ES when outliers were removed (SOM, Table S1).”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Regression analyses
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: For the posttest effect size calculation, the authors assumed that treatment and control groups did not differ at pretest.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the effect lost significance when outliers were trimmed (p = .22,b = -.07;SOM, Table S1), although the slope remains the same.”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Regression analyses
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: For the posttest effect size calculation, the authors assumed that treatment and control groups did not differ at pretest.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The treatment/control group difference in Gf at posttest (g = 0.24, SE = 0.07) is significantly greater than the treatment/control group difference at baseline (g = -0.003,SE = 0.08; group difference: p = .03).”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Overall effect size
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: For the posttest effect size calculation, the authors assumed that treatment and control groups did not differ at pretest.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Transfer seemed to occur equally to both verbal and visual Gf tasks, although there were only a minority of studies that employed any form of verbal reasoning (n = 5), making this finding preliminary.”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Subgroup analyses
hedgedn = 5- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Importantly, the shortest session length in our sample was only 18.5 min”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With a baseline ES of essentially 0, we conclude that no preexisting differences are present at the group level between treatment and control groups.”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Overall effect size
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“large improvements were found in Tx ES (Table 1), which is calculated independently of the control group.”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“international (outside the U.S.) studies demonstrated an average ES of .44 (SE = .10),while U.S. studies only averaged .06(SE = .09).The difference is significant at the p < .01level.”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Subgroup analyses
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: For the posttest effect size calculation, the authors assumed that treatment and control groups did not differ at pretest.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our regression analysis equivocally supports this hypothesis.”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Discussion
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The 20 studies included here were all completed between 2008 and 2013.”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Description of studies
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Second, studies that used passive controls demonstrated more net transfer (g = 0.44, SE = .10)than those with active controls (g = 0.06, SE = .09),a difference that is also statistically significant at p < .01.”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Subgroup analyses
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: For the posttest effect size calculation, the authors assumed that treatment and control groups did not differ at pretest.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the SOM contains alternate regression models with trimmed outliers that revealed marginally significant negative trends between Gf transfer and both starting n-back level (p = .06)and session length (p = .06;Table S1).”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These factors, individually and together, account for a sizable portion of the passive control effect and reduce its estimated effect to the point of statistical insignificance (Table 3).”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“suggesting cultural differences in attrition that may be reflective of issues surrounding general compliance and investment in research.”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“even small improvements can have profound societal ramifications”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Conclusions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: Fluid intelligence is a fundamental cognitive ability that underpins many life functions.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These effects may contribute to differences not only between international and U.S. research participants, but also between methodological practices of researchers.”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A note of caution is warranted here regarding these regression results: given the heavy influence of outliers (SOM, Table S1) and the relatively small sample sizes, these results should be viewed as preliminary”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“so it is not clear what would happen below this data range.”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The former suggests that those who start with more room to improve (i.e., lower n-back level on day 1) may also gain the most.”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“There is a substantial body of literature available on the effects of culture on cognition (cf.Muggleton & Banissy, 2014).”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Muggleton & Banissy, 2014 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, while the precise nature of the effects of remuneration for n-back training are still unclear”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“While this does control for important test-retest practice effects, it does not control for potential motivational or Hawthorne effects associated with being enrolled in an intervention study (Shipstead, Redick, & Engle, 2012).”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Shipstead, Redick, & Engle, 2012 source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, due to the plurality of cultures (mostly European and American) represented in our meta-analysis, the precise reasons for the observed regional differences are not immediately clear.”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Percent agreement on the coding (interrater reliability) was high (94.14%),with κ = 0.88 (SE = 0.03) using a conservative expected agreement estimate of 50% (i.e., match or no match).”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Coding
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“thereby suggesting that the transfer of n-back training may not be restricted to matrix reasoning tests (Shipstead et al., 2012) but, rather, may reflect a more global improvement in Gf.”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Subgroup analyses
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Shipstead et al., 2012 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“thereby ruling out preexisting differences between cultures or differences in participant characteristics due to the highly selective universities in which certain U.S. studies were conducted.”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“It is important to note, however, that their active control groups did not improve over baseline, nor did they outperform their associated passive control groups, suggesting that the failure to find transfer was irrespective of control type.”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Abstract
What the sources say
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“this meta-analysis of 20 different studies, 30 different treatment groups, and 24 different control groups, with data collected from 98 different Gf outcome measures, is a first step toward providing this extraordinary evidence.”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Moreover, the effects of rewards and compensation on performance have an extensive body of literature behind them, which at times can also show mixed results (Cameron, Banko, & Pierce, 2001).”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Cameron, Banko, & Pierce, 2001 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The authors state this as an assumption.
For the posttest effect size calculation, the authors assumed that treatment and control groups did not differ at pretest.
“under the assumption that no group differences existed at pretest.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Fluid intelligence is a fundamental cognitive ability that underpins many life functions.
“Since Gf is a fundamental cognitive skill that underlies a wide range of life functions”
The paper relies on this without support.
The healthy young adults in the meta-analysis are representative of society's workforce.
“particularly given the healthy young adults in our analyses, representative of society's workforce.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Prior claims about n-back training's effect on fluid intelligence are usually based on single studies with methodological limitations.
“Although claims to date are ordinarily based on single studies, each with various methodological limitations”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“For example, the meta-analysis of Au et al. [16] reported a small, but significant positive transfer effect on fluid intelligence in healthy young adults.”
From Adaptive working memory training does not produce transfer effects in cognition and neuroimaging (2022) · cites this paper as [16]
In the citing paper
“Cognitive training has shown to have an impact on task performance and on fluid intelligence (Gf) tests [13-15].”
Statistics recomputed
Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.
- Consistentt(34) = 2reported p = .05 · recomputed p = .054
“t(34) = 2.0, p = .05”
- Consistentt(14) = 2.23reported p = .04 · recomputed p = .043
“t(14) = 2.23, p = .04”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Conclusions
“| Active Control | 12 | .06 (.09) | .01* | 13 | .25 (.10) | .04* | 12 | .08 (.10) | .20 | | Passive Control | 12 | .44 (.10) | | 17 | .54 (.90) | | 12 | .28 (.10) | |”
§ Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis > Subgroup analyses
“there was significant improvement in the performance of treatment groups (Tx ES; p = .04)within those studies that also use passive controls.”
Citations
Cites
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 · Cited by 63,139
Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 · Cited by 56,722
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009) · doi:10.1002/9780470743386 · Cited by 14,225
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2021) · doi:10.1002/9781119558378 · Cited by 9,799
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.627 · Cited by 7,176 · cited 1×
“This idea is based on a broader literature demonstrating negative effects of extrinsic rewards (e.g., money) on intrinsic motivation (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999).”
(2005) · PubMed · Cited by 7,011
Grit: perseverance and passion for long-term goals
Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.1087 · Cited by 6,911
Effect size estimates: Current use, calculations, and interpretation.
Fritz, C. O., Morris, P. E., & Richler, J. J. (2012) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/a0024338 · Cited by 5,199 · cited 1×
“A common property of statistics holds that sampling from restricted ranges of the total population usually biases ES downward, due to reduced variability (Bobko, Roth, & Bobko, 2001; Fritz, Morris, & Richler, 2012).”
Meta-Analytic Procedures for Social Research
Rosenthal, R. (1991) · doi:10.4135/9781412984997 · Cited by 4,635
Meta-Analytic Procedures for Social Research.
Metcalfe, A., & Rosenthal, R. (1994) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series D (The Statistician) · doi:10.2307/2348600 · Cited by 4,249
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Borenstein, M., Higgins, J., & Rothstein, H. (2005). Comprehensive meta-analysis version 2. Englewood: Biostat.
- Dunst, C. J., Hamby, D. W., & Trivette, C. M. (2004). Guidelines for Calculating Effect Sizes for Practice-Based Research Syntheses. Centerscope, 3(1), 1–10.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Do “brain-training” programs work?
Simons, D. J., Boot, W. R., Charness, N., Gathercole, S. E., Chabris, C. F., Hambrick, D. Z., & Stine-Morrow, E. A. L. (2016) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1177/1529100616661983 · Cited by 1,183
“Several recent meta-analyses have grappled with the conflicting evidence that complex span training can enhance Gf (Au et al., 2014; Karbach & Verhaeghen, 2014; Melby-Lervåg & Hulme, 2013), but they have drawn conflicting conclusions.”
BackgroundMethodDiamond, A., & Ling, D. S. (2016) · Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.dcn.2015.11.005 · Cited by 1,177
“Au et al. (2015) add another interesting dimension into the mix. hey found an inverse relationship between the size of the extrinsic eward for participating in training (i.e., the amount of money subects were offered for participating) and how much N-back training mproved reasoning.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialMelby-Lervåg, M., Redick, T. S., & Hulme, C. (2016) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691616635612 · Cited by 983
Anxiety and working memory capacity: A meta-analysis and narrative review.
Moran, T. P. (2016) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000051 · Cited by 776
Neurocognitive Architecture of Working Memory
Eriksson, J., Vogel, E. K., Lansner, A., Bergström, F., & Nyberg, L. H. (2015) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2015.09.020 · Cited by 709
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
