The DOI matches its Crossref record; 85 of the 85 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 13 of the 50 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
The efficacy of working memory (WM) training has been a controversial and hotly debated issue during the past years. Despite a large number of training studies and several meta-analyses, the matter has not yet been solved. We conducted a multi-level meta-analysis on the cognitive transfer effects in healthy adults who have been administered WM updating training with n-back tasks, the most common experimental WM training paradigm. Thanks to this methodological approach that has not been employed in previous meta-analyses in this field, we were able to include effect sizes from all relevant tasks used in the original studies. Altogether 203 effect sizes were derived from 33 published, randomized, controlled trials. In contrast to earlier meta-analyses, we separated task-specific transfer (here untrained n-back tasks) from other WM transfer tasks. Two additional cognitive domains of transfer that we analyzed consisted of fluid intelligence (Gf) and cognitive control tasks. A medium-sized transfer effect was observed to untrained n-back tasks. For other WM tasks, Gf, and cognitive control, the effect sizes were of similar size and very small. Moderator analyses showed no effects of age, training dose, training type (single vs. dual), or WM and Gf transfer task contents (verbal vs. visuospatial). We conclude that a substantial part of transfer following WM training with the n-back task is task-specific and discuss the implications of the results to WM training research.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This multi-level meta-analysis of 33 randomized controlled n-back training studies in healthy adults found a medium-sized transfer effect to untrained n-back tasks but only very small effects to other WM, cognitive control, and fluid intelligence tasks. The authors conclude that much of n-back training transfer is task-specific rather than evidence of broad working memory improvement.
Key findings
- Across 203 effect sizes (190 after data screening) from 33 studies, 41 experiments, and 2,105 participants, transfer was largest to untrained n-back tasks: g = 0.62 [0.44, 0.81], p < .001; other WM tasks: g = 0.24 [0.16, 0.32], p < .001; cognitive control: g = 0.16 [0.05, 0.27], p < .001; and Gf: g = 0.16 [0.08, 0.24], p < .001. The n-back effect differed from all other domains (all ps < .001), while the other domains did not differ from each other (all ps ≥ .134).
- Moderator analyses showed no effects of age, training dose (sessions or hours), training type (single vs. dual n-back), or WM/Gf transfer task materials (verbal vs. nonverbal); for example, training type: QM(1) = 2.19, g = 0.09 [−0.03, 0.21], p = .139; age: QM(1) = 0.07, g = 0.03 [−0.17, 0.22], p = .794.
- Within studies that used both control types, active and passive control groups did not differ in pre-post change, g = 0.03 [−0.07, 0.12], p = .429. When control type was included as a covariate, passive-control studies showed a slightly higher estimated training effect, g = 0.11 [0.00, 0.22], p = .048; after controlling, n-back remained g = 0.59, WM g = 0.18, cognitive control g = 0.08 (p = .202), and Gf g = 0.11 (p > .05).
- A reanalysis of healthy-adult data from Melby-Lervåg et al. (2016) found that untrained versions of the training tasks showed a stronger effect, g = 0.62 [0.38, 0.86], than other WM tasks, g = 0.21 [0.08, 0.33], QM(1) = 8.89, p < .01.
Methods
- Multi-level meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials of n-back training in healthy adults. Searches of PubMed, PsycINFO, Google Scholar, Google, and ERIC (initial February 2015; updated July 2015, February 2016, October 2016) required pretest-posttest designs, n-back-only training, active control training not targeting WM, and transfer measures in n-back, WM, Gf, or cognitive control. Final sample: 33 studies, 41 experiments, 103 groups, 2,105 participants, and 203 training effects (190 after screening).
- Effect sizes were within-group pre-post standardized mean changes (SMCR) converted to between-group training effects (g_BETWEEN). A three-level model included random intercepts for experiment and for measure within experiment (ICC = 0.499); pre-post correlations were available for 406 of 507 within-sample comparisons, deduced or conservatively estimated for 80 of the remaining 101, and set to 0 when unavailable. Moderators included control type, training type, training dose, transfer materials, and age. Publication bias was assessed with contour-enhanced funnel plots, residual funnel plots, and PET-PEESE regressions.
Limitations
- Stated: the meta-analysis focused on only one WM training type (n-back), limiting conclusions to n-back training; the limited number of available studies prevented investigating transfer to other cognitive domains and all moderator analyses for all four domains (e.g., material-specific transfer was investigated only for WM and Gf); interactions between moderators were not investigated.
- Evident from the text: the sample was restricted to healthy adults, so findings may not generalize to clinical samples, children, or other WM training paradigms; reliance on author-provided or estimated pre-post correlations for many effect sizes may affect precision; and publication-bias assessment was complicated by dependent effect sizes and the multilevel structure, leading the authors to use visual inspection and PET-PEESE rather than p-curve or trim-and-fill.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
59 Own result · 17 Own method · 17 Own interpretation · 14 No full text of the sources · 7 No basis given · 6 Partly supported · 5 Sources not found · 3 Supported so far · 2 Supported · 1 Not supported · accuracy not yet measured
At least one cited source doesn’t support this claim or points to a different paper, and none confirmed it — see the verdicts below.
In the paper
“Third, meta-analytic near transfer measures have lumped together untrained WM tasks that differ from the training tasks only by their stimuli and WM tasks that are structurally different from the training tasks”
§ Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies > Background for the present study
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Melby-Lervåg & Hulme, 2013 source
- Disputedcites Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Method section (Search, Inclusion Criteria and Coding; page not available) says this meta-analysis separated near-transfer tests similar or identical to trained tasks from an intermediate category of other working-memory measures. It does not lump those categories together as the claim says. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Schwaighofer et al., 2015 source
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.
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“For example, the meta-analysis by Melby-Lervåg et al. (2016) included studies that were not randomized, controlled trials.”
§ Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies > Previous meta-analyses on working memory training
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016 source
The Method section (Search, Inclusion Criteria and Coding; page unavailable) says eligible studies could be randomized or quasi-experiments. Its Moderator Variables section also says studies were coded as randomized or nonrandomized, confirming that the meta-analysis was not limited to randomized controlled trials. (LLM, conf=0.94)
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.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“As is evident from the short review above, there is some disagreement between the previous meta-analyses, particularly regarding the size of the near transfer effects.”
§ Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies > Previous meta-analyses on working memory training
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Melby-Lervåg & Hulme, 2013 source
- Partly supportedcites Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Prior Reviews of Working Memory Training section (page unavailable) says earlier reviews reached seemingly conflicting conclusions. The Results section on near transfer (page unavailable) reports that effect sizes vary across studies, but does not establish that previous meta-analyses disagreed particularly about the size of near-transfer effects. (LLM, conf=0.79)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Schwaighofer et al., 2015 source
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.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The pooled effect size for all types of WM tasks was g = 0.29 [0.18, 0.40] p < 0.001.”
§ Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies > Main analyses
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Melby-Lervåg et al. (2016) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results section on immediate intermediate transfer reports significant improvements on verbal and visuo-spatial working-memory measures. But the Method section says treated and untreated controls were analyzed separately, and the passages do not report a pooled estimate across all working-memory tasks of g = 0.29, 95% CI [0.18, 0.40], p < 0.001. That reanalysis result cannot be verified from this paper's text. (LLM, conf=0.84)
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.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“a recent study showed that n-back tasks are in fact highly correlated with other WM tasks at a latent level (Schmiedek et al., 2014).”
§ Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies > Main analyses
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Schmiedek et al., 2014 source
The Discussion reports that, after accounting for measurement error and content-specific variance, latent factors for n-back and complex span tasks correlated substantially (r = 0.69) in both younger and older adults. It also describes high latent correlations among n-back, memory updating, and complex span tasks. The claim accurately paraphrases those findings. (LLM, conf=0.94)
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
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Also for Gf, the present transfer effect size is roughly in line with the three previous meta-analyses investigating transfer to Gf from n-back training (Au et al., 2015;Melby-Lervåg & Hulme, 2016;Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016).”
§ Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies > Main analyses
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Au et al., 2015
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Supportedcites Melby-Lervåg & Hulme, 2016 source
The Results section (page unavailable in our copy) reports a meta-analytic estimate for transfer from n-back training to nonverbal ability, making this paper an appropriate citation for a prior analysis of that transfer. It reports g = 0.15 with treated controls, falling to g = 0.10 after a problematic study is removed. The citing paper’s own effect size is not given here, so the numerical comparison itself cannot be checked against this source alone. (LLM, conf=0.87)
- Supportedcites Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016 source
The Results section (page unavailable in our copy) reports this meta-analysis’s estimate for transfer from n-back training to nonverbal ability: g = 0.15 with treated controls. It also notes that the estimate falls to g = 0.10 after removing a problematic study. The source is therefore one of the prior meta-analyses the citing sentence identifies, although the citing study’s own effect size cannot be compared from this source alone. (LLM, conf=0.88)
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 authors state this as an assumption: Missing pre-post correlations can be set to zero, treating pre- and posttest measures as independent groups.
- Not matched
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
“Moderator analyses showed no effects of age, training dose, training type (single vs. dual), or WM and Gf transfer task contents (verbal vs. visuospatial).”
§ Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies > 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.
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
“A medium-sized transfer effect was observed to untrained n-back tasks.”
§ Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies > Abstract
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
“Moderator analyses showed no effects of age, training dose, training type (single vs. dual), or WM and Gf transfer task contents (verbal vs. visuospatial).”
§ Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies > Abstract
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
“Moderator analyses showed no effects of age, training dose, training type (single vs. dual), or WM and Gf transfer task contents (verbal vs. visuospatial).”
§ Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies > Abstract
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.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 22
- It may state two separate claims as one. 27
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
“The concurrent validity of the n-back task, however, has been questioned as previous studies have reported low correlations between the n-back task and other WM tasks, especially complex span tasks”
§ Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies > Background for the present study
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Miller, Price, Okun, Montijo, & Bowers, 2009 source
- Supportedcites Redick & Lindsey, 2013 source
The “N-back task measures of WM” section reports that previous studies found nonsignificant-to-weak correlations between n-back and complex span tasks. The “Implications for WM research” section says the meta-analysis likewise found the two tasks weakly correlated, supporting the concern about their concurrent validity. (LLM, conf=0.92)
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.
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
“The results from these meta-analyses (Table 1) with both clinical and healthy samples of children and adults showed that WM training can produce small to large short-term near transfer effects (verbal and visuospatial WM tasks) and null to small effects of transfer to verbal and visuospatial reasoning (or fluid intelligence; Gf) tasks.”
§ Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies > Previous meta-analyses on working memory training
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Melby-Lervåg & Hulme, 2013 source
- Supportedcites Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016 source
The Results sections on immediate transfer report significant, moderate effects on verbal and visuo-spatial working-memory measures, with variation across studies, and large effects on tasks similar or identical to those trained. The Results on far transfer report effects close to zero and nonsignificant for nonverbal and verbal ability in studies with treated controls (pages not available in our copy). The paper therefore supports the citing sentence’s broad contrast, although its pooled working-memory effects are described as moderate rather than uniformly spanning small to large. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Weicker et al., 2016 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.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The transfer effect to untrained WM tasks as a whole is approximately of the same size as in the n-back training analyses by Melby-Lervåg et al. (2016; when averaged across verbal and nonverbal WM and active and passive control groups) but considerably smaller than in the other metaanalyses not focusing specifically on n-back training”
§ Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies > Main analyses
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Melby-Lervåg et al. (2016) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results section on immediate intermediate transfer reports moderate effects on verbal and visuospatial working-memory measures, and the Methods section lists n-back as a training category. The passages do not give the n-back-specific estimates needed to verify the claimed average across task types and control groups. The comparison with the citing paper’s own effect cannot be checked from this source alone. (LLM, conf=0.75)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Melby-Lervåg & Hulme, 2013 source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Weicker et al., 2016 source
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: Missing pre-post correlations can be set to zero, treating pre- and posttest measures as independent groups.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“the effect size was significantly stronger, Q M (1) = 8.89, p < 0.01, for the former, g = 0.62 [0.38, 0.86] p < 0.001 (number of effect sizes = 19), than the latter, g = 0.21, [0.08, 0.33] p < 0.01 (number of effect sizes = 70).”
§ Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies > Main analyses
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Melby-Lervåg et al. (2016) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 1 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
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.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“However, more novel and promising methods, such as p-curve (Simonsohn, Nelson, & Simmons, 2014) and variations of Egger's regression (Egger, Smith, Schneider, & Minder, 1997;Moreno et al., 2009), have been found to perform better than the trim and fill method.”
§ Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies > Calculation of effect sizes
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Simonsohn et al., 2014 source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Egger et al., 1997 source
- Partly supportedcites Moreno et al., 2009 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Abstract (Methods and Results) says several regression-based methods outperformed Trim & Fill, and the Conclusion identifies an Egger variant among the promising methods. But the comparison concerns adjustment for publication bias, not performance in detecting it. The sentence cites Simonsohn et al., rather than Moreno et al., for p-curve. (LLM, conf=0.88)
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.
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
“On the whole, this is in line with the previous meta-analyses (Melby-Lervåg & Hulme, 2013;Schwaighofer et al., 2015;Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016).”
§ Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies > Moderator analyses
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Melby-Lervåg & Hulme, 2013 source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Schwaighofer et al., 2015 source
- Supportedcites Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016 source
The Prior Reviews of Working Memory Training section identifies this paper as an updated meta-analysis. Its Conclusions say the pattern of results is consistent with an earlier review, supporting the citation’s use of it as a previous meta-analysis in line with the citing authors’ finding. The citing sentence does not specify what that finding was, so a more specific comparison cannot be checked. (LLM, conf=0.90)
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 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
“For other WM tasks, Gf, and cognitive control, the effect sizes were of similar size and very small.”
§ Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies > 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.
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
“A meta-analysis of the prepost correlations showed that the correlations were r = 0.659 (k = 203, p < 0.001) for the pre-post measures in the training group, r = 0.649 (k = 94, p < 0.001) for the pre-post measures in the active control group, and r = 0.656 (k = 109, p < 0.001) for the pre-post measures in the passive control groups.”
§ Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies > Data coding
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.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Missing pre-post correlations can be set to zero, treating pre- and posttest measures as independent groups.
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 507 within-group effect sizes yielded 305 betweengroups effect sizes (i.e., comparisons between a training group and a control group within an experiment).”
§ Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies > Calculation of effect sizes
plaindirect- 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 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 test between the single-and two-level models was significant (LRT = 24.34,p < 0.001), and so was the test between the two-and three level models (LRT = 12.34, p < 0.001).”
§ Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies > Calculation of effect sizes
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
“We thus excluded 13 of the originally 203 effect sizes”
§ Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies > Data screening and assessment of publication bias
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 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 present meta-analysis included 203 training effects (190 after data screening) from 33 studies.These studies consisted of 41 unique experiments.In total, data were obtained from 2,105 individuals.”
§ Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies > Main analyses
plainn = 2,105- 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
“Neither did we find any effect of hours of training, Q M (1) = 0.03, g = 0.01 [-0.12, 0.14], p = 0.872, and g = g = 0.00 [-0.12, 0.12], p = 0.981 with cognitive domain as a covariate.”
§ Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies > Efficacy of N-back training in different training contexts
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
“We found no effect of age, Q M (1) = 0.07, g = 0.03 [-0.17, 0.22], p = 0.794.Adding cognitive domain as a covariate to the analysis did not alter the effect, g = 0.02 [-0.16, 0.20], p = 0.834.”
§ Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies > Efficacy of N-back training in different training contexts
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
“We did not find any effect of the number of sessions, Q M (1) = 0.02, g = -0.01[-0.13, 0.12], p = 0.902, and g = -0.03[-0.14, 0.09], p = 0.685, with cognitive domain as a covariate.”
§ Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies > Efficacy of N-back training in different training contexts
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
“For Gf the effect size was g = 0.11, p > 0.05.”
§ Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies > Control 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.
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, in the present study, the only noteworthy transfer effect was seen to untrained n-back tasks, while transfer to other tasks was at similar, very small levels.”
§ Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies > Mechanisms behind transfer
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
“In these funnel plots, asymmetry is a little more apparent.For cognitive control and Gf, there is a group of effect sizes with high SE that show higher effect sizes than the aggregated effect size for that domain.”
§ Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies > Data screening and assessment of publication bias
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.
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 study sample consisted of 33 studies, including 41 experiments, with, in total, 103 experiment groups.Of these groups, 54 (52.4%) were training groups and 49 (47.6%) were control groups.Twenty-three (42.6%) of the training groups practiced with a single n-back task, 30 (55.6%) with a dual n-back task, and 1 (1.9%) with a triple n-back task.Twenty (40.8%) of the control groups were active, and”
§ Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies > Descriptive results
plainn = 49- 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
“While there was some asymmetry, there was no obvious pattern of statistically significant effect sizes being preferred over nonsignificant effect sizes.”
§ Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies > Data screening and assessment of publication bias
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
“The present meta-analysis on the efficacy of n-back training shows medium transfer effects to untrained versions of the trained n-back tasks and small transfer effects to other WM tasks, cognitive control, and Gf.”
§ Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies > Conclusions
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.
- Rests on an assumption: The transfer tasks categorized as measuring working memory, fluid intelligence, or cognitive control validly measure those constructs.
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
“Previous studies comparing the effects of single and dual nback training have shown that both task versions seem to be equally effective in producing generalization and that the transfer effects are fairly similar”
§ Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies > Background for the present study
What the sources say
hedged- 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
“We conducted a multi-level meta-analysis on the cognitive transfer effects in healthy adults who have been administered WM updating training with n-back tasks”
§ Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies > 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.
- Rests on an assumption: n-back tasks are the most commonly used computerized experimental WM training paradigm.
In the paper
“Nevertheless, a recent study showed that at a latent level, the n-back task is highly correlated with other WM tasks (complex spans, WM updating tasks, and sorting spans; Schmiedek, Lövdén, & Lindenberger, 2014).”
§ Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies > Background for the present study
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Schmiedek, Lövdén, & Lindenberger, 2014
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: 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.
- Not matched
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
“First, as mentioned, limiting the sources of variability (here training method, age, and health status) should yield results that are easier to interpret.”
§ Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies > Background for the present study
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no 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
“Also, simple span tasks, such as the digit span, were considered WM measures in the Melby-Lervåg and Hulme (2013) study, whereas the other meta-analyses coded simple spans as measures of short-term memory (STM; Schwaighofer et al., 2015;Weicker et al., 2016) or excluded them completely from the analyses (Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016).”
§ Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies > Previous meta-analyses on working memory training
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.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Cognitive control was included as a transfer domain because earlier studies suggest that WM is closely related to other executive functions (Miyake et al., 2000).”
§ Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies > Structure of the present meta-analysis
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Miyake et al., 2000 source
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.
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
“The coding of transfer tasks into cognitive domains (i.e., task-specific transfer as measured by n-back, WM, cognitive control, and Gf), and materials (i.e., verbal vs. nonverbal), was based on consensus decisions by three of the authors (A.S., M.L., and L.K.).”
§ Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies > Data 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.
In the paper
“Following the current discussion on the effects of the type of control group (Au et al., 2016), we compared active and passive controls only within studies (comparing active and passive control groups within those studies that have employed both).”
§ Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies > Structure of the present meta-analysis
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Au et al., 2016
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
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.
- Not matched
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
“Therefore, we made use of a multilevel meta-analytical approach to include effect sizes for all pertinent tasks from the original studies while accounting for the fact that these effect sizes came from the same sample.”
§ Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies > Structure of the present meta-analysis
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.
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
“The interrater agreement was 97.1% for the 34 group size values, 100.0%for the 284 mean vales, and 99.6% for the 284 standard deviation values in the ten studies.”
§ Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies > Data coding
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.
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
“In the present meta-analysis, we were able to include all measures from the original studies by employing a multilevel metaanalytical approach, and thereby having less risk of biasing the estimated training effect.”
§ Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies > Background for the present study
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.
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
“We also used the type of control group as a covariate in our analysis of the training effect, thereby considering the potential influence of the type of control group used in an experiment.”
§ Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies > Structure of the present meta-analysis
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.
In the paper
“First, Melby-Lervåg & Hulme (2013) who reported the highest effects of near transfer, in some cases included the training task in their analyses, resulting in an overestimation of the near transfer effect.”
§ Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies > Main analyses
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Melby-Lervåg & Hulme (2013) 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.
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
“The results from the main analyses showed a moderate effect of task-specific transfer to untrained n-back tasks and very small transfer effects to other untrained WM measures, cognitive control, and Gf.”
- Also stated in: § Main analyses · plain
“In sum, in the present meta-analysis, the only notable transfer effect is seen to untrained n-back tasks.Despite the fact that the transfer effects to the other domains are also statistically significant, they can be considered very small.”
§ Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies > Main analyses
plaindirectn = 2,105 ·- 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: Missing pre-post correlations can be set to zero, treating pre- and posttest measures as independent groups.
- Also stated in: § Main analyses · plain
In the paper
“it has been argued that simple and complex spans (the latter ones being included both in previous metaanalyses and the present one) can in fact be considered as measures of the same cognitive processes (Unsworth & Engle, 2007).”
§ Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies > Main analyses
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Unsworth & Engle, 2007 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.
Probably not a substantial claim.
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
“A failure to make a distinction between task-specific and other WM transfer not only inflates effect sizes for near transfer, but may even lead one to a wrong track when searching for theoretical explanations for WM training effects (i.e., assuming that WM training increases the effectiveness of WM in general, rather than considering also alternative hypotheses on strategy-based effects).”
§ Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies > Directions for future 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.
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
“again in line with most of the previous meta-analyses”
§ Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies > Moderator analyses
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
“We concur with what Shipstead, Hicks, and Engle (2012) stated 4 years ago: BWorking memory training remains a work in progress.^”
§ Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies > Directions for future studies
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Shipstead, Hicks, and Engle (2012) source
plain- 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.
In the paper
“However, Weicker et al. (2016) found that the number of training sessions was positively related to the size of the transfer effect to WM.”
§ Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies > Moderator analyses
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Weicker et al. (2016) source
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.
In the paper
“Furthermore, future studies should pave a way to a theory of the processes involved in a training-induced change in WM, a theory that is currently missing (Gibson, Gondoli, Johnson, Steeger, & Morrissey, 2012).”
§ Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies > Directions for future studies
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Gibson, Gondoli, Johnson, Steeger, & Morrissey, 2012 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.
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
“These simplifications limit each experiment to one single comparison between a training group and a control group per measure.This eliminates dependency between comparisons within an experiment that would reuse training or control groups.”
§ Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies > Calculation of effect sizes
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.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“While the present meta-analysis focused on n-back training in healthy adults, the Weicker et al. (2016) meta-analysis included studies investigating all kinds of WM training paradigms in both healthy and clinical samples of children and adults.”
§ Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies > Moderator analyses
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Weicker et al. (2016) 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.
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
“For the same reason, we could not perform all the moderator analyses for all four cognitive domains (e.g., material-specific aspects of transfer were investigated only for WM and Gf), and we refrained from investigating interactions between moderators.”
§ Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies > Limitations of the present study
hedged- 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
“in line with the Au et al. (2015) meta-analysis”
§ Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies > Moderator analyses
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Au et al. (2015)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
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.
- Not matched
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
“overly conservative estimates for the standard errors cannot be included in analyses where the standard errors are of primary interest, such as a publication bias analysis.”
§ Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies > Data 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.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Missing pre-post correlations can be set to zero, treating pre- and posttest measures as independent groups.
The paper relies on this without support.
n-back tasks are the most commonly used computerized experimental WM training paradigm.
“the most commonly used computerized experimental WM training paradigm, namely with n-back tasks”
The paper relies on this without support.
The n-back task is one of the most commonly used working memory training paradigms.
“We examined the efficacy of one of the most commonly used WM training paradigms, namely the n-back task.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Experiments within the same study can be treated as independent samples.
“for the sake of parsimony we did not model the dependency between experiments within the same study, but treated all 41 experiments as independent samples”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Missing pre-post correlations can be set to zero, treating pre- and posttest measures as independent groups.
“Where we were unable to estimate the correlation, we entered 0 as a correlation, essentially treating the pre-and posttest measures as independent groups.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Task-specific improvement can enhance performance only on tasks with a similar structure where the same strategies can be successfully employed.
“This is because taskspecific improvement can enhance performance only on tasks with a similar structure where the same strategies can be succesfully employed.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The transfer tasks categorized as measuring working memory, fluid intelligence, or cognitive control validly measure those constructs.
“Transfer effects to other tasks (whether they measure WM, Gf, or cognitive control), albeit being observable, are small and apparently of little practical significance.”
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 doesn’t support the claim as written.
In the citing paper
“Three of the included studies had participants less than 18 years of age (Soveri et al. 2017; Vermeir et al. 2020; Gathercole et al. 2019), and all studies had participants who were older than 55 years of age.”
From Examining Working Memory Training for Healthy Adults—A Second-Order Meta-Analysis (2024) · cites this paper as Soveri et al. 2017
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“persistent critiques of these theories’ explanatory limitations have been reported by meta-analyses (Soveri et al., 2017a; You et al., 2021).”
From The asymmetry of working memory training transfer: A systematic review and meta-analysis (2026) · cites this paper as Soveri et al., 2017a
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Multiple studies suggest a small, measurable, positive effect of training on WM capacity”
From Examining Working Memory Training for Healthy Adults—A Second-Order Meta-Analysis (2024) · cites this paper as Soveri et al. 2017
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“several meta-analyses of working memory training studies have demonstrated that near transfer effects are both more readily observable and show larger effect sizes than far transfer effects13,14.”
From Near transfer to an unrelated N-back task mediates the effect of N-back working memory training on matrix reasoning (2022) · cites this paper as [13]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Transfer to untrained N-back tasks is often not reported therefore information is often missing about what participants learned, and thus, the extent of learning on measures of transfer remains unknown.”
From Near transfer to an unrelated N-back task mediates the effect of N-back working memory training on matrix reasoning (2022) · cites this paper as [13]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“However, subsequent meta-analyses did not find any significant far transfer effects [5, 13, 17], especially when the effects of WM training were compared with an active control group, that is, a group practicing tasks with little WM demands.”
From Adaptive working memory training does not produce transfer effects in cognition and neuroimaging (2022) · cites this paper as [5]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Critically, meta-analyses that explicitly distinguish between the types of a control group typically report a lack of far, sometimes also near, transfer effects [5, 15, 17].”
From Adaptive working memory training does not produce transfer effects in cognition and neuroimaging (2022) · cites this paper as [5]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“early meta-analytic work reported positive associations between training amount and transfer effects (Weicker et al., 2016), whereas later syntheses reported little or no moderation by total training hours (Soveri et al., 2017a), or effects that were largely confined to the nearest transfer outcomes (You et al., 2021).”
From The asymmetry of working memory training transfer: A systematic review and meta-analysis (2026) · cites this paper as Soveri et al., 2017a
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Unlike most previous meta-analyses, which examined transfer from one trained WM paradigm to a broad range of outcomes (Sala et al., 2019a; Soveri et al., 2017a), we focused exclusively on studies reporting span-to-updating or updating-to-span transfer.”
From The asymmetry of working memory training transfer: A systematic review and meta-analysis (2026) · cites this paper as Soveri et al., 2017a
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“This suggests that the transfer advantage does not simply scale with the amount of training, which is consistent with previous meta-analytic evidence showing no reliable dose-transfer relationship (Au et al., 2015; Soveri et al., 2017a).”
From The asymmetry of working memory training transfer: A systematic review and meta-analysis (2026) · cites this paper as Soveri et al., 2017a
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“research has found that working memory training produces a near-transfer effect, a transfer effect on a task similar to the training task (Melby-Lervåg and Hulme 2013; Sala et al. 2019; Soveri et al. 2017).”
From Examining Working Memory Training for Healthy Adults—A Second-Order Meta-Analysis (2024) · cites this paper as Soveri et al. 2017
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“While there is little doubt that N-back training leads to improved performance on untrained N-back tasks13,25–27”
From Near transfer to an unrelated N-back task mediates the effect of N-back working memory training on matrix reasoning (2022) · cites this paper as [13]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“For example, in a meta-analysis of WM training studies13, 35 experiments measured fluid intelligence, 28 experiments assessed WM, including tasks that correlate poorly with the N-back24, but only 9 experiments also included untrained N-back tasks.”
From Near transfer to an unrelated N-back task mediates the effect of N-back working memory training on matrix reasoning (2022) · cites this paper as [13]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“However, more recent meta-analyses that distinguished between nearest and near transfer effects found significantly greater effect sizes for the former, suggesting that WM training may mainly yield task-specific transfer rather than a general improvement in WM [5, 15].”
From Adaptive working memory training does not produce transfer effects in cognition and neuroimaging (2022) · cites this paper as [5]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“N-back training is one of the most extensively studied forms of WM training [5].”
From Adaptive working memory training does not produce transfer effects in cognition and neuroimaging (2022) · cites this paper as [5]
In the citing paper
“the most recent meta-analysis on a popular WM training approach, namely training with adaptive n-back tasks, found that more substantial near transfer effects are even more limited, involving only WM tasks that are structurally similar to the trained tasks8.”
From The early effects of external and internal strategies on working memory updating training (2018) · cites this paper as [8]
In the citing paper
“The present transfer pattern echoes the one typically seen after ordinary adaptive WM training that takes several weeks8.”
From The early effects of external and internal strategies on working memory updating training (2018) · cites this paper as [8]
In the citing paper
“the present results also indicate that strategy instruction with just a single training session can yield a transfer pattern that mimics the one identified after ordinary 4–6-week long adaptive WM training7,8.”
From The early effects of external and internal strategies on working memory updating training (2018) · cites this paper as [8]
In the citing paper
“Transfer to untrained n-back tasks following n-back training is common (e.g., Soveri et al., 2017).”
From Are Working Memory Training Effects Paradigm-Specific? (2019) · cites this paper as Soveri et al., 2017
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
§ Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies > Abstract
“Altogether 203 effect sizes were derived from 33 published, randomized, controlled trials.”
§ Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies > Method Literature search and criteria for inclusion
“Moreover, a yet unpublished study conducted by two of the authors (Soveri, Karlsson, Waris, Grönholm-Nyman, & Laine, submitted) of the present meta-analysis was included.”
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
§ Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies > Calculation of effect sizes
“Six of the 33 studies (i.e., articles, theses, or manuscripts) contained more than one experiment.”
§ Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies > Calculation of effect sizes
“The experiments in the four studies that had more than one experiment were too few to allow us to estimate the variance between experiments within studies.”
Citations
Cites
R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing
R Core Team (2000) · doi:10.32614/r.manuals · Cited by 355,893
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 · cited 1×
“Another feasible explanation is systematic heterogeneity due to moderators (Egger et al. 1997).”
BackgroundConducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor Package
Viechtbauer, W. (2010) · Journal of Statistical Software · doi:10.18637/jss.v036.i03 · Cited by 20,464 · cited 2×
“All effect sizes were calculated and all meta-analyses were conducted using the Metafor package (Viechtbauer, 2010) for R (R Core Team, 2008).”
MethodMiyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1006/cogp.1999.0734 · Cited by 15,798 · cited 1×
“…transfer as measured by untrained versions of the n-back task, WM as represented by other than n-back tasks, cognitive control, and Gf. Cognitive control was included as a transfer domain because earlier studies suggest that WM is closely related to other executive functions (Miyake et al., 2000).”
ResultDuval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000) · Biometrics · doi:10.1111/j.0006-341x.2000.00455.x · Cited by 14,099 · cited 1×
“One of the most often used among these methods is the Btrim and fill^ method (Duval & Tweedie, 2000).”
MethodThe episodic buffer: a new component of working memory?
Baddeley, A. (2000) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/s1364-6613(00)01538-2 · Cited by 7,359 · cited 1×
“As a system for shortterm maintenance and manipulation of task-relevant information (Baddeley, 2000), WM is inherently involved in all higher-level cognitive activities.”
BackgroundThe Neuropsychological Assessment
Ogden, J. A. (2005) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780195171358.003.0002 · Cited by 4,382
Working Memory Capacity as Executive Attention
Engle, R. W. (2002) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00160 · Cited by 2,507
Publication Bias in Meta‐Analysis: Prevention, Assessment and Adjustments
(2005) · doi:10.1002/0470870168 · Cited by 2,368
Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory
Jaeggi, S. M., Buschkuehl, M., Jonides, J., & Perrig, W. J. (2008) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0801268105 · Cited by 2,187
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- *Heffernan, A. E. (2014). The generalizability of dual n-back training in younger adults (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10222/56021
- NIMH Research Domain Criteria Workshop (2010). Working memory: Workshop proceedings. Downloaded November 8, 2016 from https://www.nimh.nih.gov/research-priorities/rdoc/working-memory-workshop-proceedings.shtml
- *Prandl, A. (2012). Visual memory improvement in recognition (Bachelor’s thesis). Retrieved from http://ro.ecu.edu.au/theses_hons/59/
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 301–351 of 351
Napovedniki učinkovitosti treninga v različnih fazah treninga n-nazaj
Vranić, A., Martinčević, M., & Prpić, V. (2021) · Psihološka obzorja · doi:10.20419/2021.30.530 · Cited by 1
Vural, Ö., & Yıldırım, E. (2021) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1091665/v1 · Cited by 1
Audiffren, J., Bloechle, J.-L., & Bresciani, J. (2021) · Vision Research · doi:10.1016/j.visres.2021.107977
“, 2008), which has been shown to induce an increased cognitive workload (Soveri et al., 2017) and is a staple of neuroimaging studies focusing on working memory (Braver et al.”
BackgroundInterventions for Improving Executive Functions during Development
Steinbeis, N., & Smid, C. R. (2022) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108399838.035
Advances in Cognitive Enhancement Techniques to Improve Fluid Intelligence
林, 逸. (2022) · Advances in Social Sciences · doi:10.12677/ass.2022.113117
Byrne, E. M., Ewbank, M., Gathercole, S. E., & Holmes, J. (2019) · PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/3bf6x
(2019) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-816981-0.09989-6
Examination of the Temporal-Spatial Dynamics of Working Memory Training-Induced NeuroplasticityPreprint
Kulkarni, M., & Covey, T. J. (2022) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4145247
Zhai, J., Lu, G., Chen, F., et al. (2022) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4198837
The N-Back Training Task and Its Effects on Behavior and the Brain
肖, 越. (2023) · Advances in Social Sciences · doi:10.12677/ass.2023.124215
Semantic Bimodal Presentation Differentially Slows Working Memory Retrieval
Cheng, J., Li, J., Wang, A., & Zhang, M. (2023) · Brain Sciences · doi:10.3390/brainsci13050811
“The present study aimed to confirm and further explore the concept that themultisen‐ sory congruency relationship can affect WM performance by adopting an n‐back paradigm [24].”
BackgroundMethodClassification Of MeMory InTerventions: Rationale and developmental process of the COMMIT tool
Jansen, M. G., Oosterman, J. M., Folkerts, A., Chakraverty, D., Kessels, R. P. C., Kalbe, E., & Roheger, M. (2023) · Neuropsychological Rehabilitation · doi:10.1080/09602011.2023.2236346
“We excluded working memory interventions, as this cognitive domain more closely aligns with executive functions, and research on working memory intervention has become a fi eld on its own (Gathercole et al., 2019; Oberauer et al., 2018; Soveri et al., 2017).”
BackgroundEvents in context – a framework for the study of brain, experience and behaviorPreprint
Makeig, S., & Robbins, K. A. (2023) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/e7jbm
Zając-Lamparska, L. (2024) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3889286/v1
Brasser, M., Frühholz, S., Schneeberger, A. R., Trevor, C., Ruschetti, G. G., Held, F. E., Häner, M., & Studer-Luethi, B. (2024) · Journal of Affective Disorders Reports · doi:10.1016/j.jadr.2024.100805 · Cited by 1
Lal, N. A., & Kothari, S. (2024) · Journal of Indian Association for Child and Adolescent Mental Health · doi:10.1177/09731342241252555
“Soveri et al 13 reported that Cogmed intervention produces small to moderate improvement in WM and attention.”
Lu, W. D., Shi, X., Chen, Y., et al. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4856405
Semenova, E. Y., Lind, K. V., Logvinenko, T. I., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2024) · Психологические исследования · doi:10.54359/ps.v17i95.1599 · Cited by 2
Zhu, R., Ma, X., Wang, Z., Hui, Q., & You, X. (2025) · Cognitive Research Principles and Implications · doi:10.1186/s41235-025-00620-x
“Moreover, the cognitive components shared between WM tasks and other cognitive skills affect the predictive relationship between them (Soveri et al., 2017; Waris et al., 2015).”
The Working Memory Modifiability: Effects of Mediation on Working Memory and Analogical ThinkingPreprint
Tzuriel, D., Hanuka-Levy, D., & Weiss, T. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5254501
Cheng, C., & Wang, B. (2025) · Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.3390/bs15070956 · Cited by 2
“The finding that training a specific component of executive function leads to transfer on the specific component of executive function only suggests that the magnitude of transfer effects depends on the cognitive overlap between the transfer tasks and the training task (Soveri et al., 2017).”
InfluentialMinimal training duration inducing near transfer in two-phase working memory training paradigm
Ni, N., Tsubomi, H., & Saito, S. (2025) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1177/17470218251369061
“Recent meta-analyses further indicated that training only improves performance on the trained tasks and their closely related variants (i.e., near transfer; Gathercole et al., 2019; Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016; Soveri et al., 2017; Tsubomi et al., 2019).”
Mindfulness and Trading DecisionsPreprint
Ding, Z., Ghanma, D., Varotto, S., & Vogt, J. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5406664
Ali, D. S., Soliman, N. M., El-Badramany, M. A., & Khalifa, M. E. (2025) · Cognitie, Creier, Comportament · doi:10.24193/cbb.2025.29.12
Michalsky, T., & Klein, S. S. (2025) · Computers in Human Behavior Reports · doi:10.1016/j.chbr.2025.100849
LMX1A and APOE ɛ Genotype Associations With Working Memory Training Effects in HIV and Non-HIV
Chang, L., Liang, H., Ernst, T., Cunningham, E. P., Wang, J. C., Baptiste, J., & Løhaugen, G. C. C. (2025) · Neurology Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation · doi:10.1212/nxi.0000000000200519
“12,14 By contrast, long-term far-transfer e ff ects were reported among older adults 13 and in patients with MCI on fl uency, 15 everyday function, 16 executive function, 16 and fl uid intelligence.”
Wang, Y., Su, F., & Lin, D. (2025) · Current Psychology · doi:10.1007/s12144-025-08691-1
“The experimental material was designed based on the widely used computerized working memory training para - digm, specifically the n-back task (Soveri et al., 2017).”
Broad and sustained transfer effects of executive n-back working memory training
Cao, D.-Y., Zhang, T.-N., Zhang, Y., Zhang, E., & Zhang, G.-L. (2026) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-025-02773-8 · Cited by 1
“…on structurally dissimilar working memory tasks – such as complex span – can be observed after training (Schwarb et al., 2016), others have reported null or short-lived effects (Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016; Soveri et al., 2017), suggesting that intermediate-transfer effects may not be enduring.”
Kamal, A. (2025) · Emirati Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.54878/0fysjx45
Huang, S. C.-F., Chen, Z. H., & Lin, Y. (2026) · Educational Technology Research and Development · doi:10.1007/s11423-026-10593-3
“…on repetitive EF tasks, such as the n-back task (which requires participants to continuously update and monitor working memory; Lo et al., 2021; Soveri et al., 2017) or the Go-NoGo task (which assesses inhibition ability by requiring responses to certain stimuli while withholding others;…”
Ma, J., Chua, B. K. T., Chin, Y. H. J., Teo, W., Kim, H., Low, S. T., Li, D., & Chia, M. (2026) · JMIR Research Protocols · doi:10.2196/82510
“It has also been widely used as a training tool for enhancing working memory [42,43].”
Bai, A., Pei, C., Li, X., Zhu, X., & Huo, L. (2026) · Translational Psychiatry · doi:10.1038/s41398-026-03857-2 · Cited by 1
Face processing in infants at elevated likelihood for autism: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Fico, K., Krol, M. A., Bussu, G., Gosling, C. J., Tye, C., Hunnius, S., & Buitelaar, J. K. (2026) · Research in Autism · doi:10.1016/j.reia.2026.202874
What is Working Memory? Can It be Improved? How Would This Go?
Li, Y., & Ouyang, G. (2026) · Journal of Cognitive Enhancement · doi:10.1007/s41465-026-00357-5 · Cited by 3
“…related measures, meta-analyses and rigorously controlled trials have often reported limited and inconsistent evidence for transfer to broader domains such as fluid reasoning, academic per - formance, or complex problem-solving (Soveri et al. 2017; Redick et al. 2013; Sala and Gobet 2020a, b).”
Rééducation de l'anomie et chirurgie de l'épilepsie temporale pharmaco-résistante
Sabadell, V. (2023) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/55829b57z7815z44fdz92c5zdb4bf81fdf42
The Effect of Thermal Pain on Working Memory: Behavioral Evidence from the n-Back Task
Dong, D., Hosomi, K., Mori, N., Zhou, F., Kishima, H., & Saitoh, Y. (2026) · Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.3390/bs16050701
“Meanwhile, interventions such as cognitive training and mindfulness are being explored for their potential to reduce pain’s impact on working memory (Jaeggi et al., 2010; Soveri et al., 2017).”
AlRasheed, H. A., Ilyas, M., Shah, Z. A., Aldossary, K. M., & Habib, I. (2026) · Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2026.150505
Santirocchi, A., Rossi‐Arnaud, C., Benelli, D., Barbato, C., Minni, A., & Cestari, V. (2026) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app16126245
Executive function skills of emergent bilingual primary-school children in Wales
Collins, B., Papastergiou, A., & Sanoudaki, E. (2026) · Bilingualism Language and Cognition · doi:10.1017/s1366728926101357
“Many researchers argue that these tasks are far from optimal (e.g., Laine & Lehtonen, 2018; Paap & Greenberg, 2013; Paap & Sawi, 2014; Soveri et al., 2017).”
Wilson, T. W., Bravo, M. A., Huang, P., McDonald, K. M., John, J. A., Garrison, G. M., Kress, K. A., Webert, L. K., Son, J. J., Okelberry, H. J., et al. (2026) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2026.122087
“However, several recent studies have challenged this view by showing no evidence of Gf improvement following working memory training, despite significant transfer effects on n-back tasks (Colom et al., 2013; Redick et al., 2013; Soveri et al., 2017; Thompson et al., 2013).”
Influential李, 潇. (2026) · Advances in Psychology · doi:10.12677/ap.2026.167346
Duan, Y., Xiong, L., 赵英欣, Hu, C., Li, X. J., & Chen, Y. (2026) · Substance Use & Misuse · doi:10.1080/10826084.2026.2690610
Tzuriel, D., & Hanuka-Levy, D. (2026) · Cognitive Development · doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2026.101751
Wang, H.-Q., Jiang, Y., Zhu, L., Fan, M., Zhao, Y.-Q., & Wang, D.-M. (2026) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2026.1902938
Fan, T., Liu, C., Liu, Y., & Li, G. (2026) · Brain Sciences · doi:10.3390/brainsci16080861
“Gains are typically largest for trained tasks and near-transfer outcomes, whereas far-transfer effects and broad improvements in general cognition are smaller and less consistent [5,9,11].”
甜, 芋., Xie, N., Liu, D., Wu, Q., & Shi, B. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.7506128
N-Back: impacto de la estética del estímulo en la eficacia de la respuesta
Bento, S. D. A., Rodrigues, P., Nascimento, C. S., & Maia, L. A. C. R. (2026) · Revista Electrónica de PortalesMedicos com · doi:10.64396/v21-0210
Sala, G., & Gobet, F. (2019) · Collabra: Psychology · doi:10.2478/collabra.2019.5.1.18
Metadata
- Authors
- Soveri, A., Antfolk, J., Karlsson, L., Salo, B., & Laine, M.
- Affiliations
- Åbo Akademi University (FI)
- University of Turku (FI)
- Corresponding author
- Soveri, Anna
- Venue
- Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
- Published
- 2017-01-23
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1077-1096
- ISSN
- 1069-9384 (ISSN-L)
- 1531-5320
- OpenAlex
- W2582113845
- Cited by
- 371
- References
- 83
- Citations by year
- 2026: 22 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 46 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 40 · 2021: 46 · 2020: 53 · 2019: 48 · 2018: 39 · 2017: 13
- FWCI
- 5.36
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Psychonomic Bulletin & Review (publishedVersion)
- PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Åbo Akademi University Research Portal (submittedVersion)
- PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Keywords
- working memory training, n-back task, transfer of learning, fluid intelligence, cognitive control, training dose, dual-task training
- MeSH terms
- Cognition, Humans, Learning, Memory, Short-Term, Executive Function
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 2026-10-08, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-08 (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
