The DOI matches its Crossref record; 62 of the 62 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 29 of the 50 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Working memory training in typically developing children: A multilevel meta-analysis
Open accessAbstract
Working memory (WM) training in typically developing (TD) children aims to enhance not only performance in memory tasks but also other domain-general cognitive skills, such as fluid intelligence. These benefits are then believed to positively affect academic achievement. Despite the numerous studies carried out, researchers still disagree over the real benefits of WM training. With this meta-analysis (m = 41, k = 393, N = 2,375), we intended to resolve the discrepancies by focusing on the potential sources of within-study and between-study true heterogeneity. Small to medium effects were observed in memory tasks (i.e., near transfer). The size of these effects was proportional to the similarity between the training task and the outcome measure. By contrast, far-transfer measures of cognitive ability (e.g., intelligence) and academic achievement (mathematics and language ability) were essentially unaffected by the training programs, especially when the studies implemented active controls (g¯\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$ \overline{g} $$\end{document} = 0.001, SE = 0.055, p = .982, τ2 = 0.000). Crucially, all the models exhibited a null or low amount of true heterogeneity, which was wholly explained by the type of controls (nonactive vs. active) and by statistical artifacts, in contrast to the claim that this field has produced mixed results. Since the empirical evidence shows the absence of both generalized effects and true heterogeneity, we conclude that there is no reason to keep investing resources in WM training research with TD children.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This multilevel meta-analysis of 41 studies (393 effect sizes, N = 2,375) finds that working memory training in typically developing children produces near-transfer memory benefits but no reliable far-transfer effects on intelligence or academic achievement. With active controls, far-transfer effects are essentially zero, and true heterogeneity is null or low.
Key findings
- Near-transfer effects were small to medium: overall \( \bar{g} = 0.389 \), SE = 0.056, p < .001; nearest-transfer effects were larger (\( \bar{g} = 0.468 \)) than less-near-transfer effects (\( \bar{g} = 0.261 \)).
- Far-transfer effects were small overall (\( \bar{g} = 0.092 \), SE = 0.033, p = .015), but became null with active controls (\( \bar{g} = 0.001 \), SE = 0.055, p = .982, \( \tau^2 = 0.000 \)).
- Far-transfer follow-up effects were null (\( \bar{g} = 0.006 \), SE = 0.022, p = .809), while near-transfer follow-up effects were \( \bar{g} = 0.239 \), SE = 0.103, p = .059.
- True heterogeneity was null or low across models; when present, it was explained by control type, baseline differences, transfer distance, and a few influential cases, not by age or training-task type.
Methods
- Systematic search of MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Science Direct, and ProQuest Dissertation & Theses, plus reference lists, retrieved 3,080 records; 41 studies from 2007–2019 met inclusion criteria.
- Included typically developing children (maximum mean age = 16 years), a WM training condition, at least one control group, objective cognitive/academic tasks, pre-post design, non-self-selected participants, and sufficient data for effect sizes.
- Used robust variance estimation with hierarchical weights to model nested effect sizes and estimate within-cluster (\( \omega^2 \)) and between-cluster (\( \tau^2 \)) true heterogeneity; moderators included baseline difference, control group, age, training-task type, outcome measure, and near-transfer type.
Limitations
- The paper states that most primary studies examined preschool and primary school children, with only a fraction including adolescents, making findings less generalizable to typically middle/high school students (e.g., 12–16 years).
- The paper states that follow-up models included limited numbers of studies, so no further analysis was conducted for those models.
- Evident from the text: effect-size calculations assumed a pre-post-test correlation of \( r_{xx} = r = .700 \) because primary studies rarely reported these values, though the authors replicated analyses using correlations from .500 to .800 and observed no significant differences.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
31 Own interpretation · 29 Own result · 14 Own method · 9 Partly supported · 7 Supported · 6 No full text of the sources · 3 Sources not found · 3 No basis given · 2 Not supported · 1 Mixed support · 1 Not checked yet · accuracy not yet measured
Some cited sources support this claim and some don’t — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Interestingly, several meta-analyses have estimated within-and between-study true heterogeneity in WM training to be null or low, both with near-transfer and far-transfer effects.”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Critique of the Meta-Analytic Evidence
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Sala et al., 2019b source
- Supportedcites Aksayli et al., 2019 source
The Discussion reports no true within- or between-study heterogeneity for far-transfer effects after controlling for baseline differences. Section 4.2.1 reports low residual heterogeneity for near-transfer effects after accounting for moderators and influential effects. This paper supports the cited statement as one of the meta-analyses, though it does not itself establish what several meta-analyses found. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Disputedcites Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results section, “Effects of Working Memory Training on Near Transfer Measures” (page unavailable), explicitly says near-transfer findings vary across studies and that true heterogeneity is present. The Results also report true heterogeneity between studies for intermediate-transfer measures. Thus, this paper contradicts the claim that heterogeneity is null or low across transfer outcomes; a near-zero far-transfer effect is not the same as low heterogeneity. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
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.
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
“Moreover, it is unlikely that WM training exerts positive far-transfer effects on subgroups of individuals (e.g., underachievers at baseline assessment; Jaeggi et al., 2011).”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Discussion
What the sources say
- Disputedcites Jaeggi et al., 2011 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results (page unavailable) report positive far transfer to fluid intelligence in the subgroup of children with large working-memory training gains, contrary to the claim that positive effects are unlikely in subgroups. The Discussion (page unavailable) finds no significant difference in transfer between children with high and low initial fluid-intelligence performance; it does not identify baseline underachievers as unlikely to benefit. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
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.
- Disputed
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
“Second and most important, our findings support recent empirical evidence showing that WM and fluid intelligence do not share the same neural mechanisms as previously hypothesized (e.g., Halford et al., 2007;Jaeggi et al., 2008;Strobach & Karbach, 2016;Taatgen, 2013Taatgen, , 2016)).”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Practical and Theoretical Implications
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Halford et al., 2007 source
- Disputedcites Jaeggi et al., 2008 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Abstract states the opposite: working memory and fluid intelligence seem to rely on similar neural networks, particularly in lateral prefrontal and parietal cortices. Its qualification that they are not identical constructs does not establish that they rely on different neural mechanisms. (LLM, conf=0.90)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Strobach & Karbach, 2016 source
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.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Both meta-analyses reach the conclusion that while WM training exerts a medium effect on memory-task performance (near transfer), no other cognitive or academic skills (far transfer) seem to be affected, regardless of the population examined; in particular, no effects are observed when active controls are implemented to rule out placebo effects”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > The Meta-Analytic Evidence
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results section reports significant, moderate effects on verbal and visuo-spatial working-memory measures, supporting the claim that training benefits memory-task performance. But it classifies those measures as intermediate transfer; its separate near-transfer section describes large effects on tasks similar or identical to those trained. The claimed effect size therefore does not match the paper’s near-transfer category. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Supportedcites Sala et al., 2019a source
The Working-Memory Training section reports that meta-analyses found improved performance on memory tasks. Box 3 describes the effect on several memory tests as moderate and reliable, supporting the claim of a medium near-transfer effect. Page numbers are not provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.93)
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.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“With TD children (aged 3 to 16), Sala and Gobet (2017) found a medium effect (𝑔̅ = 0.46) with near transfer and a modest effect with far transfer (𝑔̅ = 0.12), with the qualification that the better the quality of the design (use of an active control group), the smaller the effect sizes.”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > The Meta-Analytic Evidence
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Sala & Gobet, 2017 source
The Far-Transfer Effects section reports an overall effect size of 0.12 in this meta-analysis of typically developing children. The Conclusions describe far-transfer effects as little or nonexistent, consistent with calling the reported effect modest. (LLM, conf=0.95)
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
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“With TD children (aged 3 to 16), Sala and Gobet (2017) found a medium effect (𝑔̅ = 0.46) with near transfer and a modest effect with far transfer (𝑔̅ = 0.12), with the qualification that the better the quality of the design (use of an active control group), the smaller the effect sizes.”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > The Meta-Analytic Evidence
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Sala & Gobet, 2017 source
The Near-Transfer Effects section reports an overall effect size of 0.46 (95% CI [0.35, 0.57]). The Conclusions identify the population as typically developing children. (LLM, conf=0.94)
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.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“With TD children (aged 3 to 16), Sala and Gobet (2017) found a medium effect (𝑔̅ = 0.46) with near transfer and a modest effect with far transfer (𝑔̅ = 0.12), with the qualification that the better the quality of the design (use of an active control group), the smaller the effect sizes.”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > The Meta-Analytic Evidence
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Sala & Gobet, 2017 source
The Moderators analysis reports smaller far-transfer effect sizes with active controls (0.05) than with passive controls (0.18), though the control-group moderator was only marginally significant. The Near-Transfer Effects and Far-Transfer Effects sections also report the cited overall effect sizes of 0.46 and 0.12, respectively. No moderator analysis was run for near-transfer effects. (LLM, conf=0.93)
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.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The effect size was 𝑔̅ = 0.37 for near transfer, and 𝑔̅ = 0.02 for far transfer.”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > The Meta-Analytic Evidence
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Sala et al., 2019a sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Working-Memory Training section reports near-zero generalized benefits in a meta-analysis of children and adolescents with learning disabilities. It does not give a far-transfer estimate of g = 0.02; searches for 0.02 and 0.37 found neither estimate in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.83)
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.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The effect size was 𝑔̅ = 0.37 for near transfer, and 𝑔̅ = 0.02 for far transfer.”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > The Meta-Analytic Evidence
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Sala et al., 2019a sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Working-Memory Training section says training appears to improve performance on memory tasks and reports similar findings for children and adolescents with learning disabilities. It does not give a near-transfer effect size of g=0.37 or a far-transfer effect size of g=0.02 for that population (searched both values and the population). (LLM, conf=0.82)
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.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“This result supports the validity of Noack et al.'s (2009) taxonomy of transfer distance, which was used here.”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Discussion
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Noack et al., 2009 source
Section 4, “A taxonomy of transfer distance,” sets out Noack et al.’s classification of transfer within narrow abilities, within broad abilities, and across broad abilities. The assertion that the citing study’s result supports the taxonomy’s validity is the citing authors’ own inference, not a finding attributed to Noack et al. (LLM, conf=0.91)
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.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“These results are also in line with Sala and Gobet (2017; a re-analysis with RVE of the data used in that study yields similar results; for the details, see the supplemental materials) and, more broadly, the conclusions of previous meta-analytic syntheses concerning WM training in the general population (Aksayli et al., 2019;Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016;Sala et al., 2019a).”
- Also stated in: § Conclusions · boosted
“The results significantly extend and corroborate the conclusions reached in a previous meta-analysis (Sala & Gobet, 2017).”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Discussion
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Sala & Gobet, 2017 source
The Conclusions report gains on working-memory-related measures but little or no effect on skills outside working memory, consistent with the cited comparison. The Present Meta-Analysis specifies that Sala and Gobet studied typically developing children; the sentence attributes the broader general-population comparison to other syntheses. Its RVE re-analysis is described as the citing authors’ own work, not a result attributed to Sala and Gobet. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Supportedcites Aksayli et al., 2019 source
The Discussion says the Cogmed meta-analysis found no appreciable far-transfer effects and that its outcomes corroborate recent syntheses in the broader field of working-memory training, including Sala and Gobet (2017). This supports the cited paper’s role in the sentence: its conclusions are in line with those broader syntheses. (LLM, conf=0.92)
- Supportedcites Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016 source
The Current Review describes a meta-analysis of working-memory training studies including participants across the lifespan. The Conclusions report no evidence that training improves far-transfer abilities, supporting the citation’s use for the broader conclusions of previous meta-analytic syntheses. The separate reference to Sala and Gobet (2017) is not attributed to this 2016 paper. (LLM, conf=0.91)
boosted- 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.
- Also stated in: § Conclusions · boosted
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“In fact, this study shows that the correlation between performance in WM tasks and fluid intelligence tasks is not a function of the capacity demands of the items of fluid intelligence tasks.”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Practical and Theoretical Implications
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Burgoyne et al., 2019 source
The Discussion reports that the relationship between working-memory span performance and accuracy on Raven’s items did not differ with the items’ capacity demands. Raven’s Progressive Matrices was the fluid-intelligence task tested in this study. (LLM, conf=0.93)
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.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“In the same vein, Burgoyne, Hambrick, and Altman (2019) have recently failed to find any evidence of a causal link between WM capacity and fluid intelligence.”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Practical and Theoretical Implications
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Burgoyne, Hambrick, and Altman, 2019 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Abstract (page unavailable) reports that neither working-memory measure showed the effect predicted by the capacity hypothesis, and says the finding calls a causal influence on fluid intelligence into question. The study tested that specific prediction; it did not establish that there is no evidence for any possible causal link. (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
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
“Regarding the categorical moderators, the control group was the only statistically significant moderator (p = .030).No significant differences were found across different outcome measures (p = 1.000 in all pairwise comparisons; Holm's correction) or Type of training task (all ps ≥ .563).”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Far Transfer
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
“Regarding the categorical moderators, the control group was the only statistically significant moderator (p = .030).No significant differences were found across different outcome measures (p = 1.000 in all pairwise comparisons; Holm's correction) or Type of training task (all ps ≥ .563).”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Far Transfer
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
“Analogously, as reported in the meta-regression analysis, there is no significant variability across diverse far-transfer measures.”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > 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
“The remaining true heterogeneity almost completely disappears when the statistically dependent (i.e., belonging to the same study) effects are averaged into more precise measures of memory skills.”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > 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 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 less-near-transfer overall effect size was 𝑔̅ = 0.261, SE = 0.092, 95% CI [0.060; 0.462], m = 20, k = 47, df = 12.0, p = .015,ω 2 = 0.000, τ 2 = 0.051.”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Near 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.
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 regard to nearest-transfer effects, the meta-analytic mean was 𝑔̅ = 0.468, SE = 0.072, 95% CI [0.310; 0.626], m = 20, k = 76, df = 11.9, p < .001,ω 2 = 0.011, τ 2 = 0.054.”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Near 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.
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
“Regarding the categorical moderators, the control group was the only statistically significant moderator (p = .030).No significant differences were found across different outcome measures (p = 1.000 in all pairwise comparisons; Holm's correction) or Type of training task (all ps ≥ .563).”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Far Transfer
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
“Merging the effects after excluding the influential case lowered the between-study true heterogeneity to a non-significant amount (τ 2 = 0.015, p = .158).”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Near Transfer
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
“Baseline was a statistically significant moderator (b = -0.376,SE = 0.065, p < .001),whereas Age was not (p = .117).”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Far Transfer
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
“The overall effect size of the RVE intercept model was 𝑔̅ = 0.006, SE = 0.022, 95% CI [-0.048; 0.059], m = 13, k = 66, df = 6.2, p = .809,ω 2 = 0.002, τ 2 = 0.000.”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Follow-up.
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
“When active controls were used, the overall effect size was 𝑔̅ = 0.032, SE = 0. 049, 95% CI [-0.073; 0.138], m = 18, k = 71, df = 12.3, p = .517,ω 2 = 0.000, τ 2 = 0.000.The RE model yielded very similar results, 𝑔̅ = 0.001, SE = 0.055, p = .982,τ 2 = 0.000.”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Far 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.
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
“By contrast, type of near transfer (i.e., nearest vs. less near) was a significant moderator (p = .005).”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Near Transfer
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
“The findings were clear: whereas WM training fosters the performance on memory tasks, small (with non-active controls) to null (with active controls) far-transfer effects are observed.”
- Also stated in: § Conclusions · plain
“The training programs exert an appreciable effect on memory task performance.”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > 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 · 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
“The overall effect size of the RVE intercept model was 𝑔̅ = 0.239, SE = 0.103, 95% CI [-0.012; 0.489], m = 12, k = 58, df = 6.1, p = .059,ω 2 = 0.000, τ 2 = 0.045.”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Follow-up.
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
“The models report some between-study true heterogeneity (τ 2 > 0.000).”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > 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
“Baseline was a statistically significant moderator (b = -0.376,SE = 0.065, p < .001),whereas Age was not (p = .117).”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Far Transfer
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
“Finally, the metaanalytic models exhibit a low to null amount of true heterogeneity that is entirely explained by transfer distance, type of control group, baseline between-group differences, and a few extreme effect sizes.”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Conclusions
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
“Furthermore, low WM capacity is comorbid with learning disabilities such as dyslexia and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (Westerberg, Hirvikoski, Forssberg, & Klingberg, 2004).”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Westerberg et al., 2004 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.
In the paper
“WM capacity is also a significant predictor of academic achievement (Peng et al., 2018).”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Peng et al., 2018 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.
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 concerning TD children are thus more generalizable than those obtained from a more specific population.”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Introduction
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 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
“Analogously, since age exerts no appreciable impact on the amount of transfer, we can conclude that the stage of WM development in TD children does not play any role in making training programs more (or less) effective.”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Conclusions
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.
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, even though, just like in pretty much any field of research in the behavioral sciences, there are a number of design-related differences across the primary studies (as correctly observed by Pergher and colleagues), almost none of these differences exerts any influence on the ability of WM training to induce near or far-transfer effects.”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > 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
“If near-transfer tasks had incorrectly been classified as far-transfer tasks (or vice versa), some within-study true heterogeneity would have been present.”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > 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
“By contrast, far-transfer measures of cognitive ability (e.g., intelligence) and academic achievement (mathematics and language ability) were essentially unaffected by the training programs, especially when the studies implemented active controls (𝑔̅ = 0.001, SE = 0.055, p = .982,τ 2 = 0.000).”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Abstract
plainn = 2,375- 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
“One influential case was found.Excluding these effects did not meaningfully affect the results, 𝑔̅ = 0.284, SE = 0.089, 95% CI [0.090; 0.477], m = 20, k = 46, df = 12.2, p = .008,ω 2 = 0.000, τ 2 = 0.039.”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Near Transfer
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
“The various training programs seem equally (in)effective in eliciting transfer effects.”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Conclusions
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.
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
“Since the meta-analytic far-transfer mean is null when placebo effects are ruled out, postulating non-artifactual between-individual differences implies that, while WM training enhances cognitive/academic skills in some children (positive effect), other individuals have their skills damaged by the training (negative effect).”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Discussion
plainconditional- 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
“The results with the RE model were 𝑔̅ = 0.276, SE = 0.084, p = .007,τ 2 = 0.031 (p = .080).”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Follow-up.
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
“The RE model yielded very similar results, 𝑔̅ = 0.457, SE = 0.064, p < .001,τ 2 = 0.022 (p = .090).”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Near 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.
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 RE model yielded similar results, 𝑔̅ = 0.292, SE = 0.070, p < .001,τ 2 = 0.030 (p = .086).”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Near Transfer
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
“In brief, despite the many design-related differences across WM training studies, consideration of true heterogeneity indicates that there are no real differences between the effects produced by such diverse training programs.”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Critique of the Meta-Analytic Evidence
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.
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
“One influential case was found.Excluding this effect did not meaningfully affect the results, 𝑔̅ = 0.451, SE = 0.071, 95% CI [0.297; 0.605], m = 20, k = 75, df = 11.8, p < .001,ω 2 = 0.000, τ 2 = 0.052.”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Near Transfer
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
“Overall, Pergher et al.'s (2019) claim that outcomes in WM training might be mediated by specific characteristics of the training and transfer tasks is not supported by our analyses: the estimated true heterogeneity, when present at all, was explained by a few moderators (distance of transfer and type of control group) and statistical artifacts (baseline differences and a few extreme effects).”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Pergher et al., 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
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.
- 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
“The size of these effects was proportional to the similarity between the training task and the outcome measure.”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > 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 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 important implication is that WM training fails to induce far transfer in every type of outcome measure (e.g., fluid intelligence, mathematics, etc.).”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > 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
“This corroborates the idea that most of the observed between-study heterogeneity is a statistical artifact related to measurement error in memory tasks.”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Discussion
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, the impact of training on far-transfer measures does not go beyond placebo effects.”
- Also stated in: § Conclusions · hedged
“The magnitude of these effects equals zero in studies implementing active controls, suggesting that the small benefits reported in some studies are the product of placebo effects.”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > 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.
- Also stated in: § Conclusions · hedged
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, on the behavioral level, we observe that the amount of transfer is a function of the similarity between the training task and the outcome task.”
- Also stated in: § Conclusions · plain
“The size of this effect is a function of the similarity between the training task and the outcome task.”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Practical and Theoretical Implications
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.
- Also stated in: § Conclusions · plain
In the paper
“Therefore, given the circumstances, it is possible to apply Occam's razor (Schmidt, 2010) and conclude that WM training does not produce any generalized (far-transfer) effect in TD children.”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Schmidt, 2010 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.
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 finding is in direct contradiction to the predictions of the common capacity constraint hypothesis.”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Practical and Theoretical Implications
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.
In the paper
“The lack of residual true heterogeneity means that there is no variance left to explain and implies that systematically comparing the features of training tasks and far-transfer outcome measures to identify successful WM training regimens, as suggested by Pergher et al. (2019), is bound to fail.”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Conclusions
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Pergher et al., 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
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.
- 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
“Simply put, individuals engaging in WM training do not expand their WM capacity.”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Practical and Theoretical Implications
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
“Furthermore, as the same pattern of results has been found in adults, older adults, and children with learning disabilities (Aksayli et al., 2019;Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016;Sala et al., 2019a), the most parsimonious and plausible conclusion is that WM training does not lead to far transfer.”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Discussion
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.
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
“Instead, the reported between-study and between-individual differences are simply statistical fluctuations (e.g., sampling error and regression to the mean).”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > 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
“Second, less-near-transfer effects are not evidence of improved domaingeneral memory skills either.”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Practical and Theoretical Implications
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.
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
“This fact reflects the well-known psychometric principle according to which cognitive tests are not reliable proxies for cognitive constructs of interest if the participant has the opportunity to carry out the task multiple times.”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Practical and Theoretical Implications
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: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says 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
“Pessimism about the possibility to stimulate cognitive enhancement through WM training is thus upheld by a robust corpus of evidence that goes beyond our meta-analytic results.”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Practical and Theoretical Implications
boosted- 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: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 32
- Probably not a substantial claim. 14
- The quote only partly states this claim. 5
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Both meta-analyses reach the conclusion that while WM training exerts a medium effect on memory-task performance (near transfer), no other cognitive or academic skills (far transfer) seem to be affected, regardless of the population examined; in particular, no effects are observed when active controls are implemented to rule out placebo effects”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > The Meta-Analytic Evidence
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results (Immediate Effects of Working Memory Training on Far Transfer Measures; page unavailable) find near-zero, nonsignificant effects for several cognitive and academic outcomes with treated controls, supporting the main far-transfer conclusion. But they also report a small, significant reading-comprehension effect before excluding problematic comparisons, so “no effects” is too absolute. The Results (Effects of Working Memory Training on Near Transfer Measures; page unavailable) describe near-transfer effects as large, rather than medium. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Supportedcites Sala et al., 2019a source
The Working-Memory Training section reports improvements on memory tasks but near-zero effects on intelligence, cognitive control, and academic skills across the populations discussed. It says the lack of generalized benefits is particularly evident with active controls. Box 3 describes the positive effect on memory tests as moderate. (LLM, conf=0.91)
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.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“When present at all, true heterogeneity is accounted for by the type of control group used (active or non-active), statistical artifacts such as pre-post-test regression to the mean due to baseline differences between the experimental and control groups, and, to a lesser extent, a few extreme effect sizes.”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Critique of the Meta-Analytic Evidence
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Sala et al., 2019b source
- Partly supportedcites Aksayli et al., 2019 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results (section 4.1.1) attribute observed far-transfer heterogeneity to regression to the mean, and sections 3.7 and 4.2.2 describe excluding extreme effect sizes. But section 3.4 only identifies active versus non-active control groups as a moderator considered; the reported near-transfer heterogeneity in section 4.2.2 is mainly explained by baseline differences and the type of memory task, not control-group type. The claim therefore overstates what the paper says explains heterogeneity. (LLM, conf=0.85)
- Partly supportedcites Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results (Immediate Effects on Far Transfer Measures; page unavailable) report differences by control-group type and show that unusually large effects or problematic pretest-to-posttest changes affect some findings. The paper does not establish that regression to the mean from baseline group differences explains true heterogeneity. Its Results on near and intermediate transfer also identify other moderators, so the claim that the listed factors account for heterogeneity whenever it occurs is too broad. (LLM, conf=0.82)
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
“WM capacitythat is, the maximum amount of information that WM can store and manipulate -steadily increases throughout infancy and childhood up to adolescence (Cowan, 2016;Gathercole, Pickering, Ambridge, & Wearing, 2004), both due to maturation and increase in knowledge (Cowan, 2016;Jones, Gobet, & Pine, 2007).”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Introduction
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Cowan, 2016 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In “Development of Working Memory Capacity?” (page unavailable), Cowan reports steady improvement in working-memory test performance from ages 4 to 15; the infant-studies section also describes apparent gains during infancy. But “The Working Memory Capacity Growth Hypothesis” says that a simple increase in capacity across ages remains unproven, while “The Factor of Increasing Knowledge” treats knowledge as a contributor to performance rather than establishing that it increases basic capacity. The claim overstates a steady capacity increase from infancy through adolescence and its proposed causes. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Gathercole et al., 2004 source
- Partly supportedcites Jones et al., 2007 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In “Interaction of phonological working memory with LTM knowledge,” the paper explains that accumulated knowledge can increase how much information children hold in working memory. It does not establish a steady increase from infancy through adolescence or show that maturation drives it; instead, it says developmental changes in capacity may not be necessary to explain the performance changes studied. (LLM, conf=0.87)
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. 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
“This outcome is in line with the findings ofMelby-Lervåg et al. (2016) and corroborate the idea that transfer is function of distance between training task and target task rather than the features of the training program per se (e.g.,Byrne et al., 2019;Pergher et al., 2019).”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Conclusions
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Method defines near transfer by similarity to the trained task, and the Results report large effects on similar or identical tasks. The Discussion finds virtually no evidence that training type or dose moderates far transfer. But it also reports moderators of near and intermediate transfer, so it does not establish that transfer depends on task similarity rather than training-program features in general. The supplied passages have section labels but no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.83)
- Could not verifycites Byrne et al., 2019 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion (pp. 12–13) examines overlap and differences between backward-recall and n-back tasks, not transfer after training. A search for training transfer found references to other studies but no passage in this paper establishing that transfer depends on task similarity rather than features of the training program. (LLM, conf=0.76)
- Not matchedcites Pergher et al., 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
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.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Furthermore, as the same pattern of results has been found in adults, older adults, and children with learning disabilities (Aksayli et al., 2019;Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016;Sala et al., 2019a), the most parsimonious and plausible conclusion is that WM training does not lead to far transfer.”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Discussion
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Aksayli et al., 2019 source
The Discussion (section 5; page unavailable) says that no generalized far-transfer effects occurred regardless of age or type of population. It also says the proposed stronger benefits for people with low working memory are not supported. This supports the attributed pattern in adults, older adults, and children with learning disabilities, although the paper does not give a separate estimate for each group in that passage. (LLM, conf=0.89)
- Supportedcites Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016 source
The Method (Moderator Variables; page unavailable) groups studies by children, adults, and older adults and by learning-disorder status. The Discussion (page unavailable) reports virtually no evidence that age or learning difficulties moderate far transfer, and the Conclusions (page unavailable) find no evidence that working-memory training improves far-transfer abilities. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Supportedcites Sala et al., 2019a source
The Working-Memory Training section reports near-zero far-transfer effects in healthy adults and similar outcomes in children and adolescents with learning disabilities. It also says a large investigation found that effects in older adults were small and limited to memory tasks. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.93)
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.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Such convergent findings at different levels of empirical evidence (experimental, correlational, and neural) is a successful example of triangulation that does not leave much room for further debate (Campbell & Fiske, 1959;Munafò & Smith, 2018).”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Practical and Theoretical Implications
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Campbell & Fiske, 1959 source
- Partly supportedcites Munafò & Smith, 2018 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In “Repeating experiments is not enough” (page unavailable), the paper defines triangulation as using multiple approaches to one question and says agreement across methodologies makes artefacts less likely. It does not assess the citing sentence’s particular experimental, correlational, and neural findings, or say that their convergence leaves little room for further debate. (LLM, conf=0.84)
boosted- 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: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
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
“Excluding the influential effect and merging the statistically dependent effects lowered the between-study true heterogeneity to a non-significant amount (τ 2 = 0.010, p = .234).”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Near Transfer
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.
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
“The overall effect size was 𝑔̅ = 0.389, SE = 0.056, 95% CI [0.271; 0.507], m = 29, k = 123, df = 18.8, p < .001,ω 2 = 0.006, τ 2 = 0.059.”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Near 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
“Crucially, all the models exhibited a null or low amount of true heterogeneity, wholly explained by the type of controls (non-active vs. active) and statistical artifacts, in contrast to the claim that this field has produced mixed results.”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > 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
“The overall effect size of the RVE intercept model was 𝑔̅ = 0.092, SE = 0.033, 95% CI [0.021; 0.163], m = 34, k = 146, df = 14.8, p = .015,ω 2 = 0.000, τ 2 = 0.000.”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Far 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
“The near-transfer models show slightly higher between-study true heterogeneity, which is partly explained by the type of near transfer (nearest vs. less near).”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > 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
“The type of control group and Type of training were not significant moderators either (p = .845and ps ≥ .477,respectively).”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Near Transfer
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 examination of true heterogeneity reveals that the meta-analytic models exhibit high internal consistency.No appreciable within-study true heterogeneity is observed (ω 2 ≈ 0.000 in all the models).”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > 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
“When non-active controls were used, the overall effect size was 𝑔̅ = 0.139, SE = 0.045, 95% CI [0.034; 0.243], m = 21, k = 75, df = 8.2, p = .015,ω 2 = 0.000, τ 2 = 0.005.”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Far 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
“Regarding far transfer, this heterogeneity is very low and is accounted for by the type of control group, baseline differences, and a few influential cases.”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > 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 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 meta-regression showed that neither Baseline nor Age were a significant moderator (p = .154and p = .914,respectively).”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Near Transfer
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 findings were clear: whereas WM training fosters the performance on memory tasks, small (with non-active controls) to null (with active controls) far-transfer effects are observed.”
- Also stated in: § Conclusions · plain
“By contrast, small to null effects are found on far-transfer measures (i.e., fluid intelligence, attention, language, and mathematics).”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Discussion
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.
- Also stated in: § Conclusions · 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
“In total, we found 41 studies, conducted from 2007 to 2019, that met all the inclusion criteria (Appendix A in the Supplemental materials).These studies included 393 effect sizes and a total of 2,375 participants.”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Inclusion Criteria
plainn = 2,375- 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 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
“Moreover, the distribution of WM skills in TD children encompasses a larger range (which reduces biases related to range restriction), and it is more homogeneous across studies.”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Introduction
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: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says 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
“It is thus reasonable to believe that if WM skills could be improved by training, the benefits would spread across many other cognitive and real-life skills.”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Introduction
hedgedconditional- 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: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“WM capacity is positively correlated with essential cognitive functions such as fluid intelligence and attentional processes (Engle, 2018;Kane, Hambrick, & Conway, 2005;Süß, Oberauer, Wittmann, Wilhelm, & Schulze, 2002).”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Introduction
What the sources say
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.
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
“Finally, and probably most importantly, TD children represent that population in which cognitive skills are still developing, and brain plasticity is at its peak.In other words, TD children are the most likely to benefit from cognitive-training interventions.”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Introduction
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: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
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
“Most obvious, the population of TD children is larger than the population of children with learning disabilities, who suffer from different disorders (e.g., ADHD, dyslexia, and language impairment).”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Introduction
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: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no 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, a null result would cast serious doubts on the possibility to obtain generalized effects in other populations as well (e.g., healthy adults).”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Introduction
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: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. 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
“It is widely acknowledged that general cognitive ability is a major predictor of academic achievement and job performance (Detterman, 2014;Gobet, 2016;Schmidt, 2017;Wai, Brown, & Chabris, 2018).”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Introduction
What the sources say
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.
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
“Finally, the selection model estimated some publication bias (𝑔̅ = 0.196).”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Near Transfer
hedged- 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 quote only partly states this 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 inter-rater agreement was 98%; here and elsewhere, the two raters resolved every discrepancy by discussion;”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Moderators
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
“Due to the limited number of studies included in this model, no further analysis was conducted.”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Follow-up.
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
“That being said, it is worth noting that most of the primary studies have investigated the effects of WM training in preschool and primary school TD children (see Descriptive Statistics section).Only a fraction of the primary studies include adolescent samples, which makes our findings somewhat less generalizable with typically middle/high school students (e.g., 12-16 years of age).”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Conclusions
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.
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
“No missing study was retrieved with either the L0 or R0 estimator.”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Near Transfer
plain- Asserted: fails — The authors may not 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: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. The quote only partly states this 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
“Otherwise, between-study true heterogeneity would occur even after averaging the effect sizes within the same study.”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Discussion
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.
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
“Cohen's kappa was κ = 1.00;”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Moderators
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
“The two authors coded each effect size independently and reached 100% agreement.”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Meta-Analytic Models
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.
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 follow-up overall effects are consistent with this pattern of results.”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > 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.
The quote only partly states this 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 inter-rater agreement was 97%.”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Moderators
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
“Cohen's kappa was κ = .98;”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Moderators
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
“Since the empirical evidence shows an absence of generalized effects and true heterogeneity, we conclude that there is no reason to keep investing resources in WM training research with TD children.”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Abstract
boostedn = 2,375- 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
“In addition, this result suggests that the memory tests (near transfer) used in the primary studies are correlated to each other and can be averaged by study to get more precise measures.”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Discussion
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.
In the paper
“Brain imaging data suggest that WM performance is associated with increased network segregation, whereas the opposite pattern occurs when participants are asked to solve fluid intelligence tasks (Lebedev, Nilsson, & Lövdén, 2018).”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Practical and Theoretical Implications
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Lebedev, Nilsson, & Lövdén, 2018 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.
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
“Thus, WM and fluid intelligence do not appear isomorphic or even causally related, which would explain why WM training fails to induce any far-transfer effect despite the wellknown correlation between measures of WM capacity, fluid intelligence, and academic achievement.”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Practical and Theoretical Implications
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.
In the paper
“This pattern of results has been replicated in many different domains and appears to be a constant in human cognition (for a review, see Sala & Gobet, 2019).”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Practical and Theoretical Implications
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Sala & Gobet, 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
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.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- 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, nearest transfer effects do not constitute any robust evidence for cognitive enhancement.Rather, they are clearly a measure of children's boosted ability to perform the training task or one of its variants.”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Practical and Theoretical Implications
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 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
“However, there is no theoretical reason nor any empirical evidence to believe that WM training exerts a detrimental effect on one's cognition.”
- Also stated in: § Practical and Theoretical Implications · hedged
“Although there seems to be no reason to believe that WM training negatively affects children's cognitive skills or academic achievement, implementing such programs would represent a waste of financial and time resources.”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > 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. The quote only partly states this claim.
- Also stated in: § Practical and Theoretical Implications · hedged
In the paper
“As noted by Shipstead, Redick, and Engle (2012), even though some less-near-transfer memory tasks (e.g., odd-one-out task) are not part of the training programs, they still share some overlap with some training tasks (e.g., simple-span tasks).”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Practical and Theoretical Implications
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Shipstead, Redick, and Engle, 2012 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.
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
“Rather, they most likely acquire the ability to perform some memory tasks somewhat better than controls, which explains the small effect sizes reported in less-near-transfer measures and the absence of far transfer.”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Practical and Theoretical Implications
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
“Thus, WM and fluid intelligence do not appear isomorphic or even causally related, which would explain why WM training fails to induce any far-transfer effect despite the wellknown correlation between measures of WM capacity, fluid intelligence, and academic achievement.”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Practical and Theoretical Implications
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.
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 source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“meta-analytic conventions have consistently classified them within the span domain rather than with updating paradigms (Sala & Gobet, 2020)”
From The asymmetry of working memory training transfer: A systematic review and meta-analysis (2026) · cites this paper as Sala & Gobet, 2020
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“WM training does not enhance children’s domain-general cognitive skills or academic achievement (Aksayli, Sala, & Gobet, 2019; Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016; Sala & Gobet, 2020).”
From Cognitive and academic benefits of music training with children: A multilevel meta-analysis (2020) · cites this paper as Sala & Gobet, 2020
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 IN > Discussion
“No appreciable within-study true heterogeneity is observed (ω 2 ≈ 0.000 in all the models).”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Near Transfer
“With regard to nearest-transfer effects, the meta-analytic mean was 𝑔̅ = 0.468, SE = 0.072, 95% CI [0.310; 0.626], m = 20, k = 76, df = 11.9, p < .001,ω 2 = 0.011, τ 2 = 0.054.”
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 IN > Moderators
“We evaluated four potential moderators based on previous meta-analyses:”
§ WORKING MEMORY TRAINING IN > Moderators
“6. Type of near transfer (categorical variable): Whether the task was the same as or similar to the WM training tasks”
Citations
Cites
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.
(2009) · PubMed Central · Cited by 44,859
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & the PRISMA Group* (2009) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135 · Cited by 37,554
Conducting 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 1×
“The Metafor R package (Viechtbauer, 2010) was used.”
Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0046016 · Cited by 17,116
Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000) · Biometrics · doi:10.1111/j.0006-341x.2000.00455.x · Cited by 14,099
The 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×
“WM is the ability to store and manipulate the information needed to perform complex cognitive tasks (Baddeley, 1992, 2000).”
BackgroundIndividual differences in working memory and reading
Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980) · Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior · doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(80)90312-6 · Cited by 6,336
Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2015) · doi:10.4135/9781483398105 · Cited by 5,542
Baddeley, A. (1992) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1736359 · Cited by 5,258
Outlier and influence diagnostics for meta-analysis
Viechtbauer, W., & Cheung, M. W.-L. (2010) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.11 · Cited by 2,949 · cited 1×
“The Metafor R package (Viechtbauer, 2010) was used.”
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Cognitive and academic benefits of music training with children: A multilevel meta-analysis
Sala, G., & Gobet, F. (2020) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/s13421-020-01060-2 · Cited by 235
“For instance, WM training does not enhance children’s domain-general cognitive skills or academic achievement (Aksayli, Sala, & Gobet, 2019; MelbyLervåg et al., 2016; Sala & Gobet, 2020).”
BackgroundSelf-citationCognitive Training: A Field in Search of a Phenomenon
Gobet, F. R., & Sala, G. (2022) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/17456916221091830 · Cited by 166
“However, we did find that placebos always occur in WM training when it comes to far transfer (Sala & Gobet, 2020b).”
BackgroundMethodSelf-citationMechanisms underlying training-induced cognitive change
von Bastian, C. C., Belleville, S., Udale, R. C., Reinhartz, A., Essounni, M., & Strobach, T. (2022) · Nature Reviews Psychology · doi:10.1038/s44159-021-00001-3 · Cited by 147
Music Training and Nonmusical Abilities
Schellenberg, E. G., & Lima, C. F. (2023) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-032323-051354 · Cited by 107
Stress, working memory, and academic performance: a neuroscience perspective
Almarzouki, A. F. (2024) · Stress · doi:10.1080/10253890.2024.2364333 · Cited by 115
“Because the neural circuitry of wM varies from person to person, the development of universally successful wM training treatments is challenging; however, studies are ongoing (Sala & Gobet, 2020).”
Metadata
- Authors
- Sala, G., & Gobet, F.
- Affiliations
- Fujita Health University (JP)
- London School of Economics and Political Science (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Sala, Giovanni
- Venue
- Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
- Published
- 2020-01-14
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 423-434
- ISSN
- 1069-9384 (ISSN-L)
- 1531-5320
- OpenAlex
- W2963815297
- Semantic Scholar
- b4b4c8bd24401110fbad4e671be8cb1ef29984f3
- Cited by
- 148
- References
- 58
- Citations by year
- 2026: 25 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 7
- FWCI
- 2.11
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Psychonomic Bulletin & Review (publishedVersion)
- PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- London School of Economics and Political Science Research Online (London School of Economics and Political Science) (submittedVersion)
- London School of Economics and Political Science Theses Online (London School of Economics and Political Science) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (17F17313)
- 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 › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology
- Keywords
- working memory training, typically developing children, near transfer, far transfer, fluid intelligence, academic performance, active control, statistical heterogeneity
- MeSH terms
- Academic Success, Child, Child Development, Cognition, Humans, Intelligence, Mathematics, Memory, Short-Term, Research Design, Teaching
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
