Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25252868›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology2014

Clinical utility of the N-back task in functional neuroimaging studies of working memory.

Lisa M Jacola, Victoria W Willard, Jason M Ashford, Robert J Ogg, Matthew A Scoggins, Melissa M Jones, Shengjie Wu, Heather M Conklin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

35 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Lisa M Jacolaa Department of Psychology , St. Jude Children's Research Hospital , Memphis , TN , USA.
Victoria W Willard
Jason M Ashford
Robert J Ogg
Matthew A Scoggins
Melissa M Jones
Shengjie Wu
Heather M Conklin

Funding

Viral Vector Technology (VVTSR)P30CA021765 · NCI · ST. JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL · PI CHARLES ROBERTS · 1985 to 2026
$166.9M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA021765NCI NIH HHS P30 CA21765
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionN-back tasks are commonly used in functional neuroimaging studies to identify the neural mechanisms supporting working memory (WM). Despite widespread use, the clinical utility of these tasks is not well specified. This study compared N-back performance during functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) with task data acquired outside of the scanner as a measure of reliability across environment. N-back task validity was examined in relation to performance and rater-based measures used clinically to assess working memory.

methodForty-three healthy adults completed verbal and object N-back tasks during fMRI scanning and outside the scanner. Task difficulty was varied parametrically (0, 1, and 2-back conditions). Order of N-back task completion was stratified by modality (verbal/object) and environment. Participants completed the Digit Span (DS) and provided self-ratings using the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF-WM).

resultsMean verbal and object N-back accuracy was above 95% across load conditions; task difficulty was effectively manipulated across load conditions. Performance accuracy did not significantly differ by environment. N-back reaction time was slower during fMRI (F = 6.52, p = .01, ηp(2) = .13); participants were faster when initially completing tasks outside the scanner (ηp(2) = .10-.15). Verbal 2-back accuracy was significantly related to DS performance (r = .36, p = .02). N-back performance was not related to BRIEF-WM.

conclusionsOur results provide evidence for reliability of N-back accuracy during fMRI scanning; however, reliability of reaction time data is affected by order of task presentation. Data regarding construct validity are inconsistent and emphasize the need to consider clinical utility of behavioral measures in the design and interpretation of functional neuroimaging studies.

Indexed as

Neuropsychological TestsAdultAnalysis of VarianceBrainExecutive FunctionFemaleHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedIntelligence TestsMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMemory, Short-TermOxygenPhotic StimulationPsychometricsPsychomotor PerformanceOxygenBehavior Rating Inventory of Executive FunctionDigit SpanN-backReliabilityValidityWorking memory

Identifiers

PMID25252868
PMCPMC4229404

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.