Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26518308›Full record

ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2016

There is no convincing evidence that working memory training is NOT effective: A reply to Melby-Lervåg and Hulme (2015).

Jacky Au, Martin Buschkuehl, Greg J Duncan, Susanne M Jaeggi

Abstract readComment
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

48 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. ExploringJournal of attention disorders · 2020
    Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Review
  11. Is working memory domain-general or domain-specific?Trends in cognitive sciences · 2024
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. The Effects of Working Memory versus Adaptive Visual Search Control Training on Executive Cognitive Function.Journal of cognitive enhancement : towards the integration of theory and practice · 2022
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Feasibility of a Home-Based Task-Switching Training in Middle-Aged Caregivers.Journal of cognitive enhancement : towards the integration of theory and practice · 2022
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Jacky AuDepartment of Cognitive Sciences, University of California, Irvine, CA, 92697, USA. jwau@uci.edu.
Martin BuschkuehlMIND Research Institute, Irvine, CA, USA.
Greg J DuncanSchool of Education, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA.
Susanne M JaeggiDepartment of Cognitive Sciences, University of California, Irvine, CA, 92697, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Our recent meta-analysis concluded that training on working memory can improve performance on tests of fluid intelligence (Au et al., Psychon Bull Rev, 22(2), 366-377, 2015). Melby-Lervåg and Hulme (Psychon Bull Rev, doi: 10.3758/s13423-015-0862-z ) challenge this conclusion on the grounds that it did not take into consideration baseline differences on a by-study level and that the effects were primarily driven by purportedly less rigorous studies that did not include active control groups. Their re-analysis shows that accounting for baseline differences produces a statistically significant, but considerably smaller, overall effect size (g = 0.13 vs g = 0.24 in Au et al.), which loses significance after excluding studies without active controls. The present report demonstrates that evidence of impact variation by the active/passive nature of control groups is ambiguous and also reveals important discrepancies between Melby-Lervåg and Hulme's analysis and our original meta-analysis in terms of the coding and organization of data that account for the discrepant effect sizes. We demonstrate that there is in fact no evidence that the type of control group per se moderates the effects of working memory training on measures of fluid intelligence and reaffirm the original conclusions in Au et al., which are robust to multiple methods of calculating effect size, including the one proposed by Melby-Lervåg and Hulme.

Indexed as

AptitudeIntelligenceLearningMemory, Short-TermPractice, PsychologicalFemaleHumansMaleCognitive trainingFluid intelligenceMeta-analysisn-backPlasticityTransfer

Identifiers

PMID26518308

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.