Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28116702›Full record

SynthesisPsychonomic bulletin & review2017

Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies.

Anna Soveri, Jan Antfolk, Linda Karlsson, Benny Salo, Matti Laine

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04010149 (The Impact of Concurrent Brain Stimulation and Working Memory Training on Cognitive Performance in Acquired Brain Injury), which is not on this map. Cited by 141 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
141citing papers in PubMed, 11 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.

NCT04010149 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

The Impact of Concurrent Brain Stimulation and Working Memory Training on Cognitive Performance in Acquired Brain Injury

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of BirminghamRan2019 to 2021Enrolled40ConditionsAcquired Brain InjuryArmsActive tDCS, SHAM tDCS
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

141 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Neurology(R) neuroimmunology & neuroinflammation · 2026
    Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Training-dependent transfer within a set of nested tasks.Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006) · 2021
    Trial

81 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors.

Anna SoveriDepartment of Psychology, Åbo Akademi University, Turku, Finland. anna.soveri@abo.fi.
Jan AntfolkDepartment of Psychology, Åbo Akademi University, Turku, Finland.
Linda KarlssonDepartment of Psychology, Åbo Akademi University, Turku, Finland.
Benny SaloDepartment of Psychology, Åbo Akademi University, Turku, Finland.
Matti LaineDepartment of Psychology, Åbo Akademi University, Turku, Finland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The efficacy of working memory (WM) training has been a controversial and hotly debated issue during the past years. Despite a large number of training studies and several meta-analyses, the matter has not yet been solved. We conducted a multi-level meta-analysis on the cognitive transfer effects in healthy adults who have been administered WM updating training with n-back tasks, the most common experimental WM training paradigm. Thanks to this methodological approach that has not been employed in previous meta-analyses in this field, we were able to include effect sizes from all relevant tasks used in the original studies. Altogether 203 effect sizes were derived from 33 published, randomized, controlled trials. In contrast to earlier meta-analyses, we separated task-specific transfer (here untrained n-back tasks) from other WM transfer tasks. Two additional cognitive domains of transfer that we analyzed consisted of fluid intelligence (Gf) and cognitive control tasks. A medium-sized transfer effect was observed to untrained n-back tasks. For other WM tasks, Gf, and cognitive control, the effect sizes were of similar size and very small. Moderator analyses showed no effects of age, training dose, training type (single vs. dual), or WM and Gf transfer task contents (verbal vs. visuospatial). We conclude that a substantial part of transfer following WM training with the n-back task is task-specific and discuss the implications of the results to WM training research.

Indexed as

CognitionMemory, Short-TermExecutive FunctionHumansLearningCognitive trainingExecutive functionsMeta-analysisN-backWorking memory

Identifiers

PMID28116702

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.