Trial reportPloS one2017
Working memory training in healthy young adults: Support for the null from a randomized comparison to active and passive control groups.
Trial report in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Cognition, body, and mind: A three-in-one coordinate-based fMRI meta-analysis on cognitive, physical, and meditative trainings.Human brain mapping · 2023Pooled it
- What Is Targeted When We Train Working Memory? Evidence From a Meta-Analysis of the Neural Correlates of Working Memory Training Using Activation Likelihood Estimation.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Pooled it
- The Effects of Working Memory Training on Brain Activity.Brain sciences · 2021Article
- The Mindset of Intelligence Is Not a Contributor of Placebo Effects in Working Memory Training.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
- Locating neural transfer effects of n-back training on the central executive: a longitudinal fMRI study.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Divergent Research Methods Limit Understanding of Working Memory Training.Journal of cognitive enhancement : towards the integration of theory and practice · 2020Article
- Validation of a matrix reasoning task for mobile devices.Behavior research methods · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Training of working memory as a method of increasing working memory capacity and fluid intelligence has received much attention in recent years. This burgeoning field remains highly controversial with empirically-backed disagreements at all levels of evidence, including individual studies, systematic reviews, and even meta-analyses. The current study investigated the effect of a randomized six week online working memory intervention on untrained cognitive abilities in a community-recruited sample of healthy young adults, in relation to both a processing speed training active control condition, as well as a no-contact control condition. Results of traditional null hypothesis significance testing, as well as Bayesian factor analyses, revealed support for the null hypothesis across all cognitive tests administered before and after training. Importantly, all three groups were similar at pre-training for a variety of individual variables purported to moderate transfer of training to fluid intelligence, including personality traits, motivation to train, and expectations of cognitive improvement from training. Because these results are consistent with experimental trials of equal or greater methodological rigor, we suggest that future research re-focus on: 1) other promising interventions known to increase memory performance in healthy young adults, and; 2) examining sub-populations or alternative populations in which working memory training may be efficacious.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.