Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34355115›Full record

ArticleJournal of cognitive enhancement : towards the integration of theory and practice2020

Divergent Research Methods Limit Understanding of Working Memory Training.

Valentina Pergher, Mahsa Alizadeh Shalchy, Anja Pahor, Marc M Van Hulle, Susanne M Jaeggi, Aaron R Seitz

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cognitive enhancement : towards the integration of theory and practice, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
7.9field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 57 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Is working memory domain-general or domain-specific?Trends in cognitive sciences · 2024
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Cognitive Training: A Field in Search of a Phenomenon.Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Expectation effects in working memory training.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Training with an auditory perceptual learning game transfers to speech in competition.Journal of cognitive enhancement : towards the integration of theory and practice · 2022
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Exploring Individual Differences as Predictors of Performance Change During Dual-N-Back Training.Journal of cognitive enhancement : towards the integration of theory and practice · 2021
    Article
  20. Multisensory Facilitation of Working Memory Training.Journal of cognitive enhancement : towards the integration of theory and practice · 2021
    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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Valentina PergherDepartment of Neurosciences, Laboratory for Neuro- and Psychophysiology, KU Leuven-University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Mahsa Alizadeh ShalchyDepartment of Psychology, University of California, Riverside, CA, USA.
Anja PahorDepartment of Psychology, University of California, Riverside, CA, USA.
Marc M Van HulleDepartment of Neurosciences, Laboratory for Neuro- and Psychophysiology, KU Leuven-University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Susanne M JaeggiSchool of Education, School of Social Sciences, Department of Cognitive Sciences, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA.
Aaron R SeitzDepartment of Psychology, University of California, Riverside, CA, USA.
University of California, Riverside · USKU Leuven · BEUniversity of California, Irvine · US

Funding

Understanding Mediating and Moderating Factors that Determine Transfer of Working Memory TrainingR01MH111742 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE · PI Susanne M Jaeggi, Aaron R Seitz · 2016 to 2026
$5.1M
Cognitive Training and Brain Plasticity - Towards an Understanding of Mediators and ModeratorsK02AG054665 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · PI JAEGGI, SUSANNE M · 2017 to 2021
$806k
NIA NIH HHS K02 AG054665NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH111742
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Working memory training has been a hot topic over the last decade. Although studies show benefits in trained and untrained tasks as a function of training, there is an ongoing debate on the efficacy of working memory training. There have been numerous meta-analyses put forth to the field, some finding overall broad transfer effects while others do not. However, discussion of this research typically overlooks specific qualities of the training and transfer tasks. As such, there has been next to no discussion in the literature on what training and transfer tasks features are likely to mediate training outcomes. To address this gap, here, we characterized the broad diversity of features employed in N-back training tasks and outcome measures in published working memory training studies. Extant meta-analyses have not taken into account the diversity of methodology at this level, primarily because there are too few studies using common methods to allow for a robust meta-analysis. We suggest that these limitations preclude strong conclusions from published data. In order to advance research on working memory training, and in particular, N-back training, more studies are needed that systematically compare training features and use common outcome measures to assess transfer effects.

Indexed as

Cognitive functionsMeta-analysisN-backTransferWorking memory training

Identifiers

PMID34355115
PMCPMC8336689
OpenAlexW2943834229

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.