Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38366265›Full record

SynthesisPsychonomic bulletin & review2024

Can we enhance working memory? Bias and effectiveness in cognitive training studies.

Jose A Rodas, Afroditi A Asimakopoulou, Ciara M Greene

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

3 authors.

Jose A RodasEscuela de Psicología, Universidad Espíritu Santo, Samborondón, Ecuador. josea.rodasp@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8217-0238
Afroditi A AsimakopoulouSchool of Psychology, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3319-8653
Ciara M GreeneSchool of Psychology, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8833-9046

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Meta-analyses have found that working memory (WM) can be improved with cognitive training; however, some authors have suggested that these improvements are mostly driven by biases in the measurement of WM, especially the use of similar tasks for assessment and training. In the present meta-analysis, we investigated whether WM, fluid intelligence, executive functions, and short-term memory can be improved by cognitive training and evaluated the impact of possible sources of bias. We performed a risk of bias assessment of the included studies and took special care in controlling for practice effects. Data from 52 independent comparisons were analyzed, including cognitive training aimed at different cognitive functions. Our results show small improvements in WM after training (SMD = 0.18). Much larger effects were observed when the analysis was restricted to assessment tasks similar to those used for training (SMD = 1.15). Fluid intelligence was not found to improve as a result of training, and improvements in WM were not related to changes in fluid intelligence. Our analyses did however indicate that cognitive training can improve specific executive functions. Contrary to expectations, a set of meta-regressions indicated that characteristics of the training programme, such as dosage and type of training, do not have an impact on the effectiveness of training. The risk of bias assessment revealed some concerns in the randomization process and possible selective reporting among studies. Overall, our results identified various potential sources of bias, with the most significant being the choice of assessment tasks.

Indexed as

Executive FunctionIntelligenceMemory, Short-TermBiasCognitionCognitive TrainingHumansCognitive trainingExecutive functionsFluid intelligenceMeta-analysisRisk of biasWorking memory

Identifiers

PMID38366265
PMCPMC11543728

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.