↓ Skip to main content

Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
4 blogs
twitter
28 tweeters
peer_reviews
1 peer review site
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
194 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
241 Mendeley
Title
Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis
Published in
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, August 2014
DOI 10.3758/s13423-014-0699-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jacky Au, Ellen Sheehan, Nancy Tsai, Greg J. Duncan, Martin Buschkuehl, Susanne M. Jaeggi, Au J, Sheehan E, Tsai N, Duncan GJ, Buschkuehl M, Jaeggi SM

Abstract

Working memory (WM), the ability to store and manipulate information for short periods of time, is an important predictor of scholastic aptitude and a critical bottleneck underlying higher-order cognitive processes, including controlled attention and reasoning. Recent interventions targeting WM have suggested plasticity of the WM system by demonstrating improvements in both trained and untrained WM tasks. However, evidence on transfer of improved WM into more general cognitive domains such as fluid intelligence (Gf) has been more equivocal. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis focusing on one specific training program, n-back. We searched PubMed and Google Scholar for all n-back training studies with Gf outcome measures, a control group, and healthy participants between 18 and 50 years of age. In total, we included 20 studies in our analyses that met our criteria and found a small but significant positive effect of n-back training on improving Gf. Several factors that moderate this transfer are identified and discussed. We conclude that short-term cognitive training on the order of weeks can result in beneficial effects in important cognitive functions as measured by laboratory tests.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 28 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 241 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 2%
United Kingdom 3 1%
Sweden 3 1%
Germany 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Dominican Republic 1 <1%
Poland 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Unknown 226 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 52 22%
Student > Bachelor 40 17%
Student > Master 37 15%
Researcher 28 12%
Unspecified 25 10%
Other 59 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 122 51%
Unspecified 40 17%
Neuroscience 20 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 6%
Social Sciences 13 5%
Other 31 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 55. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 April 2018.
All research outputs
#232,049
of 11,472,317 outputs
Outputs from Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
#57
of 1,503 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,081
of 188,819 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
#2
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,472,317 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,503 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 188,819 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.