Hubbry Logo
Working memory trainingWorking memory trainingMain
Open search
Working memory training
Community hub
Working memory training
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Working memory training
Working memory training
Working memory training
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Working memory training is intended to improve a person's working memory. Working memory is a central intellectual faculty, linked to IQ, ageing, and mental health. It has been claimed that working memory training programs are effective means, both for treating specific medical conditions associated with working memory deficit, and for general increase in cognitive capacity among healthy adults.

Individual studies of the topic show different, and sometime contradictory, results, and as one meta-study states,[1] asking the question "Does cognitive training improve intelligence?" is as inappropriate as asking "Does medicine cure disease?", since none of them specify which particular intervention (which medicine or working memory training program) is being evaluated, for alleviating which condition is it applied (ADHD, stroke, general cognitive improvement etc.), and under what circumstances is it administered (selection criteria, adherence rate, outcome variables etc.).[citation needed]

In an influential metastudy from 2012, highly critical to cognitive training, analysed 23 studies with 30 group comparisons, and concluded that clinical memory training programs produce reliable short-term improvements in working memory skills in children and adults with ADHD, but also that there is no evidence that such effects can be maintained long-term without additional follow-up training.[2] Three years later, another metastudy reached the opposite conclusion, that working memory training does have consistent and useful effects, not just on the type of working memory tests that are practiced, but also at other non-trained tasks and everyday life.[3] Since then, a range of additional clinical experiments have been completed, with larger sample sizes, clearly defined control groups, and more uniform treatment of outcome variables. While the evidence is still far from unanimous, there are several experimental studies of working memory training that have shown beneficial effects for people with ADHD,[4][5] those who have suffered stroke or traumatic brain injury,[6][7] children who have undergone cancer treatment,[8][9] as well as for normally developing children.[10][11]

Working memory

[edit]
Main article: Working memory

Working memory (WM) is the system which holds multiple pieces of transitory information in the mind – information that is needed for different tasks right now. Working memory differs from short-term memory in that it is the storage and manipulation of information, while short-term is solely the storage of information in a readily available state. Therefore, short-term memory is a component of working memory.[12] Working memory capacity is usually assessed by determining the number of pieces of information that a person can hold in their mind at once. For example, a person might be asked to listen to a series of digits and letters, sort them into order in mind, and then recall the sorted list aloud. The longest set of characters or other items that can reliably be recalled is the working memory capacity.[13]

The capacity of working memory differs between people: a person able to recall eight instructions has a greater working memory capacity than someone who can only recall a series of five. Numerous scientific studies have linked working memory capacity with strength in other fundamental cognitive abilities, including attention and intelligence.[14][15] Conversely, poor working memory is assumed to be one of the core deficits in ADHD as well as a number of learning disabilities.[16][17]

Tasks

[edit]

Working memory training tasks are conducted on computers and are often paired with positive reinforcement, feedback of the individual's performance,[18] and other motivational features such as displaying the individual's current score beside their personal best score.[19] Practicing these tasks demands numerous processes such as encoding, inhibition, maintenance, manipulation, shifting and controlling attention, and the ability to manage two tasks simultaneously or dividing attention.[20] Possible forms of the tasks include recalling a series of locations of items on the screen, recalling digits or letters in either the order presented or reverse order,[19] or recalling specifically where a particular number or digit was in a sequence.[18] Computers are additionally programmed to adjust the difficulty of the task to the individual's performance with each trial in order to maximize learning and overall improvement. If the individual does poorer on one trial, the difficulty will decrease. Similarly, if the individual excels on the next few trials, the difficulty will increase. Two ways of altering the difficulty are adjusting the number of stimuli to be remembered and adding visual distractions.[21]

Strategies

[edit]

Common strategies used in working memory training include repetition of the tasks, giving feedback such as tips to improve one's performance to both the parents and the individual, positive reinforcement from those conducting the study as well as parents through praise and rewarding,[18] and the gradual adjustment of the task difficulty from trial to trial. More explicitly used strategies by the individual include rehearsal of material, chunking, pairing mental images with the material, mnemonics, and other meta-cognitive strategies.[22][23] The latter strategies have been learned and there is a conscious awareness of their use.

Exercise is also an important strategy in improving working memory. When complex motor learning is paired with specific working memory demands, engaging in long-term coordinative exercise may enhance the brain's ability to share neural resources when managing similar working memory tasks. Additionally, different exercise strategies were found to be beneficial for adults compared to adolescents.[24]

Training setup and evaluation

[edit]

Before training commences, participants complete pre-training verbal and visuo-spatial tasks, which are additionally completed in the study's follow-up as post-training tasks. Pre-training and post-training tasks vary, some studies use verbal and visuo-spatial tasks along with slightly different tasks; referred to as "nontrained tasks." Klingberg et al.[21] used visuo-spatial tasks, a Span board, the Stroop task, Raven's coloured progressive matrices, and a choice reaction time task, during pre-training and post-training. Holmes et al.[19] used a nonword recall task, mazes memory task, listening recall, and the "odd one-out" task. By using tasks that differ from ones in the study, laboratory results can demonstrate transfer effects if high scores are achieved, since these were not learned during training.

The training itself is set up in studies so that participants attend a set number of sessions over a given period of time that widely varies between studies. This can vary anywhere from two weeks to a span of eight weeks. The time spent in sessions also ranges, with some studies being as short as fifteen minutes to other studies lasting forty minutes. Studies can take place in the lab, or even at home with researchers keeping in touch through weekly phone calls.[18] There is no universal way to set up the training schedule, since all schedules tended to vary to at least to some degree. The effects are tested immediately after training is completed and again a few months after, or even up to a year later, to see if the training outcomes are still in place. Testing and evaluation can be based on the measures of academic efficiency, ratings of the individual's symptoms from teachers and parents, comparing the experimental to the control groups of the study, and self-report measures.

Transfer effects

[edit]

There are many possible transfer effects from working memory training. An increase in working memory capacity could make individuals more likely to take on tasks that have a higher working memory load, such as math and other challenging academics.[25] Holmes et al.[26] reported an improvement in mathematical reasoning, even six months after training was completed. Furthermore, there has been parent reported decreases of inattentive behaviours, hyperactivity, and impulsivity in children with ADHD,[25] in addition to a decrease in motor activity.[21] However the majority of transfer effects are seen in lab-based nontrained tasks that are completed during follow-up and immediately after training is over. A meta-analysis into 30 studies assessing the effects of various Working Memory Training found that WM training has short term reliable effects but the effectiveness in the long term is limited.[27] Another study found that using a demanding action video game could be beneficial to basic processes such as spatial cognition and rapid perception but that using a non-action 3D puzzle game showed improvements that were not transferable from the game itself.[28] Findings from these results vary according to which nontrained tasks the researcher chooses to use. The main general finding in these studies confirms that experimental groups improve on trained tasks in comparison to control groups, and that effects will need retraining to maintain.[25]

Along with reported decreases of inattentive behaviours, hyperactivity, and impulsivity in children with ADHD, a pilot study done on adults after experiencing a stroke found that systematic working memory training can improve working memory and attention. This study also contained a self-rating on symptoms of cognitive failures both before and after the study. Eight out of the nine participants that completed the study reported less cognitive failures occurring in the post-study rating compared to prior to the study. Overall, the pilot study concludes that working memory training in adult patients that have previously had a stroke can both improve their cognitive function as measured by neuropsychological tests as well as improvements in subjective reports of cognitive failures.[29]

Studies have also proven that working memory training can possibly help to improve deficits in working memory caused by anxiety and depression disorders, especially in adolescents. A trial study tested the WM of 733 adolescent participants, randomly assigning them to an active or placebo emotional working memory training. Emotional stimuli was used as the best way to see results because of the major influence anxiety and depression disorders have on emotional regulation. After 4 weeks of bi-weekly training, results showed improvements in working memory, both short-term and long-term emotional functioning, and even an increase in self esteem among the active group. While improvements in WM were observed in both groups, there were many limitations and further research is still needed to produce training that will create long term effects in those who suffer from mental health disorders such as anxiety and depression.[30]

Although some studies published have argued that working memory training has the ability to improve overall intelligence, more recent literature suggests that working memory training does not transfer to other cognitive ability tests. It also suggests that the conclusions drawn in the previous studies are a result of design limitations, mixed results, and a lack of theoretical grounding.[31] The limitations are mostly found in the lack of controls in the previous studies. A paper that evaluated all previous literature on working memory training noted that not a single study had concurrently controlled for "motivation, commitment, and difficulty" in both the experimental and control groups.[32] A few years after this paper was published, a randomized, placebo-controlled study was conducted to test the transfer effects of working memory training while controlling for all aspects previously mentioned.[31] This study concluded that working memory training had no positive transfer to any of other cognitive ability tests including fluid intelligence, multitasking, crystallized intelligence, and perceptual speed.

History

[edit]

The concept of working memory became widely accepted and its importance better understood across the 1970s. At this time, a number of attempts to improve working memory were also initiated.[33] For instance, in one case, a college student practiced repeating numbers that were read to him aloud for an hour each day.[34] He did this three to five times a week for 20 months until he could repeat as many as 79 digits. While his capacity on this trained task had improved, his working memory: the ability to store information, as described above had not. This was most clearly demonstrated when, asked to repeat letters instead of numbers, this same student with over 320 hrs of practice at recalling digits could recall only six letters at a time: a normal to below average performance. The effect of the training was not to improve the working memory system but to change the information being stored: the student had learned multiple methods of grouping numbers and relating them to similar figures already in his long-term memory. In reality, his working memory capacity had not increased. This study and others like it contributed to the prevailing assumption in the scientific community that working memory is a set characteristic that cannot be improved.

ADHD controversy

[edit]

Many clinical studies published in 1990s and 2000s claim that working memory training is an efficient strategy for mitigating effects of ADHD and other cognitive disorders.[35] Many studies also demonstrated that working memory training enhances episodic memory and could lead to better performance and improvements in fluid intelligence and processing speed tasks in the elderly.[36][37][38]

Georgia Institute of Technology researchers who reviewed 17 studies on WMT concluded that "the results are inconsistent" due to the fact that many studies had "inadequate controls" as well as "ineffective measurement of the cognitive abilities of interest."[39]

In 2012, a systematic meta-analytic review was undertaken.[2] Stringent criteria for inclusion ensured that all studies were either randomized controlled trials or quasi-experiments. All studies had to have a treatment and a treated or untreated control group. By this time, some twenty-three studies met these criteria, including both clinical samples of typically developing children and adults. The results closely replicated the original finding by Ericcson et al. (1980):[34] There were short-term improvements in practiced skills. While the results were conclusive for ADHD population, there was no convincing evidence for transfer or generalization effects (indicating improved capacity) in typically developing children and healthy adults."[2]

Other researchers have studied the effects of training on children with attention issues. Among them are NYU,[40][41] and the University of York.[26] In addition, many researchers are now exploring the use of working memory training for various new applications, with studies having been completed or launched on normal and aging adults,[42] pediatric cancer survivors,[43] and victims of stroke and traumatic brain injury.[44][45] In the February 2009 edition of Science, Klingberg and colleagues, led by F. McNab, claimed that adaptive span training had led to changes in dopamine D1 and D2 receptors.[46] In the same study, tests of "far transfer" – whether or not the skills in one test applied to very different intelligence-related skills – were made. The results were not reported.[39] (see supporting online materials). Moreover, research at the Wallenberg Neuroscience Center in Sweden indicates that working memory training may decrease hippocampal neurogenesis. When experimental medical scientists trained adult male rats in a working memory task for 4 or 14 days, rats trained for two weeks had fewer newborn hippocampal neurons than those that were only trained for 4 days. The report suggests that increased stress, caused by an intense training of working memory, can reduce the production of hippocampal neurons.[47]

Lack of credible evidence of efficacy is increasingly highlighted in popular media.[48][49][50]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Working memory training

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Working memory training refers to a set of structured interventions designed to enhance an individual's capacity to temporarily hold and manipulate information in the mind, a core function of the cognitive system known as , which underpins complex tasks such as reasoning, learning, and . These programs typically involve repetitive, adaptive exercises that increase in difficulty, often delivered through computerized platforms like Cogmed or tasks, to target verbal, visuospatial, or dual components of . Originating from research in the late , working memory training has gained prominence as a non-pharmacological approach to address deficits in populations such as children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and healthy adults seeking cognitive enhancement. Key methods in training emphasize adaptive practice, where task difficulty adjusts based on performance to maintain engagement near the individual's capacity limit, typically spanning 20–45 minutes per session over 4–8 weeks. Common paradigms include the n-back task, requiring participants to identify stimuli matching those from n steps earlier in a sequence, and complex span tasks that interleave memory storage with distracting activities like solving math problems. Programs may also incorporate elements from mindfulness meditation, physical exercise, or action video games to broaden potential benefits, though computerized cognitive training remains the most studied format. These interventions aim not only for near-transfer—improvements on similar untrained tasks—but also for far-transfer to unrelated domains like , academic performance, or fluid intelligence. Empirical evidence from meta-analyses indicates reliable short-term gains in trained working memory capacities, with effect sizes ranging from moderate (d = 0.52 for visuospatial) to large (d = 0.79 for verbal), particularly in clinical groups like those with ADHD. A second-order of healthy adults reported a small but significant overall improvement (SMD = 0.335), with near-transfer effects more consistent than far-transfer, which shows mixed or negligible outcomes for broader . Long-term retention varies, with some benefits persisting up to 18 months in certain studies, though gains often fade without maintenance practice; factors like training intensity, age, and baseline ability influence efficacy. Despite these findings, controversies persist regarding the generalizability of benefits, prompting ongoing research into underlying neural mechanisms, such as changes in connectivity.

Fundamentals of Working Memory

Definition and Components

Working memory refers to a limited-capacity cognitive system responsible for the temporary storage and manipulation of information required for ongoing cognitive tasks, such as reasoning, comprehension, and . Unlike , which retains information indefinitely, working memory operates over short durations, typically seconds, and is essential for bridging immediate with higher-order processing. This system enables individuals to hold and transform mental representations actively, distinguishing it from passive short-term storage. The prevailing multicomponent framework, developed by Baddeley and Hitch, delineates into several interconnected subsystems. The central executive serves as an attentional control mechanism that coordinates cognitive resources, focuses attention, and inhibits irrelevant information, without dedicated storage capacity of its own. It oversees two primary "slave" systems: the phonological loop, which maintains and rehearses verbal and auditory material (e.g., inner speech or digit sequences), and the visuospatial sketchpad, which handles visual and spatial representations (e.g., mental of locations or shapes). In 2000, Baddeley proposed an additional component, the episodic buffer, a temporary integrative store that binds information from the slave systems, sensory inputs, and long-term memory into unified, multimodal episodes, facilitating complex synthesis without overloading the executive. Working memory underpins essential daily cognitive functions, including reading (by retaining words and syntactic structures), problem-solving (by keeping track of intermediate steps and goals), and learning (by supporting comprehension and integration). Its capacity is inherently constrained; George Miller's seminal proposal of a "magic number" of 7±2 chunks has been refined by subsequent research, indicating a core limit of approximately 4±1 items in focused conditions, beyond which decays or is displaced. At the neural level, working memory relies heavily on the prefrontal cortex for executive control, maintenance, and manipulation of information, with the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex particularly implicated in sustaining representations against interference. Supporting regions, such as the parietal cortex, contribute to visuospatial processing and attentional allocation, forming a distributed frontoparietal network that dynamically engages during task demands.

Theoretical Models

One of the foundational theoretical frameworks for understanding working memory is the multicomponent model proposed by Baddeley and Hitch in 1974. This model conceptualizes working memory as an active system comprising a central executive—a flexible attentional control mechanism that coordinates cognitive processes—and two domain-specific slave systems: the phonological loop, which handles verbal and auditory information through subvocal rehearsal and temporary storage, and the visuo-spatial sketchpad, responsible for visual and spatial representations. The central executive draws on limited attentional resources to focus, divide, and switch attention as needed, while the slave systems provide modality-specific buffers with inherent capacity constraints. This architecture addressed limitations in earlier unitary short-term memory models by emphasizing the interplay between storage and processing. An important update to the multicomponent model came in 2000 with Baddeley's addition of the episodic buffer, a multimodal integrative component that binds information from the slave systems and into coherent, episode-based representations. The episodic buffer operates as a limited-capacity interface, enabling the conscious access and manipulation of unified chunks of information without relying solely on the phonological loop or visuo-spatial . This refinement resolved explanatory gaps in the original model, such as how disparate sensory inputs are combined for complex tasks like comprehension or , while maintaining the core distinction between domain-specific storage and domain-general control. Cowan's embedded-processes model, introduced in 1999, offers an alternative perspective by embedding working memory within broader long-term memory structures rather than positing isolated components. In this view, working memory emerges from the activation of long-term memory traces, with a core capacity limited to about four items or "chunks" that can be held in the focus of attention—a narrow, spotlight-like mechanism that selects and refreshes relevant information. Activated but unattended information decays rapidly outside this focus, emphasizing attention's role in maintenance over dedicated storage buffers. Unlike the multicomponent approach, this model prioritizes hierarchical activation levels and the integration of novelty with familiar knowledge, suggesting that working memory capacity reflects attentional scope rather than separate subsystems. A key theoretical debate concerns whether capacity operates as a unitary, domain-general resource or through domain-specific mechanisms. Proponents of the unitary view argue for a single, central pool of attentional resources that supports performance across verbal, visuospatial, and other modalities, with individual differences primarily reflecting general executive efficiency. In contrast, domain-specific perspectives, aligned with Baddeley's multicomponent structure, posit separable capacities for different content types, such as phonological versus visuospatial, allowing independent variation and specialization. Empirical patterns in dual-task interference and factor analyses reveal both shared variance—indicating some domain-general attentional limits—and modality-specific factors, suggesting a hybrid architecture where core control processes are general but storage is differentiated. These models carry implications for the potential malleability of components in contexts. Baddeley's framework suggests that while slave system capacities, like that of the phonological loop, may be relatively fixed by biological constraints, the central executive's attentional and coordinative functions could be enhanced through targeted practice, as they rely on flexible, learnable strategies. Cowan's model similarly implies that might broaden the effective focus of or optimize from , though the intrinsic four-chunk limit may resist expansion, shifting emphasis to efficiency in selection and interference resolution. Overall, both perspectives highlight executive processes as prime candidates for intervention, predicting greater trainability for control-oriented aspects than for raw storage limits.

Training Methods and Tasks

Common Training Tasks

Working memory training programs commonly employ a variety of tasks designed to challenge the storage, manipulation, and updating of information in buffers. These tasks typically target specific subsystems of working memory, such as the phonological loop for verbal material, the visuospatial for spatial information, and the central executive for and coordination. One of the most widely used paradigms is the dual task, which requires participants to simultaneously monitor two streams of stimuli—typically auditory letters and visual positions—and identify matches to stimuli presented n items earlier in the sequence. The difficulty level adapts dynamically by increasing n (e.g., from 1-back to 2-back or higher) based on the user's accuracy, ensuring sustained engagement near the performance threshold. This task primarily engages the central executive through its demands on divided attention and interference resolution, while also taxing the phonological loop and visuospatial via the dual modalities. Simple span tasks, such as digit span and Corsi block-tapping, focus on the basic capacity of verbal and spatial working memory subsystems, respectively. In the digit span task, participants listen to or view a sequence of spoken or written digits and must recall them in forward or backward order, with sequence length progressively increasing until errors occur. This exercise targets the phonological loop by rehearsing and sequencing auditory-verbal information. Similarly, the Corsi block-tapping task presents an array of blocks, illuminating a subset in sequence, after which participants tap the blocks in the same order (forward or backward). It engages the visuospatial sketchpad by requiring the retention and reproduction of spatial locations without verbal encoding. Complex span tasks extend simple spans by interleaving memory storage with a secondary processing demand, simulating real-world multitasking. For instance, the reading span task involves reading sentences aloud or silently and remembering the final word of each, while the operation span task requires verifying simple math equations (e.g., "2 + 4 = ?") and recalling the answers in order. These tasks load the central executive heavily, as the processing component (e.g., comprehension or calculation) competes for resources, thereby training resistance to interference and executive oversight of the phonological or visuospatial subsystems. Computerized training programs integrate these and similar exercises into adaptive, gamified formats to enhance user adherence. Cogmed, for example, features a suite of tasks including visuospatial rotations (e.g., mentally rotating 3D figures to match targets) and verbal updating (e.g., tracking changing animal positions or sounds), which collectively target all major components through progressive difficulty adjustments. Likewise, Jungle Memory employs web-based games such as grids for spatial recall, word hunts for verbal updating, and for executive control, emphasizing visuospatial and phonological engagement in a child-friendly interface. These programs often include 20-30 distinct exercises, rotating daily to prevent while focusing on core updating and storage mechanisms.

Strategies in Training

Mnemonic strategies play a central role in training by leveraging cognitive techniques to enhance the effective capacity of beyond its inherent limits. Chunking involves grouping individual items into larger, meaningful units, such as organizing a sequence of numbers into familiar patterns, which reduces the on short-term storage. , often through subvocal repetition, maintains information in the phonological loop, while visualization creates to encode and retrieve stimuli more efficiently. These methods, rooted in mnemonic traditions, have been shown to significantly improve performance in tasks like digit span or visual arrays by expanding the functional span of . Strategy instruction explicitly teaches participants these mnemonic techniques during training sessions to foster their deliberate application. For instance, trainers may guide users in grouping items thematically or employing mental imagery to form vivid associations, such as picturing abstract words as interactive scenes. This instructional approach, distinct from implicit learning, promotes metacognitive awareness and sustained strategy use, leading to greater gains in working memory capacity compared to training without such guidance. Seminal studies emphasize that teaching grouping and imagery not only boosts immediate recall but also transfers to untrained contexts by strengthening encoding processes. Adaptive difficulty progression adjusts task demands dynamically based on , typically increasing load when accuracy reaches an 80-90% threshold to maintain optimal challenge. In contrast, non-adaptive training uses fixed difficulty levels, which may lead to plateaus or disengagement if mismatched to the user's ability. Algorithms in adaptive programs, such as those in tasks, escalate complexity—e.g., from 1-back to higher loads—upon hitting this accuracy criterion, ensuring sustained engagement and targeted skill development. Research indicates adaptive methods yield superior near-transfer effects on measures than non-adaptive counterparts, as they prevent under- or over-challenging participants. Dual-task integration incorporates simultaneous cognitive demands, such as pairing a working memory load with executive function operations like inhibition or switching, to train attentional control and multitasking. This approach combines simple storage tasks with complex manipulations, mimicking real-world demands and enhancing the central executive component of working memory. For example, programs may require recalling sequences while performing arithmetic, fostering interference resolution and broader cognitive flexibility. Evidence from controlled trials shows dual-task training improves executive functions more robustly than single-task working memory exercises alone. Motivational elements, including , feedback loops, and reward systems, are integrated to boost adherence and engagement in training programs. employs game-like features such as points, badges, and leaderboards to transform repetitive tasks into rewarding experiences, increasing session completion rates. Immediate feedback loops provide real-time performance insights, while rewards reinforce progress, leveraging responses to sustain motivation over extended training periods. These components have been demonstrated to enhance both cognitive outcomes and user retention in computerized training platforms.

Implementation and Evaluation

Training Protocols

Working memory training protocols typically involve 20 to 25 sessions delivered over 5 to 6 weeks, with each session lasting 30 to 45 minutes and occurring 3 to 5 days per week. This structure, exemplified in programs like Cogmed, aims to balance intensity with sustainability to promote engagement without overwhelming participants. Training can be administered in home-based or clinician-supervised formats, each with distinct advantages and limitations. Home-based approaches, often using self-administered apps, offer flexibility and cost-efficiency, allowing participants to train at their convenience without travel. However, they may face challenges with adherence due to lack of external motivation and . In contrast, clinician-supervised formats provide guided feedback and monitoring, enhancing compliance but requiring more resources and potentially limiting accessibility. Personalization is a core feature of many protocols, beginning with baseline assessments to evaluate initial working memory capacity and tailor task difficulty accordingly. For instance, Cogmed RM uses adaptive algorithms to adjust challenge levels in real-time based on performance, ensuring optimal engagement for school-aged children. However, recent research indicates that adaptive training may not always be superior to non-adaptive methods, particularly in children. This individualized approach helps match training intensity to the participant's needs, potentially improving retention and effectiveness. Compliance is monitored through integrated progress tracking software that logs session completion, performance metrics, and engagement patterns. Adherence rates in working memory training programs typically range from 70% to 90%, influenced by factors such as supervision level and participant motivation. These tools enable coaches or researchers to intervene early if completion drops, fostering accountability. Protocols vary between intensive schedules, such as daily sessions, and ones with fewer sessions per week. Intensive formats may accelerate skill acquisition but risk , while schedules—often fewer than three sessions weekly—support better retention, particularly in older adults. Meta-analyses indicate that distributed training can yield comparable or superior outcomes to massed practice in interventions.

Assessment Methods

Assessment of working memory training typically involves pre- and post-training evaluations using standardized cognitive tests to measure changes in working memory capacity and related functions. Common tools include the Wechsler Digit Span task, which assesses verbal short-term and working memory through forward and backward recall of digit sequences, and the Automated Working Memory Assessment (AWMA), a computerized battery that evaluates verbal short-term memory, verbal working memory, visuospatial short-term memory, and visuospatial working memory via tasks like digit recall and dot matrix tasks. These assessments are administered before training to establish baseline performance and immediately after to quantify improvements, with follow-up tests often conducted to evaluate retention. Fidelity to the training protocol is monitored through objective metrics such as session completion rates, where participants are required to finish a predetermined number of sessions (e.g., 20-25 over several weeks), and error rates on training tasks to ensure adaptive difficulty adjustments are applied correctly. Engagement is tracked via time on task and response accuracy logs embedded in computerized programs like Cogmed, helping to identify adherence issues and verify that participants actively engage rather than passively completing sessions. Reliability of these assessment tools is established through test-retest consistency, with the AWMA demonstrating coefficients ranging from 0.64 to 0.84 across age groups, indicating moderate to high stability over short intervals. is supported by the batteries' design, which minimizes factors through standardized administration and high (e.g., Pearson's r = 0.97 for outcome scoring). To control for placebo effects, studies incorporate active control groups, where participants engage in non-adaptive or low-demand tasks (e.g., math exercises), compared to passive (no-contact) controls, which only account for test-retest effects but inflate estimates of benefits. Active controls provide a more rigorous benchmark by matching for expectancy and time commitment. Statistical evaluation relies on effect sizes such as Cohen's d to quantify within-group improvements, with values above 0.5 often interpreted as indicating clinically meaningful change in performance. Random-effects models are commonly used to aggregate data across studies, accounting for heterogeneity in participant samples and training protocols.

Evidence of Effects

Near Transfer Effects

Near transfer effects in working memory training refer to performance gains on untrained tasks that share structural similarities with the trained activities, such as improvements from tasks to complex span measures, indicating domain-specific enhancements rather than broad cognitive changes. Meta-analyses have consistently demonstrated small-to-moderate near transfer effects on verbal and spatial working memory subscales. In a seminal 2013 review by Melby-Lervåg and , analyzing 23 studies, training yielded a Hedges' g of 0.79 for verbal working memory (based on 21 effect sizes) and 0.52 for spatial working memory (18 effect sizes), reflecting reliable short-term gains specific to these domains. A 2024 second-order by Syed et al., synthesizing six prior meta-analyses, reported a small but significant overall improvement in working memory (SMD = 0.34) for healthy adults, confirming consistent near-transfer effects, with no superiority among training types like adaptive or dual-task protocols. These findings align with earlier work, emphasizing that effects are strongest immediately post-training and limited to structurally akin tasks. These gains arise primarily from skill-specific practice effects, where repeated exposure to similar cognitive demands refines task-relevant strategies and neural efficiency without evidence of overarching cognitive enhancement. For instance, phonological training has been shown to improve digit recall performance, as measured by subtests of the Automated Working Memory Assessment (AWMA), due to enhanced rehearsal and storage mechanisms in verbal . However, near transfer effects often diminish over time without ongoing maintenance sessions; in the Melby-Lervåg and Hulme analysis, verbal gains faded to a nonsignificant g of 0.31 at an average 9-month follow-up (6 effect sizes), while spatial effects showed modest persistence at g = 0.41 (4 effect sizes). This transience underscores the task-bound nature of training outcomes, with durability varying by domain and individual factors.

Far Transfer Effects

Far transfer effects in training refer to improvements in cognitive domains or real-world outcomes that are unrelated to the specific trained tasks, such as enhancements in fluid intelligence (often assessed via ), sustained , or academic skills like and mathematical reasoning. Unlike near transfer, which is limited to similar memory tasks, far transfer implies broader to untrained abilities that underpin complex thinking and learning. Evidence for far transfer remains mixed and generally modest, with recent meta-analyses indicating small positive effects on (Cohen's d ≈ 0.1-0.3) but null or negligible impacts on fluid intelligence or IQ. For instance, a 2024 meta-analysis of cognitive training studies found no reliable transfer to fluid intelligence measures, attributing apparent gains to methodological artifacts. In contrast, a 2025 systematic review of training among Iranian students reported some academic benefits, particularly in and performance, though these were context-specific and moderated by high heterogeneity across studies. Factors influencing these outcomes include participant age, with stronger transfer observed in children compared to adults; training intensity and duration, where more extensive protocols yield marginally better results; and the use of active control groups, which often diminish or eliminate apparent far transfer effects by accounting for expectancy and biases. Real-world applications of far transfer show limited but notable examples, such as modest gains in among children with following targeted training, or slight improvements in math problem-solving accuracy in elementary school settings. However, these benefits do not consistently extend to broader daily functioning, like multitasking in everyday tasks or long-term . Recent critiques emphasize that early influential studies, such as Jaeggi et al. (2008), which suggested substantial IQ gains from training, were likely inflated by , small sample sizes, and lack of active controls, with subsequent large-scale replications failing to confirm such broad effects.

Applications and Controversies

Clinical Applications in ADHD

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is frequently associated with deficits in , particularly in the central executive component responsible for attention allocation, inhibition, and , making it a primary target for intervention. These impairments contribute to core symptoms such as inattention and hyperactivity, and working memory training seeks to address them by enhancing cognitive capacity as an adjunct to standard treatments like medication, potentially mitigating side effects such as or reduced appetite. A prominent program in this domain is Cogmed Working Memory Training (CWMT), a computerized intervention designed specifically for children with ADHD, involving 45- to 50-minute adaptive sessions five days per week for five weeks. The protocol emphasizes visuospatial and verbal tasks that adjust in difficulty to maintain engagement, and it is often integrated into broader behavioral therapy frameworks to reinforce gains through real-world application, such as parent coaching on attention strategies. Evidence from recent meta-analyses indicates moderate near-transfer effects to and tasks, with standardized mean differences around d = 0.32 to 0.49 for verbal and visuospatial domains, but limited far-transfer to core ADHD symptoms like hyperactivity, where effects are small (d ≈ 0.11) and inconsistent across 2023 analyses. Clinical guidelines from organizations such as the (AAP) and the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) do not recommend training due to insufficient evidence for broad symptom reduction, prioritizing pharmacological and behavioral therapies. In , case examples among children aged 8 to 12 with the combined ADHD subtype demonstrate targeted benefits, including enhanced such as improved completion of assignments and sustained during lessons following CWMT completion.

Broader Applications and Debates

training has been explored for applications in aging populations, particularly those with (MCI), where computerized programs like Cogmed have shown potential to improve self-reported executive function and daily living abilities. Systematic reviews indicate that non-pharmacological interventions targeting can enhance cognitive functions in MCI, though effects vary by training modality such as mobile apps or multisensory approaches. In (), training programs have demonstrated benefits for patients with acquired brain injury, improving and memory impairments through adaptive computerized tasks, with randomized trials supporting modest gains in higher-order functions like strategic memory. For healthy adults seeking cognitive enhancement, meta-analyses confirm that training can increase capacity and , particularly in older individuals, leading to sustained improvements in and when combined with techniques like . Recent integrations, such as mindfulness-based training in 2025 studies, have targeted stress reduction by enhancing in high-demand groups, with meta-analyses showing positive effects across clinical and healthy populations. Debates surrounding training often center on commercialization, exemplified by programs like Cogmed, which have faced for claims of broad cognitive benefits that exceed the evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses. These controversies highlight discrepancies between promotional assertions of generalized improvements in and learning versus findings that training yields limited real-world transfer, prompting calls for more rigorous validation before widespread adoption. Access equity remains a concern, as commercial programs are often costly and digitally inaccessible to underserved populations, exacerbating disparities in cognitive health interventions despite the potential of low-cost mobile apps. Placebo effects in non-clinical use have also been scrutinized, with studies unpacking expectation-driven gains but finding no strong evidence that mindset manipulations like intelligence beliefs significantly amplify training outcomes beyond task-specific improvements. Ethical concerns arise from overpromising benefits, particularly when parents explore training as an alternative to standard ADHD treatments, as can lead to delayed evidence-based care and financial burdens. Regulatory scrutiny underscores these issues, with the FDA not approving general working memory training programs as medical devices; while some cognitive games like EndeavorRx received clearance for ADHD in 2020, broader applications lack such validation, emphasizing the need for rigor. Future implications include combining training with , which has shown enhanced and memory in healthy adults and ADHD populations through integrated protocols that target brain activity in real-time. Pairing with holds promise for amplified transfer effects, though empirical studies remain preliminary, suggesting multimodal approaches could address current limitations in . Recent 2024-2025 reviews question the robustness of far transfer effects from training, with meta-analyses indicating no reliable to or unrelated tasks, yet supporting targeted applications in to bolster specific skills like in classroom settings. These updates advocate for refined protocols emphasizing near-transfer gains over broad enhancement claims.

Historical Development

Early Research

The foundational concepts of working memory trace back to pre-1980s models that emphasized limited capacity in short-term information processing. The Atkinson-Shiffrin model (1968) posited a short-term store as a gateway between sensory input and long-term memory, with a capacity of approximately seven items, influencing early research on memory constraints as fixed rather than malleable. This view shaped initial capacity perspectives, portraying short-term memory as a passive buffer prone to rapid decay. However, the training focus on working memory emerged following Baddeley and Hitch's 1974 model, which reconceptualized short-term memory as an active, multicomponent system—including phonological and visuospatial subsystems—for temporary storage and manipulation, suggesting potential for enhancement through targeted practice.60452-3) In the late 1990s, pioneering efforts introduced computerized training, building on classic tasks like digit span to extend capacity limits. Researchers began developing adaptive programs that adjusted task difficulty in real-time to challenge participants, marking a shift from static exercises to dynamic interventions. A key milestone was the establishment of these adaptive paradigms, which aimed to induce cognitive improvements by progressively increasing demands on storage and manipulation. For instance, early implementations extended digit span tasks—originally measuring verbal —into interactive formats requiring reversal or integration of sequences, laying groundwork for broader applications. Seminal studies in the early 2000s built on these foundations, linking deficits to clinical conditions like ADHD. Klingberg et al. (2002) conducted one of the first investigations, demonstrating that intensive, adaptive computerized training improved capacity in children with ADHD, alongside gains in reasoning and reduced inattentiveness; this work highlighted the potential therapeutic role of training by establishing an explicit connection between impairments and ADHD symptoms. Similarly, small-scale early trials provided initial evidence of neural plasticity. Olesen et al. (2004) used (fMRI) to show increased activation in prefrontal and parietal regions—key areas for —following five weeks of training in healthy adults, suggesting that such interventions could induce structural and functional brain changes. Despite these advances, early faced significant limitations that tempered enthusiasm for broad . Many studies relied on small sample sizes, often fewer than 10 participants per group, which reduced statistical power and generalizability; for example, the Klingberg et al. (2002) trial included only seven children per condition. Additionally, a frequent absence of active control groups—relying instead on no-treatment or waitlist designs—left open the possibility that observed gains stemmed from practice effects, motivation, or nonspecific factors rather than specific enhancements. These methodological constraints, common in late and early work, underscored the need for more rigorous designs in subsequent investigations.

Recent Advances

Recent neuroimaging studies have provided deeper insights into the neural mechanisms underlying training. A 2024 fMRI of 40 studies involving 697 healthy adults revealed that training induces decreased activation in the , including the bilateral , left , and right , suggesting improved neural efficiency. Increased activation was observed in dopamine-related areas like the left dorsal striatum, particularly with longer training durations exceeding 10 hours or tasks emphasizing . These changes highlight how training enhances for and manipulation, with task type moderating outcomes— tasks boosting retrieval and , while tasks improve monitoring. Methodological innovations have challenged traditional paradigms, particularly regarding adaptivity. A 2024 randomized controlled trial with 201 children aged 7–11 found no significant near, intermediate, or far transfer effects from adaptive, self-select, or stepwise compared to active controls, with negligible effect sizes across 10 sessions. This aligns with emerging evidence that non-adaptive approaches may suffice, prompting a reevaluation of adaptive designs' necessity. Concurrently, multimodal interventions have gained traction; a 2025 double-blind study of 85 older adults (aged 55–92) demonstrated that combining cognitive with anodal (tDCS) over the left yielded sustained improvements in verbal fluency (mean difference -3.6 points), MoCA scores (3.8 points), and logical (-3 points) at 3-month follow-up, outperforming sham tDCS or controls. In clinical populations, recent trials underscore targeted benefits. A 2025 study of 106 young adults with ADHD showed adaptive dual n-back training over 18 sessions significantly enhanced verbal on WAIS-IV indices ( d > 1.0), particularly Digit Span Backward, though visuospatial transfer via Corsi Block-Tapping was mixed and limited. For children, a 2024 randomized trial with 572 first graders reported 0.40–0.46 standard deviation gains in visuospatial capacity, with spillovers to (0.38 SD), fluid IQ (0.31 SD), and (0.29 SD), culminating in a 16 increase in advanced school track placement three years later. These findings emphasize training's potential for academic and cognitive enhancement while highlighting the need for population-specific protocols.

References

  1. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/behavioral-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnbeh.2021.686873/full
  2. https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/dev-49-2-270.pdf
  3. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11595675/
  4. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01538-2
  5. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043158
  6. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X01003922
  7. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364661300015382
  8. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/models-of-working-memory/an-embeddedprocesses-model-of-working-memory/A16A927D2D70A98FD61D13A3A935313D
  9. https://englelab.gatech.edu/articles/1999/individual-differences-in-working-memory-capacity.pdf
  10. https://coglab.eu/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/kovacs-et-al-the-domain-specificity-of-working-memory-is-a-matter-of-ability.pdf
  11. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0801268105
  12. https://www.psytoolkit.org/experiment-library/digitspan.html
  13. https://www.psytoolkit.org/experiment-library/corsi.html
  14. https://libres.uncg.edu/ir/uncg/f/M_Kane_WorkingMemory_2005.pdf
  15. https://www.cogmed.com/
  16. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002839321830143X
  17. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15248372.2023.2172413
  18. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749596X18300871
  19. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7517097/
  20. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4706496/
  21. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32909352/
  22. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6401296/
  23. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/aging-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnagi.2017.00039/full
  24. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11764-025-01783-8
  25. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3368385/
  26. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/human-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00085/full
  27. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10514855/
  28. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7445616/
  29. https://games.jmir.org/2018/2/e10/
  30. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/12/19/9785
  31. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301051125001589
  32. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4235173/
  33. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychiatry/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00388/full
  34. https://www.cogmed.com/articles/training-your-working-memory
  35. https://www.pearsonclinical.co.uk/en-gb/Store/Professional-Assessments/Cognition-%2526-Neuro/Memory/Cogmed-Working-Memory-Training-/p/P100009002
  36. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5550674/
  37. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6966247/
  38. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/15347354231164401
  39. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5371244/
  40. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1747938X18303658
  41. https://srcd.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cdev.14180
  42. https://www.cogmed.com/research
  43. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0219541
  44. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-the-international-neuropsychological-society/article/psychometric-and-adherence-considerations-for-highfrequency-smartphonebased-cognitive-screening-protocols-in-older-adults/F14D17F7011D4CEF9B36C1949D5D1172
  45. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1165275/full
  46. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7265810/
  47. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5126970/
  48. https://pubs.asha.org/doi/10.1044/2024_JSLHR-23-00466
  49. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4232921/
  50. https://dspace.stir.ac.uk/bitstream/1893/726/1/Allowayetal08_LEAID3.pdf
  51. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8320766/
  52. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0177707
  53. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/education/articles/10.3389/feduc.2021.812760/full
  54. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Near-and-Far-Transfer-in-Cognitive-Training%253A-A-Sala-Aksayli/943bbf6593419a04c39a3de7a9c5a38464acfd4a
  55. https://www.nifdi.org/resources/88-news/kerry-hempenstall/758-near-and-far-transfer-in-cognitive-training.html
  56. https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13423-024-02466-8
  57. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/education/articles/10.3389/feduc.2025.1456583/full
  58. https://cerj.educ.cam.ac.uk/archive/v9_2022/v9_2_17-32_shen_tsapali.pdf
  59. https://www.nature.com/articles/srep32859
  60. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4968033/
  61. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8334010/
  62. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3744604/
  63. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-023-02000-7
  64. https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/144/4/e20192528/81590/Clinical-Practice-Guideline-for-the-Diagnosis
  65. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng87
  66. https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/146/6/e20194028/33544/The-Effectiveness-of-Working-Memory-Training-for
  67. https://bmcneurol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12883-025-04381-4
  68. https://www.advrehab.org/Non-Pharmacological-Interventions-Targeting-Working-Memory-in-Mild-Cognitive-Impairment-A-Systematic-Review-and-Meta-Analysis%2C125%2C55889%2C1%2C1.html
  69. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21843045/
  70. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neurology/articles/10.3389/fneur.2020.569005/full
  71. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.03.21.644687v1.full-text
  72. https://www.mdpi.com/2079-3200/12/11/114
  73. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306452225007158
  74. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120927123808.htm
  75. https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2013-30974-013.pdf?sr=1
  76. https://mhealth.jmir.org/2025/1/e69637
  77. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9586315/
  78. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.712309/epub
  79. https://www.nifdi.org/resources/hempenstall-blog/727-brain-training-programs-such-as-working-memory-training-do-they-aid-reading-development
  80. https://www.brainhq.com/news/latest-news/2-companies-seek-fda-approval-for-brain-games-to-treat-adhd/
  81. https://psy.fsu.edu/clc/Publications/Evans2021.pdf
  82. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31053887/
  83. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0361923025004356
  84. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001691825008121
  85. https://jps.ecnu.edu.cn/EN/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20250210
  86. https://dyslexiahelp.umich.edu/latest/working-memory-training-does-not-improve-performance-measures-intelligence/
  87. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12424652/
  88. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14699419/
  89. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811924003823
  90. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-08322-6
  91. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3425/15/9/998
  92. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/732884
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.