↓ Skip to main content

The role of individual differences in cognitive training and transfer

Overview of attention for article published in Memory & Cognition, October 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
15 X users
peer_reviews
1 peer review site
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
353 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
585 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
The role of individual differences in cognitive training and transfer
Published in
Memory & Cognition, October 2013
DOI 10.3758/s13421-013-0364-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Susanne M. Jaeggi, Martin Buschkuehl, Priti Shah, John Jonides

Abstract

Working memory (WM) training has recently become a topic of intense interest and controversy. Although several recent studies have reported near- and far-transfer effects as a result of training WM-related skills, others have failed to show far transfer, suggesting that generalization effects are elusive. Also, many of the earlier intervention attempts have been criticized on methodological grounds. The present study resolves some of the methodological limitations of previous studies and also considers individual differences as potential explanations for the differing transfer effects across studies. We recruited intrinsically motivated participants and assessed their need for cognition (NFC; Cacioppo & Petty Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 42:116-131, 1982) and their implicit theories of intelligence (Dweck, 1999) prior to training. We assessed the efficacy of two WM interventions by comparing participants' improvements on a battery of fluid intelligence tests against those of an active control group. We observed that transfer to a composite measure of fluid reasoning resulted from both WM interventions. In addition, we uncovered factors that contributed to training success, including motivation, need for cognition, preexisting ability, and implicit theories about intelligence.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 585 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 <1%
Poland 3 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Other 4 <1%
Unknown 564 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 147 25%
Student > Master 77 13%
Student > Bachelor 65 11%
Researcher 62 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 55 9%
Other 103 18%
Unknown 76 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 303 52%
Neuroscience 47 8%
Social Sciences 31 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 23 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 3%
Other 69 12%
Unknown 94 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. 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 12 January 2022.
All research outputs
#1,426,930
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Memory & Cognition
#101
of 1,689 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,739
of 223,052 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Memory & Cognition
#5
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,689 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 223,052 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.