| Title |
There is no convincing evidence that working memory training is effective: A reply to Au et al. (2014) and Karbach and Verhaeghen (2014)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, June 2015
|
| DOI | 10.3758/s13423-015-0862-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Monica Melby-Lervåg, Charles Hulme |
| Abstract |
The possible cognitive benefits of working memory training programs have been the subject of intense interest and controversy. Recently two meta-analyses have claimed that working memory training can be effective in enhancing cognitive skills in adulthood (Au et al. Behavioural Brain Research 228:(1) 107-115, 2014) and stemming cognitive decline in old age (Karbach & Verhaeghen Psychological Science 25:2027-2037, 2014). The current article critically evaluates these claims. We argue that these meta-analyses produce misleading results because of (1) biases in the studies included, (2) a failure to take account of baseline differences when calculating effect sizes, and (3) a failure to emphasize the difference between studies with treated versus untreated control groups. We present new meta-analyses and conclude that there is no convincing evidence that working memory training produces general cognitive benefits. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Australia | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 251 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 4 | 2% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 246 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 50 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 33 | 13% |
| Researcher | 30 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 26 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 15 | 6% |
| Other | 42 | 17% |
| Unknown | 55 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 119 | 47% |
| Neuroscience | 20 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 10 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 2% |
| Other | 22 | 9% |
| Unknown | 69 | 27% |