↓ Skip to main content

N-back Versus Complex Span Working Memory Training

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Cognitive Enhancement, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#2 of 218)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
52 news outlets
blogs
9 blogs
twitter
13 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
138 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
N-back Versus Complex Span Working Memory Training
Published in
Journal of Cognitive Enhancement, October 2017
DOI 10.1007/s41465-017-0044-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kara J. Blacker, Serban Negoita, Joshua B. Ewen, Susan M. Courtney

Abstract

Working memory (WM) is the ability to maintain and manipulate task-relevant information in the absence of sensory input. While its improvement through training is of great interest, the degree to which WM training transfers to untrained WM tasks (near transfer) and other untrained cognitive skills (far transfer) remains debated and the mechanism(s) underlying transfer are unclear. Here we hypothesized that a critical feature of dual n-back training is its reliance on maintaining relational information in WM. In Experiment 1, using an individual differences approach, we found evidence that performance on an n-back task was predicted by performance on a measure of relational WM (i.e., WM for vertical spatial relationships independent of absolute spatial locations); whereas the same was not true for a complex span WM task. In Experiment 2, we tested the idea that reliance on relational WM is critical to produce transfer from n-back but not complex span task training. Participants completed adaptive training on either a dual n-back task, a symmetry span task, or on a non-WM active control task. We found evidence of near transfer for the dual n-back group; however, far transfer to a measure of fluid intelligence did not emerge. Recording EEG during a separate WM transfer task, we examined group-specific, training-related changes in alpha power, which are proposed to be sensitive to WM demands and top-down modulation of WM. Results indicated that the dual n-back group showed significantly greater frontal alpha power after training compared to before training, more so than both other groups. However, we found no evidence of improvement on measures of relational WM for the dual n-back group, suggesting that near transfer may not be dependent on relational WM. These results suggest that dual n-back and complex span task training may differ in their effectiveness to elicit near transfer as well as in the underlying neural changes they facilitate.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 138 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 138 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 20%
Student > Master 23 17%
Student > Bachelor 16 12%
Researcher 14 10%
Other 8 6%
Other 23 17%
Unknown 26 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 51 37%
Neuroscience 20 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Computer Science 3 2%
Other 14 10%
Unknown 38 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 461. 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 22 April 2021.
All research outputs
#60,342
of 25,765,370 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Cognitive Enhancement
#2
of 218 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,217
of 336,424 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Cognitive Enhancement
#1
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,765,370 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 218 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 336,424 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 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 92% of its contemporaries.