↓ Skip to main content

Is working memory training effective? A meta-analytic review.

Overview of attention for article published in Developmental Psychology, January 2013
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 (#5 of 3,704)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
25 news outlets
blogs
13 blogs
twitter
106 tweeters
patent
2 patents
peer_reviews
1 peer review site
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
6 Wikipedia pages
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
806 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1561 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
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
Is working memory training effective? A meta-analytic review.
Published in
Developmental Psychology, January 2013
DOI 10.1037/a0028228
Pubmed ID
Authors

Monica Melby-Lervåg, Charles Hulme

Abstract

It has been suggested that working memory training programs are effective both as treatments for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and other cognitive disorders in children and as a tool to improve cognitive ability and scholastic attainment in typically developing children and adults. However, effects across studies appear to be variable, and a systematic meta-analytic review was undertaken. To be included in the review, studies had to be randomized controlled trials or quasi-experiments without randomization, have a treatment, and have either a treated group or an untreated control group. Twenty-three studies with 30 group comparisons met the criteria for inclusion. The studies included involved clinical samples and samples of typically developing children and adults. Meta-analyses indicated that the programs produced reliable short-term improvements in working memory skills. For verbal working memory, these near-transfer effects were not sustained at follow-up, whereas for visuospatial working memory, limited evidence suggested that such effects might be maintained. More importantly, there was no convincing evidence of the generalization of working memory training to other skills (nonverbal and verbal ability, inhibitory processes in attention, word decoding, and arithmetic). The authors conclude that memory training programs appear to produce short-term, specific training effects that do not generalize. Possible limitations of the review (including age differences in the samples and the variety of different clinical conditions included) are noted. However, current findings cast doubt on both the clinical relevance of working memory training programs and their utility as methods of enhancing cognitive functioning in typically developing children and healthy adults.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 106 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 1,561 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 35 2%
United Kingdom 12 <1%
Sweden 10 <1%
Netherlands 9 <1%
Germany 7 <1%
Switzerland 5 <1%
Italy 4 <1%
Poland 4 <1%
Iran, Islamic Republic of 4 <1%
Other 36 2%
Unknown 1435 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 359 23%
Student > Master 263 17%
Researcher 222 14%
Student > Bachelor 200 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 131 8%
Other 386 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 919 59%
Social Sciences 151 10%
Unspecified 135 9%
Neuroscience 80 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 70 4%
Other 206 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 380. 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 24 March 2019.
All research outputs
#26,669
of 13,118,813 outputs
Outputs from Developmental Psychology
#5
of 3,704 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#148
of 120,487 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Developmental Psychology
#1
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,118,813 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 3,704 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. 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 120,487 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 25 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 96% of its contemporaries.