↓ Skip to main content

How Is Working Memory Training Likely to Influence Academic Performance? Current Evidence and Methodological Considerations

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, February 2017
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 (84th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Readers on

mendeley
195 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
How Is Working Memory Training Likely to Influence Academic Performance? Current Evidence and Methodological Considerations
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, February 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00069
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sissela Bergman Nutley, Stina Söderqvist

Abstract

Working memory (WM) is one of our core cognitive functions, allowing us to keep information in mind for shorter periods of time and then work with this information. It is the gateway that information has to pass in order to be processed consciously. A well-functioning WM is therefore crucial for a number of everyday activities including learning and academic performance (Gathercole et al., 2003; Bull et al., 2008), which is the focus of this review. Specifically, we will review the research investigating whether improving WM capacity using Cogmed WM training can lead to improvements on academic performance. Emphasis is given to reviewing the theoretical principles upon which such investigations rely, in particular the complex relation between WM and mathematical and reading abilities during development and how these are likely to be influenced by training. We suggest two possible routes in which training can influence academic performance, one through an effect on learning capacity which would thus be evident with time and education, and one through an immediate effect on performance on reading and mathematical tasks. Based on the theoretical complexity described we highlight some methodological issues that are important to take into consideration when designing and interpreting research on WM training and academic performance, but that are nonetheless often overlooked in the current research literature. Finally, we will provide some suggestions for future research for advancing the understanding of WM training and its potential role in supporting academic attainment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 195 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 194 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 34 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 14%
Student > Bachelor 23 12%
Researcher 20 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 5%
Other 28 14%
Unknown 53 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 77 39%
Neuroscience 18 9%
Social Sciences 10 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 2%
Other 16 8%
Unknown 64 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 26 March 2020.
All research outputs
#3,237,794
of 24,943,708 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#6,170
of 33,669 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,495
of 430,770 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#130
of 463 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,943,708 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 33,669 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 430,770 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 463 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.