Working memory training and interpreting interactions in intelligence interventions

By Thomas S. Redick. 2015

105 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Developmental and Educational Psychology, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/aaeb8dcf6e775a7fc42ad4c5fd7f8ff7196caedc

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Artificial Intelligence

1. Richard J. Haier
2. Susan E. Gathercole *
3. David Z. Hambrick

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

1. Richard J. Haier
2. Walter R. Boot
3. Daniel J. Simons
4. Susan E. Gathercole *
5. David Z. Hambrick
6. Tracy Packiam Alloway
7. E. Geva
8. Fataneh Farnia

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

1. Richard J. Haier
2. Susan E. Gathercole *
3. Walter R. Boot
4. Daniel J. Simons
5. David Z. Hambrick
6. R. Engle
7. Tracy Packiam Alloway
8. Irene Mammarella

Citations in the corpus

• Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence from a Meta-Analytic Review (2016, unknown): “Further examination of the studies with the largest effect sizes for N-back training transferring to nonverbal ability revealed several shortcomings, which unfortunately are common in the working memory training literature (see Redick, 2015).”
• The Neuroscience of Intelligence (2016, background): “Many of the studies included in the four meta-analyses have the same small sample issues that characterized the three case studies and the n-back meta-analysis done by Au and colleagues on studies of memory training (Bogg & Lasecki, 2015; Redick, 2015).”
• Do “Brain-Training” Programs Work? (2016, result): “A re-analysis, however, revealed that several studies claiming training-related gains in Gf could not reasonably be interpreted to support that conclusion (Redick, 2015).”