The Relationship between N-Back Performance and Matrix Reasoning--Implications for Training and Transfer.

By Susanne M. Jaeggi, Barbara Studer-Luethi, Martin Buschkuehl, Y. Su, John Jonides, Walter J. Perrig. 2010

515 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Cognitive Neuroscience, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c8c77e371f147fc7eeda80b1b8635a001d9acb3a

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

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Influence of neuroticism and conscientiousness on working memory training outcome (2012, methodology): “For example, we trained college students on either an adaptive single or dual n-back task, and as a result, both groups improved performance in non-trained matrix reasoning tasks to a comparable extent (Jaeggi et al., 2010).”
Adaptive n-back training does not improve fluid intelligence at the construct level: Gains on individual tests suggest that training may enhance visuospatial processing (2013, methodology): “The same lack of change was noted by Chooi and Thompson (2012) and by Jaeggi et al. (2010) for the operation span task, as well as by Redick et al. (2012) for the symmetry and running span tasks.”
Reading Comprehension and Working Memory's Executive Processes: An Intervention Study in Primary School Students (2013, background): “As some authors have claimed (e.g., Duncan, 2010; Jaeggi et al., 2010; Klingberg, 2010; Rueda, Posner, & Rothbart, 2005), it is unsurprising that performing repeatedly complex cognitive tasks that demand the precise, deep, and controlled understanding of increasingly difficult texts yields an improv”
Short- and long-term benefits of cognitive training (2011, methodology): “Our goal in this study was to adaptWM training interventions that have been found effective for adults (17, 18) to train children’s WM skills with the aim of also improving their general cognitive abilities.”
No evidence of intelligence improvement after working memory training: a randomized, placebo-controlled study. (2013, background): “, Klingberg, 2010; Perrig, Hollenstein, & Oelhafen, 2009; Sternberg, 2008) are optimistic about the efficacy of computerized working memory (WM) training in increasing fluid aspects of intelligence (i.e., those related to reasoning and problem solving). In contrast, other reviews (Conway & Getz, 201”
Building Links Between Early Socioeconomic Status, Cognitive Ability, and Math and Science Achievement (2017, background): “These statements are in line with findings from Jaeggi et al. (2010), who suggested that training on an N-back task (which involves inhibition and selective attention) leads to increased performance on amatrix reasoning task, further supporting that executive function and relational reasoning share…”
Distinct transfer effects of training different facets of working memory capacity (2013, unknown): “The importance of including an active rather than a passive control group was recently demonstrated by Redick et al.’s (in press) failure to replicate the findings of Jaeggi et al. (2008, 2010) when evaluating transfer effects in comparison to an active control group.”
Working memory training and interpreting interactions in intelligence interventions (2015, background): “…is on WM training's potential transfer effects on intelligence — indeed, this journal has published numerous studies examining the efficacy of WM training to improve intelligence (Chooi & Thompson, 2012; Colom et al., 2013; Jaeggi et al., 2010; Sprenger et al., 2013; Stephenson & Halpern, 2013).”
Improved matrix reasoning is limited to training on tasks with a visuospatial component (2013, methodology): “To make an accurate comparison to Jaeggi et al. (2008, 2010), paired t-tests comparing pretest and posttest scores were conducted only for the participants in the dual n-back training group.”
Working memory training does not improve intelligence in healthy young adults (2012, methodology): “A comparison of improvement in the training task with participants in the replication study conducted in Taiwan (Jaeggi et al., 2010) was not included because the researchers modified the training task to accommodate the Chinese-speaking participants.”
Intelligence: new findings and theoretical developments. (2012, methodology): “Jaeggi et al. (2010) replicated this finding and extended it to include scores on Raven's Progressive Matrices.”
Is working memory training effective? A meta-analytic review. (2013, methodology): “4 weeks, 5 times per week for 15 min Jaeggi et al. (2010) Comparison 1 19.1 (19.4) Pretest–posttest control group design, matched nonrandomized Unselected Untreated Dual n-back training Daily training 5 times per week for a period of 4 weeks Comparison 2 19.0 (19.4) Pretest–posttest control group…”
When are fluid intelligence and working memory isomorphic and when are they not (2013, methodology): “On the contrary, no transfer from the n-back related to the complex span task (Jaeggi et al., 2010).”
Can fluid intelligence be reduced to 'simple' short-term storage? (2011, result): “This main conclusion may appear shocking at a first glance, but it must be noted that it is highly consistent with recent findings showing that fluid intelligence can be improved by training aimed at increasing memory span (Jaeggi, Buschkuehl, Jonides, & Perrig, 2008; Jaeggi et al., 2010).”