There is no convincing evidence that working memory training is effective: A reply to Au et al. (2014) and Karbach and Verhaeghen (2014)

Monica Melby-Lervåg; Charles Hulme

doi:10.3758/s13423-015-0862-z

There is no convincing evidence that working memory training is effective: A reply to Au et al. (2014) and Karbach and Verhaeghen (2014)

Psychon Bull Rev. 2016 Feb;23(1):324-30. doi: 10.3758/s13423-015-0862-z.

Authors

Monica Melby-Lervåg¹, Charles Hulme^{2

3}

Affiliations

¹ Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
² Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. c.hulme@ucl.ac.uk.
³ Division of Psychology and Language Sciences, University College London, Chandler House, 2 Wakefield St., London, WCIN 2PF, UK. c.hulme@ucl.ac.uk.

PMID: 26082279
DOI: 10.3758/s13423-015-0862-z

Abstract

The possible cognitive benefits of working memory training programs have been the subject of intense interest and controversy. Recently two meta-analyses have claimed that working memory training can be effective in enhancing cognitive skills in adulthood (Au et al. Behavioural Brain Research 228:(1) 107-115, 2014) and stemming cognitive decline in old age (Karbach & Verhaeghen Psychological Science 25:2027-2037, 2014). The current article critically evaluates these claims. We argue that these meta-analyses produce misleading results because of (1) biases in the studies included, (2) a failure to take account of baseline differences when calculating effect sizes, and (3) a failure to emphasize the difference between studies with treated versus untreated control groups. We present new meta-analyses and conclude that there is no convincing evidence that working memory training produces general cognitive benefits.

Keywords: Cognitive training; Working memory.

Publication types

Comment

MeSH terms

Aging*
Aptitude*
Executive Function*
Female
Geriatric Assessment / methods*
Humans
Intelligence*
Learning*
Male
Memory, Short-Term*
Practice, Psychological*