"The Hype Cycle of Working Memory Training", Redick 2019
369 views
Skip to first unread message
Gwern Branwen
May 16, 2019, 9:02:10 PM5/16/19
to N-back
"The Hype Cycle of Working Memory Training", Redick 2019:
https://journals.sagepub.com/eprint/U8YNVXKM5SKF6ZY9TQBR/full
> Seventeen years and hundreds of studies after the first journal article on working memory training was published, evidence for the efficacy of working memory training is still wanting. Numerous studies show that individuals who repeatedly practice computerized working memory tasks improve on those tasks and closely related variants. Critically, although individual studies have shown improvements in untrained abilities and behaviors, systematic reviews of the broader literature show that studies producing large, positive findings are often those with the most methodological shortcomings. The current review discusses the past, present, and future status of working memory training, including consideration of factors that might influence working memory training and transfer efficacy.
>
> ...Unfortunately, the strongest claims that working memory training “works” often come from studies with the most problematic design and data issues (Table 2). These include problems such as small sample sizes, passive control groups, subjective or unblinded rating measures, and hypothesis-inconsistent pretest and posttest patterns (Dougherty, Hamovitz, & Tidwell, 2016; Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016; Rapport, Orban, Kofler, & Friedman, 2013; Redick, 2015; Redick et al., 2015; Shipstead et al., 2012; Simons et al., 2016). For example, Melby-Lervåg et al. (2016) reviewed published and unpublished working memory training studies, looking at effects on a variety of cognitive and academic outcomes. Overall, similar to other recent meta-analyses (Sala & Gobet, 2017; Soveri, Antfolk, Karlsson, Salo, & Laine, 2017), Melby-Lervåg et al.’s results showed that training produced benefits to working memory tasks similar to the training materials but not to other outcomes (Figure 1). Specifically, when looking at whether working memory training improves fluid intelligence, or the ability to perform novel reasoning often with nonverbal materials, Melby-Lervåg et al. examined 108 results as a function of the study’s sample size (at least 20 subjects per group vs. fewer subjects) and type of control group (passive vs. active). They found that the studies with small sample sizes and passive control groups produced an average effect size (g) of .33—that is, based on these methodologically weaker studies, one could conclude that training improved fluid intelligence by 1/3 of a standard deviation. However, in more methodologically sound studies with larger sample sizes and active control groups, the average effect size (g) was .01—no effect whatsoever.
>
> ...The review thus far portrays a rather pessimistic view of the working memory training literature. Seventeen years after publication of the first computerized working memory training study, there is substantial evidence that practicing working memory tasks over multiple days improves performance on those and similar tasks but not to other untrained tasks and materials (Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016). Some researchers have now attempted to combine working memory training with other cognitive enhancement techniques, such as transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS), in a kitchen-sink approach to maximize the possibility of increasing cognition. However, the early returns on this approach are not promising, as a meta-analysis of the small number of published studies to date that used both tDCS and training yielded no benefits of tDCS and only near transfer (Nilsson, Lebedev, Rydström, & Lövdén, 2017).
--
gwern
https://www.gwern.net
https://journals.sagepub.com/eprint/U8YNVXKM5SKF6ZY9TQBR/full
> Seventeen years and hundreds of studies after the first journal article on working memory training was published, evidence for the efficacy of working memory training is still wanting. Numerous studies show that individuals who repeatedly practice computerized working memory tasks improve on those tasks and closely related variants. Critically, although individual studies have shown improvements in untrained abilities and behaviors, systematic reviews of the broader literature show that studies producing large, positive findings are often those with the most methodological shortcomings. The current review discusses the past, present, and future status of working memory training, including consideration of factors that might influence working memory training and transfer efficacy.
>
> ...Unfortunately, the strongest claims that working memory training “works” often come from studies with the most problematic design and data issues (Table 2). These include problems such as small sample sizes, passive control groups, subjective or unblinded rating measures, and hypothesis-inconsistent pretest and posttest patterns (Dougherty, Hamovitz, & Tidwell, 2016; Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016; Rapport, Orban, Kofler, & Friedman, 2013; Redick, 2015; Redick et al., 2015; Shipstead et al., 2012; Simons et al., 2016). For example, Melby-Lervåg et al. (2016) reviewed published and unpublished working memory training studies, looking at effects on a variety of cognitive and academic outcomes. Overall, similar to other recent meta-analyses (Sala & Gobet, 2017; Soveri, Antfolk, Karlsson, Salo, & Laine, 2017), Melby-Lervåg et al.’s results showed that training produced benefits to working memory tasks similar to the training materials but not to other outcomes (Figure 1). Specifically, when looking at whether working memory training improves fluid intelligence, or the ability to perform novel reasoning often with nonverbal materials, Melby-Lervåg et al. examined 108 results as a function of the study’s sample size (at least 20 subjects per group vs. fewer subjects) and type of control group (passive vs. active). They found that the studies with small sample sizes and passive control groups produced an average effect size (g) of .33—that is, based on these methodologically weaker studies, one could conclude that training improved fluid intelligence by 1/3 of a standard deviation. However, in more methodologically sound studies with larger sample sizes and active control groups, the average effect size (g) was .01—no effect whatsoever.
>
> ...The review thus far portrays a rather pessimistic view of the working memory training literature. Seventeen years after publication of the first computerized working memory training study, there is substantial evidence that practicing working memory tasks over multiple days improves performance on those and similar tasks but not to other untrained tasks and materials (Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016). Some researchers have now attempted to combine working memory training with other cognitive enhancement techniques, such as transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS), in a kitchen-sink approach to maximize the possibility of increasing cognition. However, the early returns on this approach are not promising, as a meta-analysis of the small number of published studies to date that used both tDCS and training yielded no benefits of tDCS and only near transfer (Nilsson, Lebedev, Rydström, & Lövdén, 2017).
--
gwern
https://www.gwern.net
DimK
May 18, 2019, 5:40:53 AM5/18/19
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
Now that's disappointing - not that we didn't know but there was always a shimmer of hope. So apparently no useful general traits are being trained? Not even concentration? :/
Pontus Granström
May 18, 2019, 8:47:03 AM5/18/19
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
Dont listen to this bullshit. Nbacking works. https://www.i3mindware.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/i3howworks.jpg
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to brain-trainin...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to brain-t...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/brain-training.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/brain-training/27062186-9e5b-439f-8701-89c7578330a3%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
DimK
May 18, 2019, 8:55:19 AM5/18/19
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
Tack för uppmuntrandet :p
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to brain-t...@googlegroups.com.
Fredo Corleone
May 18, 2019, 1:01:49 PM5/18/19
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
N-back infact doesn't improve WM, it improves attention.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages