Working memory · Learning
Working-memory training gains look like better strategies, not a bigger memory store
Save this development or follow its topic to track what changes.
Short answer
Adaptive working-memory practice improved trained-style tasks alongside a reported shift to grouping, not evidence of an expanded core store.
What happened
Dunning and Holmes tested whether practice on challenging working-memory tasks transfers because people spontaneously adopt strategies such as grouping. The adaptive group improved visuospatial STM (effect size 1.47) and verbal (0.87) and visuospatial (0.73) working memory relative to controls. Strategy reports moved in parallel. Final adaptive n in the strategy analysis was 14.
Why it matters
Product claims that brain-training expands core capacity overstate what this kind of study can show. If the mechanism is strategy discovery, we should expect task-specific gains and weak far transfer — which is closer to the broader training literature.
Evidence
- Study type
- Experimental training study with strategy interviews
- Sample
- Small; adaptive strategy analysis n = 14
- Journal
- Memory & Cognition · peer reviewed
- Replication
- Consistent in direction with a skeptical training literature; not a large multi-lab trial
- Limitations
- Retrospective strategy reports; demand characteristics possible; small n; does not measure far transfer to intelligence here.
What this connects to
Sources
The 2 studies this explanation is built from, by the role each plays. Every source links to PaperFren’s explanation of it and to the original paper.
Primary study
- Does Working Memory Training Promote New Memory Strategies?
Practicing challenging computerized memory tasks improves working memory because it prompts people to spontaneously adopt better strategies like grouping information.
What it does not showLimitations
Because the study relied on retrospective interviews, it does not rule out that participants misremembered their strategy use or fell victim to demand characteristics. Additionally, the small sample size of only 14 participants in the final analysis of the adaptive group limits the statistical power needed to definitively prove strategy use caused the memory gains. Finally, it does not demonstrate if these task-specific strategic improvements translate to broader, real-world academic or everyday cognitive tasks.
Supporting evidence
- Does Playing Casual Video Games Improve Cognitive Skills?
Training with casual video games designed to test working memory and reasoning improved players' divided attention skills, but did not boost other mental abilities like memory or general intelligence.
What it does not showLimitations
This study only tested healthy young adults between the ages 18 and 30, meaning the findings may not apply to other cohorts like children or older adults. Additionally, playing casual video games for 15 h did not improve most aspects of cognition, which indicates that this training period may have been too short to change stable traits like fluid intelligence. Because the researchers did not perform follow-up tests, it is also unclear if the small gains in divided attention persist over time.
Before
Commercial and experimental training often implies that repeatedly loading working memory enlarges a domain-general capacity that should transfer widely.
Now
This experiment ties improvement to strategy change. Retrospective interviews and a small adaptive cell mean we cannot treat the mechanism as settled, but it undercuts a simple 'capacity grew' story.