Loading…
Cogmed WM Training: Reviewing the Reviews
Does Cogmed working-memory training (CWMT) work? Independent groups of reviewers have come to what appears to be starkly different conclusions to this question, causing somewhat of a debate within scientific and popular media. Here, various studies, meta-analyses, and reviews of the Cogmed research...
Saved in:
| Published in: | Applied neuropsychology. Child 2014-01, Vol.3 (3), p.163-172 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , |
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Subjects: | |
| Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
| Online Access: | Get full text |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c363t-1ec588d324b28b91dc994e11a43df52603ad22dc41a079b50daa58dc3a5e68f93 |
|---|---|
| cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c363t-1ec588d324b28b91dc994e11a43df52603ad22dc41a079b50daa58dc3a5e68f93 |
| container_end_page | 172 |
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | 163 |
| container_title | Applied neuropsychology. Child |
| container_volume | 3 |
| creator | Shinaver, Charles S. Entwistle, Peter C. Söderqvist, Stina |
| description | Does Cogmed working-memory training (CWMT) work? Independent groups of reviewers have come to what appears to be starkly different conclusions to this question, causing somewhat of a debate within scientific and popular media. Here, various studies, meta-analyses, and reviews of the Cogmed research literature will be considered to provide an overview of our present understanding regarding the effects of CWMT. These will particularly be considered in light of two recent critical reviews published by Melby-Lervåg and Hulme (
2013
) and Shipstead, Hicks, and Engle (
2012
) and their arguments and conclusions assessed against current available evidence. Importantly we describe how the conclusions drawn by Melby-Lervåg and Hulme appear to contradict their own findings. In fact, the results from their meta-analysis show highly significant effects of working-memory (WM) training on improving visuospatial WM and verbal WM (both ps |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1080/21622965.2013.875314 |
| format | article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1080_21622965_2013_875314</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1544741218</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c363t-1ec588d324b28b91dc994e11a43df52603ad22dc41a079b50daa58dc3a5e68f93</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kEtLAzEQx4MottR-A5E96mFrJo_dxItI8QUVQSoeQzbJ1pV91GTb0m_vlm17dC7z4D_zZ34IXQKeABb4lkBCiEz4hGCgE5FyCuwEDXfjmMiUnh7rhA_QOIQf3AXnlHNxjgaEY8BYkCG6mTaLytno6y2ae13URb24iz7cunCbrozab7fvwgU6y3UZ3HifR-jz6XE-fYln78-v04dZbGhC2xic4UJYSlhGRCbBGimZA9CM2pyTBFNtCbGGgcapzDi2WnNhDdXcJSKXdISu-7tL3_yuXGhVVQTjylLXrlkFBZyxlAEB0UlZLzW-CcG7XC19UWm_VYDVjpM6cFI7Tqrn1K1d7R1WWff7celApRPc94Kizhtf6U3jS6tavS0bn3tdmyIo-q_FH8MwdBs</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1544741218</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Cogmed WM Training: Reviewing the Reviews</title><source>Taylor and Francis Social Sciences and Humanities Collection</source><creator>Shinaver, Charles S. ; Entwistle, Peter C. ; Söderqvist, Stina</creator><creatorcontrib>Shinaver, Charles S. ; Entwistle, Peter C. ; Söderqvist, Stina</creatorcontrib><description>Does Cogmed working-memory training (CWMT) work? Independent groups of reviewers have come to what appears to be starkly different conclusions to this question, causing somewhat of a debate within scientific and popular media. Here, various studies, meta-analyses, and reviews of the Cogmed research literature will be considered to provide an overview of our present understanding regarding the effects of CWMT. These will particularly be considered in light of two recent critical reviews published by Melby-Lervåg and Hulme (
2013
) and Shipstead, Hicks, and Engle (
2012
) and their arguments and conclusions assessed against current available evidence. Importantly we describe how the conclusions drawn by Melby-Lervåg and Hulme appear to contradict their own findings. In fact, the results from their meta-analysis show highly significant effects of working-memory (WM) training on improving visuospatial WM and verbal WM (both ps < .001). In addition, analyses of long-term follow-ups show that effects on visuospatial WM remain significant over time (again at p < .001). Thus, the analyses show that WM is indeed improved using WM training, and the highest effect sizes are achieved using CWMT (compared with other training programs). We also conclude that there is current evidence from several studies using different types of outcome measures that shows attention can be improved following CWMT. In a little more than a decade, there is evidence that suggests that Cogmed has a significant impact upon visual-spatial and verbal WM, and these effects generalize to improved sustained attention up to 6 months. We discuss the evidence for improvements in academic abilities and conclude that although some promising studies are pointing to benefits gained from CWMT, more controlled studies are needed before we can make strong and specific claims on this topic. In conclusion, we find that there is a consensus in showing that WM capacity and attention is improved following CWMT. Due to the importance of WM and attention in everyday functioning, this is, on its own, of great potential value.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2162-2965</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2162-2973</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1080/21622965.2013.875314</identifier><identifier>PMID: 25010082</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Taylor & Francis Group</publisher><subject>ADHD ; attention ; Attention - physiology ; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity - rehabilitation ; Child ; Cogmed ; Cognition - physiology ; Cognitive Therapy - methods ; Cognitive Therapy - standards ; Educational Status ; Humans ; Learning - physiology ; Memory Disorders - rehabilitation ; Memory, Short-Term - physiology ; Meta-Analysis as Topic ; Psychological Tests ; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic ; Review Literature as Topic ; Spatial Processing ; Treatment Outcome ; Verbal Behavior ; working memory</subject><ispartof>Applied neuropsychology. Child, 2014-01, Vol.3 (3), p.163-172</ispartof><rights>Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC 2014</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c363t-1ec588d324b28b91dc994e11a43df52603ad22dc41a079b50daa58dc3a5e68f93</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c363t-1ec588d324b28b91dc994e11a43df52603ad22dc41a079b50daa58dc3a5e68f93</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25010082$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Shinaver, Charles S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Entwistle, Peter C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Söderqvist, Stina</creatorcontrib><title>Cogmed WM Training: Reviewing the Reviews</title><title>Applied neuropsychology. Child</title><addtitle>Appl Neuropsychol Child</addtitle><description>Does Cogmed working-memory training (CWMT) work? Independent groups of reviewers have come to what appears to be starkly different conclusions to this question, causing somewhat of a debate within scientific and popular media. Here, various studies, meta-analyses, and reviews of the Cogmed research literature will be considered to provide an overview of our present understanding regarding the effects of CWMT. These will particularly be considered in light of two recent critical reviews published by Melby-Lervåg and Hulme (
2013
) and Shipstead, Hicks, and Engle (
2012
) and their arguments and conclusions assessed against current available evidence. Importantly we describe how the conclusions drawn by Melby-Lervåg and Hulme appear to contradict their own findings. In fact, the results from their meta-analysis show highly significant effects of working-memory (WM) training on improving visuospatial WM and verbal WM (both ps < .001). In addition, analyses of long-term follow-ups show that effects on visuospatial WM remain significant over time (again at p < .001). Thus, the analyses show that WM is indeed improved using WM training, and the highest effect sizes are achieved using CWMT (compared with other training programs). We also conclude that there is current evidence from several studies using different types of outcome measures that shows attention can be improved following CWMT. In a little more than a decade, there is evidence that suggests that Cogmed has a significant impact upon visual-spatial and verbal WM, and these effects generalize to improved sustained attention up to 6 months. We discuss the evidence for improvements in academic abilities and conclude that although some promising studies are pointing to benefits gained from CWMT, more controlled studies are needed before we can make strong and specific claims on this topic. In conclusion, we find that there is a consensus in showing that WM capacity and attention is improved following CWMT. Due to the importance of WM and attention in everyday functioning, this is, on its own, of great potential value.</description><subject>ADHD</subject><subject>attention</subject><subject>Attention - physiology</subject><subject>Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity - rehabilitation</subject><subject>Child</subject><subject>Cogmed</subject><subject>Cognition - physiology</subject><subject>Cognitive Therapy - methods</subject><subject>Cognitive Therapy - standards</subject><subject>Educational Status</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Learning - physiology</subject><subject>Memory Disorders - rehabilitation</subject><subject>Memory, Short-Term - physiology</subject><subject>Meta-Analysis as Topic</subject><subject>Psychological Tests</subject><subject>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic</subject><subject>Review Literature as Topic</subject><subject>Spatial Processing</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><subject>Verbal Behavior</subject><subject>working memory</subject><issn>2162-2965</issn><issn>2162-2973</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kEtLAzEQx4MottR-A5E96mFrJo_dxItI8QUVQSoeQzbJ1pV91GTb0m_vlm17dC7z4D_zZ34IXQKeABb4lkBCiEz4hGCgE5FyCuwEDXfjmMiUnh7rhA_QOIQf3AXnlHNxjgaEY8BYkCG6mTaLytno6y2ae13URb24iz7cunCbrozab7fvwgU6y3UZ3HifR-jz6XE-fYln78-v04dZbGhC2xic4UJYSlhGRCbBGimZA9CM2pyTBFNtCbGGgcapzDi2WnNhDdXcJSKXdISu-7tL3_yuXGhVVQTjylLXrlkFBZyxlAEB0UlZLzW-CcG7XC19UWm_VYDVjpM6cFI7Tqrn1K1d7R1WWff7celApRPc94Kizhtf6U3jS6tavS0bn3tdmyIo-q_FH8MwdBs</recordid><startdate>20140101</startdate><enddate>20140101</enddate><creator>Shinaver, Charles S.</creator><creator>Entwistle, Peter C.</creator><creator>Söderqvist, Stina</creator><general>Taylor & Francis Group</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20140101</creationdate><title>Cogmed WM Training: Reviewing the Reviews</title><author>Shinaver, Charles S. ; Entwistle, Peter C. ; Söderqvist, Stina</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c363t-1ec588d324b28b91dc994e11a43df52603ad22dc41a079b50daa58dc3a5e68f93</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>ADHD</topic><topic>attention</topic><topic>Attention - physiology</topic><topic>Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity - rehabilitation</topic><topic>Child</topic><topic>Cogmed</topic><topic>Cognition - physiology</topic><topic>Cognitive Therapy - methods</topic><topic>Cognitive Therapy - standards</topic><topic>Educational Status</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Learning - physiology</topic><topic>Memory Disorders - rehabilitation</topic><topic>Memory, Short-Term - physiology</topic><topic>Meta-Analysis as Topic</topic><topic>Psychological Tests</topic><topic>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic</topic><topic>Review Literature as Topic</topic><topic>Spatial Processing</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><topic>Verbal Behavior</topic><topic>working memory</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Shinaver, Charles S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Entwistle, Peter C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Söderqvist, Stina</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Applied neuropsychology. Child</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Shinaver, Charles S.</au><au>Entwistle, Peter C.</au><au>Söderqvist, Stina</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Cogmed WM Training: Reviewing the Reviews</atitle><jtitle>Applied neuropsychology. Child</jtitle><addtitle>Appl Neuropsychol Child</addtitle><date>2014-01-01</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>3</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>163</spage><epage>172</epage><pages>163-172</pages><issn>2162-2965</issn><eissn>2162-2973</eissn><abstract>Does Cogmed working-memory training (CWMT) work? Independent groups of reviewers have come to what appears to be starkly different conclusions to this question, causing somewhat of a debate within scientific and popular media. Here, various studies, meta-analyses, and reviews of the Cogmed research literature will be considered to provide an overview of our present understanding regarding the effects of CWMT. These will particularly be considered in light of two recent critical reviews published by Melby-Lervåg and Hulme (
2013
) and Shipstead, Hicks, and Engle (
2012
) and their arguments and conclusions assessed against current available evidence. Importantly we describe how the conclusions drawn by Melby-Lervåg and Hulme appear to contradict their own findings. In fact, the results from their meta-analysis show highly significant effects of working-memory (WM) training on improving visuospatial WM and verbal WM (both ps < .001). In addition, analyses of long-term follow-ups show that effects on visuospatial WM remain significant over time (again at p < .001). Thus, the analyses show that WM is indeed improved using WM training, and the highest effect sizes are achieved using CWMT (compared with other training programs). We also conclude that there is current evidence from several studies using different types of outcome measures that shows attention can be improved following CWMT. In a little more than a decade, there is evidence that suggests that Cogmed has a significant impact upon visual-spatial and verbal WM, and these effects generalize to improved sustained attention up to 6 months. We discuss the evidence for improvements in academic abilities and conclude that although some promising studies are pointing to benefits gained from CWMT, more controlled studies are needed before we can make strong and specific claims on this topic. In conclusion, we find that there is a consensus in showing that WM capacity and attention is improved following CWMT. Due to the importance of WM and attention in everyday functioning, this is, on its own, of great potential value.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Taylor & Francis Group</pub><pmid>25010082</pmid><doi>10.1080/21622965.2013.875314</doi><tpages>10</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 2162-2965 |
| ispartof | Applied neuropsychology. Child, 2014-01, Vol.3 (3), p.163-172 |
| issn | 2162-2965 2162-2973 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_crossref_primary_10_1080_21622965_2013_875314 |
| source | Taylor and Francis Social Sciences and Humanities Collection |
| subjects | ADHD attention Attention - physiology Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity - rehabilitation Child Cogmed Cognition - physiology Cognitive Therapy - methods Cognitive Therapy - standards Educational Status Humans Learning - physiology Memory Disorders - rehabilitation Memory, Short-Term - physiology Meta-Analysis as Topic Psychological Tests Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic Review Literature as Topic Spatial Processing Treatment Outcome Verbal Behavior working memory |
| title | Cogmed WM Training: Reviewing the Reviews |
| url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-01T08%3A40%3A21IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Cogmed%20WM%20Training:%20Reviewing%20the%20Reviews&rft.jtitle=Applied%20neuropsychology.%20Child&rft.au=Shinaver,%20Charles%20S.&rft.date=2014-01-01&rft.volume=3&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=163&rft.epage=172&rft.pages=163-172&rft.issn=2162-2965&rft.eissn=2162-2973&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080/21622965.2013.875314&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1544741218%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c363t-1ec588d324b28b91dc994e11a43df52603ad22dc41a079b50daa58dc3a5e68f93%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1544741218&rft_id=info:pmid/25010082&rfr_iscdi=true |