Loading the library…
instruction & learning disabilities
The operative claimComputerized working-memory training (e.g., Cogmed) reliably improves performance on the trained and closely similar memory tasks (near transfer), but multiple high-quality meta-analyses and randomized trials show it does NOT produce meaningful or lasting improvements in general cognitive ability or academic achievement (far transfer).
Established (as a well-supported null): working-memory training improves trained tasks but does not reliably transfer to academic achievement or general cognition.
Convergent meta-analyses (Melby-Lervåg & Hulme, 2013; Sala & Gobet, 2017; Aksayli et al., 2018) find robust near-transfer but near-zero far-transfer, with effects shrinking as design quality rises; a population-based RCT found no academic benefit and worse math at 2 years (Roberts et al., 2016). A minority of trials report far-transfer in clinical (ADHD) samples (Bigorra et al., 2016), but these are not the weight of the evidence.
Melby-Lervåg, M., & Hulme, C (2013). Is working memory training effective? A meta-analytic review. Developmental Psychology.
Meta-analysis
Working-memory training produced reliable short-term improvements on memory tasks (near transfer) but NO convincing evidence of generalization to nonverbal/verbal ability, attention, word decoding, or arithmetic (far transfer).
Bearing on this claim: Meta-analysis: near transfer yes, far transfer no.
doi.org/10.1037/a0028228Sala, G., & Gobet, F (2017). Working Memory Training in Typically Developing Children: A Meta-Analysis of the Available Evidence. Developmental Psychology.
Meta-analysis
Training improved WM-related skills (g = 0.46) but showed little far-transfer to fluid intelligence, attention, math, or literacy (g = 0.12); effects shrank with higher-quality designs (active controls, randomization).
Bearing on this claim: TD children: near g=0.46, far g=0.12; effects shrink with better designs.
doi.org/10.1037/dev0000265Aksayli, N. D., Sala, G., & Gobet, F (2018). The cognitive and academic benefits of Cogmed: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review.
Meta-analysis
Cogmed produced small-to-medium near-transfer effects on memory tasks but highly consistent NEAR-ZERO effects on far-transfer measures of cognitive ability and academic achievement; far transfer is rare or nonexistent.
Bearing on this claim: Cogmed meta-analysis (50 studies): near-zero far transfer to cognition/academics.
doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/ygrh3Roberts, G., Quach, J., Spencer-Smith, M., et al (2016). Academic Outcomes 2 Years After Working Memory Training for Children With Low Working Memory: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Pediatrics.
Experimental
Cogmed temporarily improved one short-term-memory measure but produced NO benefit to reading, math, or spelling; math scores were actually worse at 2 years; the authors could not recommend population delivery.
Bearing on this claim: Population RCT: no academic benefit; math worse at 2 years; not recommended.
doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.4568Counter-authority (1). Studies an adversary may cite — surfaced deliberately so the grade is honest about its limits.
Bigorra, A., Garolera, M., Guijarro, S., & Hervás, A (2016). Long-term far-transfer effects of working memory training in children with ADHD: a randomized controlled trial. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry.
Experimental
DISSENTING POSITIVE RESULT: reported significant long-term far-transfer of computerized WM training to executive-function rating scales, performance-based measures, ADHD symptoms, and functional impairment in children with ADHD.
Bearing on this claim: Dissenting ADHD RCT: reports long-term far-transfer effects.
doi.org/10.1007/s00787-015-0804-34 supporting · 1 counter verified sources
Positive far-transfer results cluster in studies with weaker controls or clinical samples; publication bias has affected the literature; and the null is specific to commercial process-based working-memory training, not all educational interventions.
Last reviewed June 28, 2026