Efficacy of working memory training in children and adolescents with learning disabilities: A review study and meta-analysis

Abstract

The effectiveness of working memory (WM) training programmes is still a subject of debate. Previous reviews were heterogeneous with regard to participant characteristics of the studies included. To examine whether these programmes are of added value for children with learning disabilities (LDs), a systematic meta-analytic review was undertaken focusing specifically on LDs. Thirteen randomised controlled studies were included, with a total of 307 participants (age range = 5.5-17, Mean age across studies = 10.61, SD = 1.77). Potential moderator variables were examined, i.e., age, type of LD, training programme, training dose, design type, and type of control group. The meta-analysis indicated reliable short-term improvements in verbal WM, visuo-spatial WM, and word decoding in children with LDs after training (effect sizes ranged between 0.36 and 0.63), when compared to the untrained control group. These improvements sustained over time for up to eight months. Furthermore, children > 10 years seemed to benefit more in terms of verbal WM than younger children, both immediately after training as well as in the long-term. Other moderator variables did not have an effect on treatment efficacy.

Targeting the Three Stages of Retrieval from Secondary Memory in a Double-Blinded, Placebo-Controlled, Randomized Working Memory Training Study

“…These discrepant findings surrounding far transfer have led to numerous meta-analyses and reviews challenging whether WMT is a viable method for inducing cognitive enhancement (Au et al 2016;Cortese et al 2015;McCabe et al 2016;Melby-Lervåg and Hulme 2013;Melby-Lervåg et al 2016;Peijnenborgh et al 2016;Schwaighofer et al 2015;Shipstead et al 2012;Spencer-Smith and Klingberg 2015). In response to these evaluations, some researchers have suggested that methodological inconsistencies across studies (e.g., varying sample characteristics, training paradigms, gaming elements, control groups, outcome measures) may explain the divergent results or hamper clear interpretations of the literature at the meta-level (Schwaighofer et al 2015;Simons et al 2016).…”

“…Such mixed results are also apparent on academic outcome measures following Cogmed, with participants showing no improvement on academic achievement and classroom performance measures compared to controls in numerous reports (Bigorra et al 2016;Chacko et al 2014;Dunning et al 2013;Gray et al 2012;Partanen et al 2015;Roberts et al 2016;van der Donk et al 2015; van Dongen-Boomsma et al 2014). Although researchers have proposed other explanations for the lack of far transfer to academic performance following Cogmed (Bergman Nutley and Söderqvist 2017), it is worth noting that studies in which there has been non-significant far transfer to academic achievement are almost exclusively rigorously designed, randomized trials with active control groups.These discrepant findings surrounding far transfer have led to numerous meta-analyses and reviews challenging whether WMT is a viable method for inducing cognitive enhancement (Au et al 2016;Cortese et al 2015;McCabe et al 2016;Melby-Lervåg and Hulme 2013;Melby-Lervåg et al 2016;Peijnenborgh et al 2016;Schwaighofer et al 2015;Shipstead et al 2012;Spencer-Smith and Klingberg 2015). In response to these evaluations, some researchers have suggested that methodological inconsistencies across studies (e.g., varying sample characteristics, training paradigms, gaming elements, control groups, outcome measures) may explain the divergent results or hamper clear interpretations of the literature at the meta-level (Schwaighofer et al 2015;Simons et al 2016).…”

The impact of cognitive training in substance use disorder: the effect of working memory training on impulse control in methamphetamine users

“…During these sessions, patients are required to quietly attend to the task without disruption and touch the screen of their phone when they see the target letter in a series of letters (see “Materials and methods” for more detailed explanation). In this vein, WM training has been effectively utilised to improve prognosis for other psychiatric populations, particularly in disorders that are comorbid with SUD (Akindipe et al 2014), such as learning difficulties (Peijnenborgh et al 2016), mood disorders (Meusel et al 2013), psychosis (Li et al 2015) and anxiety (Sari et al 2016). In terms of efficacy of WM training for SUD, it has shown to be an effective strategy to reduce alcohol use by increasing control over automatic impulses to drink alcohol (Houben et al 2011) and to reduce engagement in stimulant use (Bickel et al 2011).…”

Electrophysiological Evidence of Working Memory Updating Deficits in Children with Learning Disabilities

“…There is converging evidence that early intervention might prevent or remedy the onset of LD [16] [17]. Our results suggest that LPC might be as neurophysiological index of WM training-related changes in LD brain function and see if they were linked to clinical improvement.…”