Pearson Assessment - Homepage
Call us on 0845 630 88 88
Calls cost 3p per minute plus your phone company's access charge begin_of_the_skype_highlighting   0845 630 88 88  FREE    end_of_the_skype_highlighting
Home > 
Cogmed Working Memory Training > Cogmed News > Press Response to Cogmed Research

Press Response to Cogmed Research

A response to "Working memory training does not live up to the hype” posted by Christian Jarrett of the British Psychological Society's Research Digest on 14.2.2013

In a recent blog post on the British Psychological Society's Research Digest, Cogmed has again received attention for being one of the largest providers of computerised working memory training.

Unfortunately, the post also discusses the findings of the Lervåg and Hulme (2012) meta-analysis, a paper marked by a failure to recognise the key differences between working memory training programs and the serious limitations inherent in comparing these programs.

Cogmed has reviewed and responded to the Lervåg and Hulme (2012) paper, which includes a very limited selection of Cogmed research.

There is also a meta-analysis of Cogmed research comparing studies using the same program and training protocol. Importantly, there are now 30 published peer-reviewed research papers supporting the efficacy of Cogmed Working Memory Training and showing improved working memory capacity on tasks distinct from those used in training.

Further, there are randomised, placebo controlled investigations from three separate research groups that demonstrate improved attention in everyday life post-Cogmed (Klingberg et al., 2005; Brehmer et al., 2012; Green et al. 2012).

Cogmed is transparent about the claims that can be made about Cogmed Working Memory Training and encourage those with interest to further investigate our website or to contact us for more information.

 

Related links:

Research Digest: Working memory training does not live up to the hype

 

Date posted: Thursday February 21, 2013

 
.
Bookmark with: What are these? |
‚Äč
What do you think?