Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

Working memory training shows limited transfer between updating and span tasksSpecific memory training helps with complex mental tasks

AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work

Key Takeaway
Updating training transfers to span tasks, but span training does not transfer to updating tasks.

A meta-analysis pooled data from 55 studies with 3,492 participants to examine whether working memory training transfers to untrained tasks. The analysis focused on two paradigms: updating training and span training.

Updating training produced reliable transfer to span tasks, with a small but statistically significant pooled effect size (g = 0.176, p <.001). In contrast, span training did not reliably transfer to updating tasks (g = 0.048, p =.453).

The transfer advantage for updating training was more pronounced at lower training doses, in non-adult samples, and when verbal stimuli were used. These moderating patterns suggest that task characteristics and participant factors influence transfer outcomes.

Because this is a meta-analysis of pooled effect sizes, the findings describe average transfer effects across studies rather than causal effects in any single trial. The results indicate that training with higher cognitive demand may be more likely to generalize to less demanding tasks than the reverse.

When we try to juggle multiple pieces of information at once, our brains use a system called working memory. Some people hope that simple memory games can sharpen this skill. However, research shows that the specific type of exercise matters a great deal for how much your brain actually improves.

Researchers looked at data from over 3,000 people to see how different training methods worked. They found that training the brain to "update" information—which involves managing new data while holding onto old information—helped people perform better on other types of memory tasks. In contrast, training on "span" tasks, which involve holding a set amount of information, did not show any clear improvement for other tasks.

This difference was even more noticeable in younger people and when using verbal information. While the results show that updating training is a more effective way to build mental flexibility, the evidence comes from a large collection of studies rather than a single trial. Talk to your doctor or a specialist to see how these findings might apply to your specific goals.

What this means for you:
Updating training improves broader memory skills, while span training does not show the same benefit.

Common questions

What is the difference between updating and span training?

Updating training involves higher cognitive demands because it requires the brain to manage and update information. Span training involves holding a specific amount of information in your mind. The study found that updating training led to better performance on other tasks, while span training did not show a reliable transfer to other tasks.

Who benefits most from updating training?

The benefits of updating training were more pronounced in non-adult samples and when using verbal stimuli. These results suggest that the training is particularly effective for these groups when trying to improve mental flexibility and memory.

Is this training a guaranteed way to improve memory?

The study shows a positive link between updating training and better performance on other tasks. However, because this was a meta-analysis of 55 different studies, the results represent a pooled effect rather than a guaranteed outcome for every individual.

Study Details

Study typeMeta analysis
Sample sizen = 3,492
EvidenceLevel 1
PublishedSep 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
Working memory (WM) training is widely used to enhance cognitive performance; however, its transfer to untrained tasks remains controversial. Traditional theories emphasize task similarity as the primary determinant of training transfer, but they cannot fully explain emerging evidence of asymmetric transfer across tasks. Two directional transfer hypotheses are proposed here to explain this asymmetry: the resource-based transfer advantage hypothesis predicts stronger transfer from more to less cognitively demanding tasks, whereas the ability-based transfer advantage hypothesis predicts stronger transfer from tasks engaging broader task-general abilities to tasks engaging task-specific narrower abilities. The contrast between span and updating paradigms provides an informative framework for distinguishing these accounts, because updating tasks are generally more cognitively demanding, whereas span tasks involve broader abilities. Accordingly, we conducted a three-level meta-analysis of 55 studies (208 effect sizes; N = 3,492). The results showed that updating training transferred reliably to span tasks (g = 0.176, p < .001), whereas span training did not reliably transfer to updating tasks (g = 0.048, p = .453), supporting the resource-based account. This advantage of updating training also extended to non-WM outcomes and was more pronounced at lower training doses, in non-adult samples, and with verbal stimuli. Together, these findings extend WM transfer theory beyond task similarity by highlighting the importance of cognitive demand and offer guidance for WM training design.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.