Julie K. Aasvik, Astrid Woodhouse, Tore C. Stiles, Henrik B. Jacobsen, Tormod Landmark, Mari Glette, Petter C. Borchgrevink, Nils I. Landrø
Abstract
Introduction: The current study examined if adaptive working memory training (Cogmed QM) has the potential to improve inhibitory control, working memory capacity, and perceptions of memory functioning in a group of patients currently on sick leave due to symptoms of pain, insomnia, fatigue, depression and anxiety. Participants who were referred to a vocational rehabilitation center volunteered to take part in the study. Methods: Participants were randomly assigned to either a training condition (N = 25) or a control condition (N = 29). Participants in the training condition received working memory training in addition to the clinical intervention offered as part of the rehabilitation program, while participants in the control condition received treatment as usual i.e., the rehabilitation program only. Inhibitory control was measured by The Stop Signal Task, working memory was assessed by the Spatial Working Memory Test, while perceptions of memory functioning were assessed by The Everyday Memory Questionnaire-Revised. Results: Participants in the training group showed a significant improvement on the post-tests of inhibitory control when compared with the comparison group (p = 0.025). The groups did not differ on the post-tests of working memory. Both groups reported less memory problems at post-testing, but there was no sizeable difference between the two groups. Conclusions: Results indicate that working memory training does not improve general working memory capacity per se. Nor does it seem to give any added effects in terms of targeting and improving self-perceived memory functioning. Results do, however, provide evidence to suggest that inhibitory control is accessible and susceptible to modification by adaptive working memory training.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 December 2016.
All research outputs
#20,376,559
of 22,925,760 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#24,279
of 30,068 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#355,357
of 420,209 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#356
of 420 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,925,760 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,068 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 420,209 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 420 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
