A new study published in Scientific Reports provides insight into which memory training techniques are most effective at improving working memory.
The research compared an adaptive n-back training task to the memory palace technique over 20 days of training.
Both groups improved on trained tasks, but n-back training showed greater transfer to untrained working memory tasks.
These findings suggest n-back training may be optimal for boosting working memory.
Key Takeaways:
- Both n-back and memory palace groups improved on trained memory tasks.
- N-back training showed greater transfer to untrained digit span and change detection tasks.
- N-back training reduced reaction times on a visual working memory task.
- Memory palace training only improved memory for abstract words.
- Process-based training like n-back may better target common cognitive mechanisms.
Source: Sci. Rep. 2021
The Critical Role of Working Memory
Working memory is the ability to temporarily store and manipulate information necessary for higher-level cognition.
It plays a vital role in learning, reasoning, and comprehension.
Deficits in working memory are associated with disorders like ADHD, Parkinson’s disease, and Alzheimer’s.
Fortunately, working memory can be improved through targeted training.
But which training techniques are most effective?
Researchers compared two common methods – the n-back task and memory palace technique.
The dual n-back task requires tracking both visual and auditory stimuli, responding when a stimulus matches one from n steps earlier.
It focuses on improving the processing functions of working memory.
The memory palace technique involves mentally navigating familiar routes and associating to-be-remembered items with landmarks along the way.
It focuses on improving memorization strategies.
This study directly compared the two methods in 148 young adults randomized into n-back training, memory palace training, or control groups.
All groups completed assessments before and after 20 days of training.
The key question was how gains from each training transferred to other untrained working memory tasks.
Both Training Methods Improve Performance on Trained Tasks
As expected, the n-back group significantly improved their n-back performance.
Improvements were most prominent on higher 4-back and 6-back loads.
The memory palace group also showed dramatic gains in remembering increasingly long lists of words using their trained method.
This demonstrates both techniques can drive rapid improvement on tasks they directly train.
But would these benefits apply more broadly?
Greater Transfer Effects Seen for N-Back Training
To assess transfer effects, all groups completed two untrained working memory tasks before and after training – digit span and change detection.
Digit span requires immediately repeating increasingly long number sequences.
Both training groups significantly increased their digit span compared to controls.
This shows n-back and memory palace training can boost short-term recall for numbers.
On the change detection task, participants must detect changes in the spatial location of objects.
Here, only n-back training led to faster reaction times, particularly on higher loads with more objects.
Memory palace training did not produce significant speed improvements.
This reveals a key difference – n-back training transferred to faster processing speed on a visuospatial working memory task, while memory palace training did not.
Why Might N-Back Training Transfer Better?
The broader transfer effects seen for n-back training may be because both it and the transfer tasks rely on overlapping cognitive processes and brain networks.
The fronto-parietal network involved in n-back training is also recruited for digit span and change detection.
The consistent training of this shared neural circuitry with n-back may lead to more generalized benefits.
In contrast, memory palace training focuses on domain-specific encoding and retrieval strategies.
These mnemonic techniques may not target the processing capacities that benefit the transfer tasks.
Strategic training seems to produce more specific rather than generalizable effects.
Additionally, n-back and the transfer tasks had greater similarity in their test paradigms compared to the more distinct memory palace training.
The continual tracking of items in n-back mirrors the sequential processing required for digit span and change detection.
This paradigm overlap may enable more direct transfer of gains from n-back training.
Memory Training: Limitations and Future Directions
An important limitation is that the transfer tasks may have been better matched to assess n-back training effects.
Future research should incorporate a wider battery of cognitive tests to provide a balanced assessment between training methods.
Also, these results were obtained in young adults and may not generalize to other age groups.
Older adults often struggle applying new mnemonic strategies to daily life.
Comparing training techniques across age ranges will be informative.
Finally, examining a larger set of process-based and strategy-based training methods would build a more complete picture of their relative efficacy.
But based on these initial findings, adaptive n-back training shows particular promise as a method to broadly enhance working memory abilities.
The Takeaway: Dual N Back Improves Working Memory
Overall, both n-back and memory palace training led to improvements in working memory capacity.
However, n-back training produced larger benefits on untrained working memory tasks, indicating greater transfer effects.
Process-based training may better target core cognitive mechanisms for generalized improvements.
These findings suggest n-back training could be an especially potent approach for boosting working memory.
References
- Study: Dual n-back working memory training evinces superior transfer effects compared to the method of loci
- Authors: Wenjuan Li et al. (2021)
