<p>Yes. <em>n</em>-back performance correlates with short-term memory capacity as measured by standard tests. However, there is no standard implementation of the <em>n</em>-back task, which is why the literature is fairly inconsistent. Because it is not administered in a standardized fashion, it is not a good <strong>test</strong> that is comparable between studies. However, it is often used in working memory <strong>training</strong>.</p>

<p><a href="http://englelab.gatech.edu/2013/redick-lindsey-2013.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Here</a> is a paper that is critical of the <em>n</em>-back task. To be fair, although there is scientific consensus that there is insufficient evidence that "brain training" is effective, this is a publication from one of the more skeptical (which is a good thing) research groups. In this regard my example is somewhat biased, but I am open to discussing other perspectives. The group has also published some quite excellent criticism of how training experiments are not always well-designed, but I digress...</p>

<p>In cognitive training, it is important to distinguish between tasks that are optimized for testing and tasks that are optimized for training. A test task should optimally not vary in performance. The <strong>retest reliability</strong> should be high, while a training task should optimally improve performance over time and induce neuroplasticity in a consistent manner.</p>

<p>It is still open what makes a training task efficient. Some suggestions have been made, but criticized to an equal degree. One such concept is adaptive tasks. This describes when a task adapts the difficulty to the user depending on the user's previous performance. In summary, different <em>n</em>-back tasks vary in design and thus may vary in efficiency.</p>

<p>The problems of far and near transfer remain. Sometimes a battery of different tasks are administered simultaneously, but in such cases it becomes more difficult to attribute improvement on performance to specific tasks.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-02-16T18:33:33.387Z
2018-02-16T18:33:33.387Z
noumenal
<p>I've been reading on n-back's non-transferable working memory training, but if it's just used as a method of measuring the subject's working memory is it a good measurement? Personally, I have a poor working memory, easily forgetting what I was just speaking, how the arguments arrive at certain point, what I was just thinking that is important like a few seconds ago. Currently I've been playing n-back from time to time, and I am stuck on dual 3-back forever, never really able to pass through dual 4-back. Typically I don't have a habit of remembering stuff because I can always look up from search engines, and I take digital notes.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-02-14T18:21:50.497Z
Possible duplicate of [Is "brain training" effective?](https://psychology.stackexchange.com/questions/4175/is-brain-training-effective)
Arnon Weinberg
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-02-15T09:05:34.973Z
What have you been reading exactly (include a link) and what is it you have learned from that which makes you ask this question?
Steven Jeuris
<working-memory>
Is there any correlation between n-back level and short-term memory?
drerD
# Is there any correlation between n-back level and short-term memory?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2018-02-14)

I've been reading on n-back's non-transferable working memory training, but if it's just used as a method of measuring the subject's working memory is it a good measurement? Personally, I have a poor working memory, easily forgetting what I was just speaking, how the arguments arrive at certain point, what I was just thinking that is important like a few seconds ago. Currently I've been playing n-back from time to time, and I am stuck on dual 3-back forever, never really able to pass through dual 4-back. Typically I don't have a habit of remembering stuff because I can always look up from search engines, and I take digital notes.

**Tags:** working-memory

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Possible duplicate of [Is "brain training" effective?](https://psychology.stackexchange.com/questions/4175/is-brain-training-effective)  
> **username_2**: What have you been reading exactly (include a link) and what is it you have learned from that which makes you ask this question?  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2018-02-16. Score: 0 | Accepted answer

Yes. *n*-back performance correlates with short-term memory capacity as measured by standard tests. However, there is no standard implementation of the *n*-back task, which is why the literature is fairly inconsistent. Because it is not administered in a standardized fashion, it is not a good **test** that is comparable between studies. However, it is often used in working memory **training**.

[Here](http://englelab.gatech.edu/2013/redick-lindsey-2013.pdf) is a paper that is critical of the *n*-back task. To be fair, although there is scientific consensus that there is insufficient evidence that "brain training" is effective, this is a publication from one of the more skeptical (which is a good thing) research groups. In this regard my example is somewhat biased, but I am open to discussing other perspectives. The group has also published some quite excellent criticism of how training experiments are not always well-designed, but I digress...

In cognitive training, it is important to distinguish between tasks that are optimized for testing and tasks that are optimized for training. A test task should optimally not vary in performance. The **retest reliability** should be high, while a training task should optimally improve performance over time and induce neuroplasticity in a consistent manner.

It is still open what makes a training task efficient. Some suggestions have been made, but criticized to an equal degree. One such concept is adaptive tasks. This describes when a task adapts the difficulty to the user depending on the user's previous performance. In summary, different *n*-back tasks vary in design and thus may vary in efficiency.

The problems of far and near transfer remain. Sometimes a battery of different tasks are administered simultaneously, but in such cases it becomes more difficult to attribute improvement on performance to specific tasks.


---

