<p>Working memory (WM) is often associated with intelligence and can supposedly be measured and trained by games like <a href="http://brainscale.net/dual-n-back" rel="nofollow noreferrer">dual n-back</a>. My question is if WM is task specific or has at least a task specific component. Or rather, my <em>intuition</em> is that it is: Me training dual-n back 20 minutes are day will improve my ability to play dual n-back far more than it will improve my ability to juggle different ways of asking this question in my head while writing it.</p>

<p>I think this is testable, so did anyone test if WM is task dependent and what did they find?</p>

<p><strong>Edit to add:</strong><br>
<a href="https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/207/does-learning-one-discipline-improve-performance-in-another-discipline">This question with answers on the cross-discipline benefits</a> was marked as a possible duplicate. My question is not addressed: <a href="https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/a/302/3900">The accepted answer</a> to the question explores different ways cognitive abilities might 'transfer' from one discipline to another. One important aspect here is specific sub skills - psychologists may have a strong math background that may be useful when they learn. Another important aspect is the use of metaphors.<br>
The supposed duplicate is relevant when discussing skill transfer between tasks. WM training is often hyped as general intelligence training. There are more straightforward ways of addressing this hype, my (maybe a bit roundabout) way is questioning wether WM trained on one task is as useful for another task.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-06T14:16:09.417Z
There are 2 questions answered by [@RobinKramer](http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/users/11318/robin-kramer) which may help. http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/13118/cognitive-models-of-learning-working-memory-usage is one, and http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/a/14068/7604 goes a little bit more into the answer
Chris Rogers
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-06T14:24:41.487Z
Thanks for the reference @Chris, perhaps these question about transfer may also be of interest to you Mart: https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/207/does-learning-one-discipline-improve-performance-in-another-discipline and http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/15779/cognitive-models-for-transfer-of-skills
Robin Kramer-ten Have
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-06T14:25:18.180Z
Possible duplicate of [Does learning one discipline improve performance in another discipline?](http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/207/does-learning-one-discipline-improve-performance-in-another-discipline)
Robin Kramer-ten Have
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-06T15:00:00.643Z
This answer could indicate that my intuition is wrong http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/a/15974/3900 but does IMO not directly answer the question.
mart
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-11-28T19:18:57.897Z
I know there have been a lot of suggestions of possible duplicates ... but I really think this one addresses the actual question of whether training (such as dual n-back) improves working memory in general: [Is consistent dual n-back training likely to improve the performance of analysis (mathematics) students?](https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/4145/7001)
Arnon Weinberg
<working-memory>
Is working memory somewhat task specific?
mart
# Is working memory somewhat task specific?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2017-04-06)

Working memory (WM) is often associated with intelligence and can supposedly be measured and trained by games like [dual n-back](http://brainscale.net/dual-n-back). My question is if WM is task specific or has at least a task specific component. Or rather, my *intuition* is that it is: Me training dual-n back 20 minutes are day will improve my ability to play dual n-back far more than it will improve my ability to juggle different ways of asking this question in my head while writing it.

I think this is testable, so did anyone test if WM is task dependent and what did they find?

**Edit to add:**  
[This question with answers on the cross-discipline benefits](https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/207/does-learning-one-discipline-improve-performance-in-another-discipline) was marked as a possible duplicate. My question is not addressed: [The accepted answer](https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/a/302/3900) to the question explores different ways cognitive abilities might 'transfer' from one discipline to another. One important aspect here is specific sub skills - psychologists may have a strong math background that may be useful when they learn. Another important aspect is the use of metaphors.  
The supposed duplicate is relevant when discussing skill transfer between tasks. WM training is often hyped as general intelligence training. There are more straightforward ways of addressing this hype, my (maybe a bit roundabout) way is questioning wether WM trained on one task is as useful for another task.

**Tags:** working-memory

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: There are 2 questions answered by [@RobinKramer](http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/users/11318/robin-kramer) which may help. http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/13118/cognitive-models-of-learning-working-memory-usage is one, and http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/a/14068/7604 goes a little bit more into the answer  
> **username_2**: Thanks for the reference @Chris, perhaps these question about transfer may also be of interest to you Mart: https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/207/does-learning-one-discipline-improve-performance-in-another-discipline and http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/15779/cognitive-models-for-transfer-of-skills  
> **username_2**: Possible duplicate of [Does learning one discipline improve performance in another discipline?](http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/207/does-learning-one-discipline-improve-performance-in-another-discipline)  
> **username_0**: This answer could indicate that my intuition is wrong http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/a/15974/3900 but does IMO not directly answer the question.  
> **username_3**: I know there have been a lot of suggestions of possible duplicates ... but I really think this one addresses the actual question of whether training (such as dual n-back) improves working memory in general: [Is consistent dual n-back training likely to improve the performance of analysis (mathematics) students?](https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/4145/7001)  

---

## 0 answers

