Psychological Research
DOI 10.1007/s00426-013-0537-1
REVIEW
Working memory and executive functions: effects of training
on academic achievement
Cora Titz • Julia Karbach
Received: 15 April 2013 / Accepted: 13 December 2013
 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014
Abstract The aim of this review is to illustrate the role of
working memory and executive functions for scholastic
achievement as an introduction to the question of whether
and how working memory and executive control training
may improve academic abilities. The review of current
research showed limited but converging evidence for posi-
tive effects of process-based complex working-memory
training on academic abilities, particularly in the domain of
reading. These benefits occurred in children suffering from
cognitive and academic deficits as well as in healthy stu-
dents. Transfer of training to mathematical abilities seemed
to be very limited and to depend on the training regime and
the characteristics of the study sample. A core issue in
training research is whether high- or low-achieving children
benefit more from cognitive training. Individual differences
in terms of training-related benefits suggested that process-
based working memory and executive control training often
induced compensation effects with larger benefits in low
performing individuals. Finally, we discuss the effects of
process-based training in relation to other types of inter-
ventions aimed at improving academic achievement.
Introduction
The present review is motivated by the high significance of
academic achievement for various life outcomes, such as
C. Titz (&)
DIPF Educational Research and Educational Information,
Schloßstr. 29, 60486 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
e-mail: titz@dipf.de
J. Karbach
Department of Educational Science, Saarland University,
Campus A4 2, 66123 Saarbrücken, Germany
academic and vocational success, income, and socioeco-
nomic status (e.g., Jimerson, Egeland, & Teo, 1999;
Schmidt & Hunter, 1998; Spinath, 2012). The fact that
educational differences are a main source of social dis-
parities highlights the importance of interventions sup-
porting scholastic achievement. In this article, we review
the effects of a specific kind of intervention: We analyze
how process-based cognitive training in the domains of
working memory and executive functions may enhance
school-relevant abilities as well as academic achievement.
In this regard, we also address one of the emerging core
issues in the field of cognitive training research—the
question who benefits most from cognitive interventions: Is
it individuals with low levels of cognitive ability or is it
those who are already doing very well?
In the first part of the review, we consider the relation of
working memory (WM) and executive functions (EF) and
their relations to intelligence. Then we summarize the roles
of WM, EF, and intelligence for learning before we describe
the impact of WM and EF on two domains of academic
outcomes: mathematics and reading. In the second part, we
present an overview of research on the transfer of WM and
EF training to these academic domains based on studies
investigating children with cognitive and academic deficits
as well as healthy children. Furthermore, we explore indi-
vidual differences in the performance gains induced by WM
and EF training. Finally, we discuss how the effects of other
training approaches compare to WM and EF training.
Working memory, executive functions, and academic
achievement
There is a variety of models describing the structure and
function of WM (Miyake & Shah, 1999) and EF (Miyake
123

et al., 2000). Most researchers agree that working memory
(WM) enables individuals to temporarily remember infor-
mation while competitively processing information (see
Miyake & Shah, 1999). WM models differ, for example, in
whether WM is seen as a limited capacity system that can
flexibly allocate resources to processing and storage (Case,
Kurland, & Goldberg, 1982), whether WM reflects acti-
vated portions of long-term memory driven by a limited
attentional resource (e.g., Cantor & Engle, 1993; Cowan,
2001; Oberauer, 2002), or whether it is seen as domain-
general short-term memory plus controlled attention
(Engle, Kane, & Tuholski, 1999).
The relationship between WM and executive functions
(EF) is also discussed controversially. To illustrate the
diversity of processes subsumed under the umbrella term
‘‘EF’’ in neuropsychology, (Cartwright (2012, p. 26) listed
11 processes, such as attentional control, planning, meta-
cognition, initiation, inhibition, or WM, to name a few. All
in all, EF is described as a supervisory system that is
involved in the coordination and control of goal-directed
behavior, including WM.
In a cognitive developmental framework, which we
adopt in the current review, EF are conceptualized much
narrower, often guided by a description from Miyake and
Friedman (2012). These authors differentiate specific
cognitive control processes that serve (1) to update the
contents of WM, (2) to flexibly shift between different
tasks or representations, and (3) to inhibit irrelevant
information and action tendencies. Depending on a broad
or a narrow conception of EF, WM is either subsumed
under EF as described above (e.g., Cartwright, 2012; Mi-
yake & Friedman, 2012; see also Willoughby, Kupersmidt,
& Voegler-Lee, 2012), or EF are described as specific
‘‘executive aspects’’ of WM. The latter description draws
back on a WM model proposed by Baddeley et al. (e.g.,
Baddeley, 2000, 2006; Baddeley & Hitch, 1974). In their
WM model, a domain-general ‘‘central executive’’ controls
domain-specific memory subsystems, such as the phono-
logical loop and the visuo-spatial sketchpad specialized in
the processing of language-based and visuo-spatial infor-
mation, respectively. The subsystems can be divided into a
short-term memory storage component that holds verbal or
visuo-spatial information for about 2 s., and a processing
component that refreshes the information by inner repeti-
tion. In 2000, Baddeley added the episodic buffer, which is
responsible for integrating information from the subsys-
tems and long-term memory. Baddeleys (1996) description
of the central executives’ features includes the temporary
activation of long-term memory, the coordination of mul-
tiple tasks, the shifting between tasks or retrieval strategies,
and the capacity to attend selectively to relevant informa-
tion and to inhibit irrelevant information. According to
Baddeley (1996), the central executive may either be a
123
Psychological Research
single coordinated system that serves multiple functions or
a cluster of largely autonomous control processes.
The relation of WM, EF, and intelligence
When it comes to the impact of WM and EF on learning
and scholastic achievement, their relation to general intel-
ligence has to be considered: Crystallized intelligence, on
the one hand, is defined as acquired knowledge that is
based on cumulated information in long-term memory, and
general fluid intelligence ‘‘Gf’’, on the other hand, is con-
sidered as the ability to reason under novel conditions. As
Friedman et al. (2006) highlighted, initial neuropsycho-
logical results did not point to a relationship between EF
and intelligence, because frontal patients showing deficits
in EF had normal intelligence scores on the Wechsler Adult
Intelligence Scale (WAIS). Duncan, Burgess and Emslie
(1995) proposed that the WAIS may be relatively insen-
sitive to frontal damages, because it partly relies on crys-
tallized intelligence and that deficits in EF might rather
affect fluid intelligence. Therefore, Friedman et al. (2006)
examined the relation of updating, shifting, and inhibition
to fluid intelligence (Gf), crystallized intelligence (Gc), and
the WAIS in a sample of 234 adult twins by means of a
latent variable approach. In a first step, they fitted a con-
firmatory model with the three EF factors, Gf and Gc. In
that model, Gf was not significantly correlated to inhibition
(r = .29, p = .08), and shifting (r = .13, p = .28), but to
updating (r = .64, p \ .01). Surprisingly, the EF-Gc cor-
relations were slightly higher and all significant, but
updating still showed the highest correlation (r = .68
versus .31 for each shifting and inhibition). In a second
step, the authors estimated a structural equation model
(SEM) allowing for correlations between the three EF
factors. This model confirmed the strong relationship of
updating to both Gf and Gc. In an SEM including the three
EF and the WAIS, updating also was the only EF factor
explaining variance. Thus, Friedman et al. (2006, p. 178)
concluded that ‘‘The strong relation between updating and
intelligence is consistent with numerous findings of an
association between intelligence and working memory
capacity […].’’
The mechanisms that drive the underlying association
between Gf and WM, or in other words that constitute the
common underlying abilities, are not fully understood to
date. Whereas (Engle (2010); see also Conway and Getz
(2010) suggested that WM tasks and Gf tasks both rely on
attentional control abilities, such as executive functioning,
Colom, Abad, Quiroga, Shih, & Flores-Mendoza (2008)
found that short-term memory storage largely accounted
for the relationship between WM tasks and Gf tasks. A
recent study by Wang, Ren, Altmeyer and Schweizer
(2013) indicated that both storage capacity and executive
Psychological Research
attention contributed significantly to fluid intelligence and
complex learning.
Swanson and Alloway (2012) pointed out that not only in
individual differences research but also in developmental
research (p. 346) ‘‘the connecting mechanism between WM
and the two types of intelligence are unclear’’. In a recent
longitudinal study, Engel de Abreu, Conway and Gathercole
(2010) addressed the question whether the attentional control
of WM or the storage component is driving the link between
complex span tasks and Gf in children. To assess WM, Engel
de Abreu et al. (2010) applied two versions of complex
memory span tasks adapted from Alloway’s (2007) com-
puter-based Automated Working Memory Assessment
(AWMA): a counting recall task and a digit span backwards.
To assess storage capacity, also two tasks were applied: a
digit recall task from the AWMA and a non-word repetition
task. Gf was assessed using Ravens Matrices (Raven, Court,
& Raven, 1986). The sample consisted of 119 children who
were followed over 3 years (aged from 5 to 9 years) begin-
ning in the second year of Kindergarten. For each of the three
measurement points two sets of hierarchical regression
analyses were performed to examine the specific effects of
the attentional control component of WM and the storage
component on Gf. After the effects of short-term storage
were controlled, WM still explained additional variance in
Gf, accounting for 31 % in Gf in kindergarten, 32 % in 1st
grade, and 17 % in 2nd grade. Short-term storage in contrast
did not make any specific contributions to Gf after shared
variance between WM and storage was controlled. On a
theoretical level this suggests that the monitoring of ongoing
procedures, the selective activation of relevant representa-
tions, and the suppression of irrelevant or distracting infor-
mation (as represented in the WM control processes) seem to
be more relevant for reasoning than the capacity to maintain
representations for ongoing processing (as reflected by the
storage component).
However, for older children (4th and 5th graders), a
relation between the storage component of WM and Gf has
also been reported (Giofrè, Mammarella, Ronconi, &
Cornoldi, 2013). Hornung, Brunner, Reuter and Martin
(2011) pointed out that previous studies on the relationship
between WM and GF in children have rarely compared
different structural models of children’s WM what might
partly explain the differing results on the common under-
lying processes of WM and Gf. In their own study, the
authors distinguished six structural models of WM differ-
ing for example in whether short-term memory and WM
were separated and how domain-specific versus domain-
general components were taken into account. The authors
found, somewhat opposed to Engel de Abreu et al. (2010),
that short-term storage capacity primarily explained the
relationship between WM and fluid intelligence in 6-year-
old children.
To sum up, studies on the relation between WM and Gf
in children mirrored findings from the literature on adults:
it seems clear that Gf and WM are strongly related, but
additional research is needed to clarify which component
of WM is related to Gf in which age range and to identify
the underlying mechanisms driving this relationship.
The relation of WM, EF, and Gf to learning
and academic achievement
It is well known that intelligence strongly contributes to
learning and academic success (e.g., Ackerman & Heg-
gestad, 1997; Farsides & Woodfield, 2003) and that mea-
sures of intelligence predict a wide range of indicators of
academic success (Lee, Lee Pe, Ang, & Stankov, 2009;
Mellanby, Martin, & O’Doherty, 2000). There is also a
large body of evidence showing that WM and EF are
predictors of scholastic performance (for a recent excellent
review see Swanson & Alloway, 2012). Given the strong
connection between WM, EF (in particular updating), and
intelligence described in the last section, one may assume
that WM and/or EF are only proxies of intelligence and
question whether they make unique contributions to aca-
demic success. Whereas some researchers state that the
relationship between WM and learning is driven by intel-
ligence (Nation, Adams, Bowyer-Crane, & Snowling,
1999; Stothard & Hulme, 1992), others hold the reverse
view that WM accounts for the relationship between fluid
intelligence and complex learning (Wang et al., 2013). To
date, it seems not feasible to reject one of the two positions
in favor of the other. Instead, process-oriented descriptions
of how WM and EF may impact specific academic out-
comes while taking intelligence into account are desirable.
In fact, measures of WM have repeatedly been shown to
predict more variance in academic abilities than measures
of intelligence (Alloway, Bibile, & Lau, 2013; Alloway,
2009; Andersson, 2008; Lee, Ng, Ng, & Lim, 2004;
Swanson, 2004), or at least comparable portions of vari-
ance (Lu, Weber, Spinath, & Shi, 2011), contradicting the
view that WM and EF are only proxies of Gf (but see Lee,
et al. 2009 for a methodological critique).
In the recent past, different approaches have been chosen
to address the contribution of WM and EF to academic
achievement, such as experimental dual-task studies in
which in parallel WM processes are stressed (e.g., by
applying visuo-spatial span tasks) and school-relevant tasks
are performed (e.g., mental arithmetic), individual differ-
ences studies in children with learning disabilities, studies
that relate WM performance to scholastic outcomes in
children of different ages, or studies of WM development as
a predictor of scholastic outcomes in longitudinal studies
(Raghubar, Barnes, & Hecht, 2010). All in all, these studies
yielded support for a close relationship between WM, EF,
123

and scholastic attainment (e.g., Alloway et al., 2013; Allo-
way & Alloway, 2010; Alloway & Passolunghi, 2011; Berg,
2008; Bull, Espy, & Wiebe, 2008; Cartwright, 2012; Dia-
mond, 2012; Gathercole, Pickering, Knight, & Stegmann,
2004; Pickering, 2006; Swanson & Alloway, 2012; Wil-
loughby et al., 2012; Yeniad, Malda, Mesman, van Ijzen-
doorn, & Pieper, 2013), whereby the relation to WM has been
studied more extensively than the link to specific EF.
A bulk of evidence for the role of WM and EF in aca-
demic achievement comes from studies including children
with learning disabilities (Alloway, 2009; Gathercole, Al-
loway, Willis, & Adams, et al. 2006; Hasselhorn & Mähler,
2007; Locascio, Mahone, Eason, & Cutting, 2010; Mähler
& Schuchardt, 2009; McLean & Hitch, 1999; Passolunghi
& Mammarella, 2012; Schuchardt, Mähler, & Hasselhorn,
2008). To name a few examples, Schuchardt et al. (2008)
dissociated specific impairments in visuo-spatial process-
ing for children with dyscalculia (2nd to 4th graders) from
deficits in executive functioning and in the phonological
loop in children with dyslexia. A study by Mähler and
Schuchardt (2009) furthermore underlined that children
with normal intelligence but deficits in WM suffered from
learning disabilities, again contradicting the view that WM
might only be a proxy of Gf.
Before we are going to present evidence that WM and
EF training can improve school relevant abilities and
academic outcomes, it makes sense to demonstrate the
specific role that WM and EF play for distinct aspects of
scholastic performance. The following paragraph therefore
serves to briefly illustrate how WM and EF are related to
math and reading (for a comprehensive overview see
Swanson & Alloway, 2012).
Working memory, executive functions,
and mathematics
Mathematics is a complex subject, encompassing a variety
of abilities and skills, such as solving arithmetic problems
(addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division), alge-
bra, geometrics, or word problems. Thus, which component
of WM or EF is involved may depend on the type of
mathematical skill or ability that is considered, and, fur-
thermore on the strategies children use to solve arithmetic
problems; these strategies change with advancing age. In a
process-oriented description of WM’s involvement in
math, the phonological loop is argued to maintain operands
or intermediate results, whereas the visuo-spatial sketchpad
‘‘could serve as a space where the problem and its solution
could be visually represented’’ (DeStefano & LeFevre,
2004, p. 355). Since the central executive is responsible for
planning, choosing strategies, and sequencing activities, its
task may be to keep track of which part of a calculation has
already been performed (DeStefano & LeFevre, 2004).
123
Psychological Research
Although all components of WM have been shown to be
associated with math performance at school (DeStefano &
LeFevre, 2004; DeSmedt et al., 2009; Geary, Hoard, Byrd-
Craven, Nugent, & Numtee, 2007; Zheng, Swanson, &
Marcoulides, 2011), this relationship is mediated by the
tasks employed and the age of the sample (see Agostino,
Johnson, & Pascual-Leone, 2010; Alloway and Pass-
olunghi 2011; DeStefano and LeFevre 2004; Krajewski &
Schneider, 2009; Laski et al., 2013; Meyer, Salimpoor,
Wu, Geary, & Menon, 2010; Zheng et al., 2011).
The meaning of spatial and verbal processing in solving
calculations seems to differ between younger and older
children who shift from more procedural-based (e.g.,
counting) to more memory-based (e.g., fact retrieval)
strategies to solve arithmetic tasks (see Barrouillet &
Lépine, 2005; Bull & Espy, 2006; Bull et al., 2008; Geary,
Hoard, & Nugent, 2012; Geary, Hoard, Byrd-Craven, &
Catherine DeSoto, 2004; Holmes & Adams, 2006; Laski
et al., 2013). Supporting this claim, McKenzie, Bull and
Gray (2003) found in a dual-task study that 6-year-old
children’s mental arithmetic was disrupted only by a visuo-
spatial passive interference task, whereas the performance
of 8-year-old children was disrupted by both a visuo-spatial
and a phonological interference task. Recent studies sup-
port the notion that whereas younger children rely more on
the visuo-spatial sketchpad to solve calculations, older
children make more use of the phonological loop (DeS-
medt et al., 2009; Krajewski & Schneider, 2009). This
pattern of results led some researchers to suggest that
‘‘spatial working memory seems to be critical for the
learning and application of new mathematical skills and
concepts, whereas verbal working memory seems to be
more important after a skill has been learned’’ (Laski et al.,
2013, p. 124; see also LeFevre et al., 2010; Raghubar et al.,
2010).
When it comes to mathematical problem solving, chil-
dren need to comprehend the text as well as to implement a
problem-solving model. Lee, Ng and Ng (2009) summa-
rized that mathematical problem solving involves four
processing phases: translation, integration, planning, and
execution. For successful problem solving it is crucial to
understand the question and to transform relevant infor-
mation into an integrated mathematical representation.
Such representations that may have the form of an equation
guide the following phases of problem solving. Some
studies found support for the notion that children rely on
the phonological loop to transform quantitative symbols
into a verbal code during arithmetic problem solving (e.g.,
Logie, Gilhooly, & Wynn, 1994; Rasmussen & Bisanz,
2005). As Zheng et al. (2011) pointed out, younger children
seem to apply visuo-spatial strategies (e.g., the use of
mental number lines), whereas older children shift to verbal
strategies. Converse evidence comes from a study by
Psychological Research
Rasmussen and Bisanz (2005) who found that the visuo-
spatial component of WM did not contribute significantly
to verbal problem solving among preschoolers and 1st
graders. Meyer et al. (2010) examined how the contribution
of specific WM processes to performance in mathematical
problem solving may change from 2nd to 3rd graders. The
authors found that in younger children (2nd graders) the
central executive and phonological components of WM
predicted mathematical reasoning. In older children (3rd
graders), however, the visuo-spatial component predicted
both mathematical reasoning and numerical operations.
The authors concluded that ‘‘the central executive and
phonological loop facilitate performance during early
stages of mathematical learning whereas visuo-spatial
representations play an increasingly important role during
later stages’’ (2010, p. 101; see also Holmes & Adams,
2006).
Yeniad et al. (2013) stated that although there is a
substantial amount of research linking EF to academic
achievement, most studies have focused on the contribution
of WM. When it comes to specific EF, the authors claimed
that earlier confirmatory factor analyses have shown that
EF measures loaded on two latent factors that might best be
called WM and set-shifting. The authors therefore exam-
ined the impact of shifting on math abilities in a meta-
analysis including 18 studies with a total sample of 2,330
children (age range from 48 to 163.68 months). The
shifting tasks of the included studies varied greatly in terms
of measures and their coding (e.g., difference scores in the
Trailmaking A and B, Wisconsin Card Sorting Test, reac-
tion times). However, taking these differences into account,
Yeniad et al. (2013) reported a significant combined effect
size for the relation between shifting and math (r = .26,
95 % CI = .15–.35, p \ .01) in a heterogeneous set of
studies (Q = 113.31, p \ .01). Higher shifting perfor-
mance was related to higher levels of performance on math
tests. Given that only one of the studies included in the
meta-analysis corrected for general intelligence, it was not
possible to disentangle the contributions of shifting and
intelligence to academic outcomes. Nevertheless, in 12 of
the studies it was possible to analyze the relation between
intelligence and math (N = 1,751 children); in these
studies the authors found a significant and large combined
effect size of intelligence (r = .47, 85 % CI = .41–.52). In
11 studies the relation between shifting and intelligence
was reported (N = 1 539 children); the combined effect
size for this relation was significant (r = .30, 85 %
CI = .18–.41, p \ .01). All in all, intelligence contributed
more strongly to academic performance than shifting, and
shifting was substantially associated with intelligence. The
question, however, of whether shifting ability predicts
mathematical achievement beyond the effect of intelli-
gence is still open.
In sum, there is evidence of a contribution of WM and
EF to mathematical achievement, but it has yet to be
clarified which components contribute to what mathemat-
ical ability at what age and which role general intelligence
plays in this relation.
Working memory, executive functions, and reading
When it comes to reading comprehension, the involvement
of WM has often been demonstrated (for recent compre-
hensive overviews see Carretti, Borella, Cornoldi, & De
Beni, 2009; Swanson & Alloway, 2012). However, the
functional role of WM in reading comprehension has been
explained in different ways. Depending on whether a WM
model with domain-specific subsystems has been applied
(e.g., Baddeley, 2000), or domain-general aspects of WM
(Engle et al., 1999) have been emphasized, the role of the
phonological subsystem (processing of verbal material) or
the role of central executive aspects (integration, infer-
ences) have been proven relevant for reading
comprehension.
The ability to read is composed of different processes,
such as word decoding and the ability to combine words
and draw inferences to comprehend written text. As De
Jong (2006) pointed out, the cognitive and environmental
determinants of word decoding and reading comprehen-
sion are partly different. It seems obvious that verbal
WM is especially important for learning to read, whereas
EF might be more important for later stages of drawing
inferences. To read a word, letters have to be sequen-
tially converted into sounds that have to be temporarily
stored until all letters have been translated and can then
be combined to a word. Surprisingly, in early stages of
acquiring reading skills, the role of verbal WM seems to
play a subordinate role, whereas phonological awareness
seems more important (see e.g., De Jong, 2006; Preßler,
Krajewski, & Hasselhorn, 2013). Rohl and Pratt (1995)
reported on the basis of a two-year longitudinal study
with 76 initially pre-reading children that phonological
awareness consistently predicted later reading and spell-
ing, whereas verbal WM did not. In contrast, (Gather-
cole, Brown, & Pickering, 2003; see also Alloway et al.,
2005; Engel de Abreu et al. 2011; Gathercole et al.,
2004) found that children’s WM scores at school entry
(backward digit; naming recall, nonword repetition, word
list recall, and word list matching) were highly signifi-
cant predictors of children’s literacy attainment. An
overlap between phonological awareness and phonologi-
cal WM remains, however, to be discussed (Bowey,
1996; Metsala, 1999; Pressler et al., 2013).
That verbal WM seems to play a subordinate role in
acquiring reading abilities might be an effect of the very
short, usually one-syllable words that beginning readers
123

have to process; such short words impose a low memory
load (De Jong, 2006). For languages with consistent
orthographies (such as German), Landerl and Wimmer
(2008) have shown in an 8-year follow-up study that
phonological WM could predict reading fluency in the 1st
grade, but not reading abilities in higher grades or writing
skills. These results point to two central aspects that have
to be considered in the study of WM and reading abilities:
(1) the impact of WM components on reading abilities
differs for younger, less skilled and older, more skilled
readers; (2) the impact of WM components may differ for
languages with consistent (e.g., German, Dutch) and
inconsistent orthographies (e.g., English), since a graphem-
phonem correspondence is given in consistent orthogra-
phies and phonological recoding is often explicitly
instructed.
Besides the importance of the phonological subcompo-
nent of WM for reading comprehension, evidence has
accumulated that domain-general EF are also involved in
reading (Cartwright, 2012; Yeniad et al., 2013). van der
Sluis, Jong and van der Leij (2007), for example, examined
the role of inhibition, shifting, and updating for the reading
performance of 4th and 5th graders (N = 172, 9–12 years).
The authors could extract an updating and a shifting factor
related to reading, but not an inhibition factor. Due to the
task-impurity problem (a task always implicates different
abilities and thus also non-executive abilities such as verbal
ability, motor speed, or visuo-spatial ability), the authors
controlled for non-executive aspects of their tasks and
found that reading was mainly related to the non-executive
aspects of the EF tasks. However, a recent meta-analysis of
Yeniad et al. (2013), concerning the relation between
shifting and reading (16 studies, N = 2 266 children),
reported combined effect sizes for the relation between
shifting and reading as moderate but significant (r = .21,
95 % CI = .11–.31, p \ .01) and higher shifting perfor-
mance was related to higher levels of performance on
reading tests.
Interim conclusion
In sum, the findings reported in the last sections support the
notion that WM and EF uniquely contribute to academic
success beyond intelligence. In turn, low WM abilities and
deficits in EF may be risk factors for low academic
attainment and, consequently, for educational differences.
In the last years there have been attempts to train WM and
EF in order to improve academic performance in different
age groups. In the next section we are going to discuss
whether, how, and which WM and EF training may be
useful to support academic success. Furthermore, the
effects of other training approaches are compared to the
effects of WM interventions.
123
Psychological Research
Working memory training, executive control training,
and academic achievement
One goal of many EF and WM training interventions is to
induce transfer, that is, to improve performance not only on
the trained tasks, but also in domains that have not been
trained. Importantly, a number of studies have not only
indicated that EF and WM can be improved by training
(e.g., Karbach & Schubert, 2013), but they also indicated
that these training-related benefits transferred to new tasks
that had not been part of the training regime: WM training,
for instance, benefitted episodic memory in younger and
older adults (e.g., Dahlin, Neely, Larsson, Bäckman, &
Nyberg, 2008; Richmond, Morrison, Chein, & Olson, 2011;
Schmiedek, Lövdén, & Lindenberger, 2010), inhibitory
control in children suffering from ADHD (e.g., Klingberg
et al., 2005) and in young adults (e.g., Chein & Morrison,
2010), attention in children, younger and older adults (e.g.,
Brehmer, Westerberg, & Bäckman, 2012; Salminen, Stro-
bach, & Schubert, 2012; Thorell, Lindqvist, Bergman
Nutley, Bohlin, & Klingberg, 2008), as well as fluid intel-
ligence (e.g., Jaeggi, Buschkuehl, Jonides, & Perrig, 2008;
Klingberg, Forssberg, & Westerberg, 2002; Olesen, West-
erberg, & Klingberg, 2004; but see Chooi & Thompson,
2012) and even cognitive functioning in daily live (Brehmer
et al., 2012). In terms of EF, training on dual tasks and task
switching transferred to structurally similar tasks after the
training (e.g., Bherer et al., 2005, 2008; Karbach, Mang, &
Kray, 2010; Kramer, Larish, & Strayer, 1995; Li et al.,
2010; Liepelt, Strobach, Frensch, & Schubert, 2011; Lus-
sier, Gagnon, & Bherer, 2012; Minear & Shah, 2008;
Strobach, Frensch, Soutschek, & Schubert, 2011). A study
on task-switching training has also reported transfer to WM,
inhibition, and fluid intelligence in children, younger and
older adults (Karbach & Kray, 2009). Importantly, transfer
of WM and EF training was not only present in healthy
subjects but also in children suffering from ADHD (Holmes
et al., 2009; Klingberg et al., 2002, 2005; Kray, Karbach,
Haenig, & Freitag, 2012), intellectual disability (Söderq-
vist, Nutley, Ottersen, Grill, & Klingberg, 2012), attentional
problems (Dahlin 2011, 2013), learning difficulties (Allo-
way, 2012; Alloway et al., 2013; Holmes & Gathercole,
2013) and cognitive deficits (Dunning, Holmes, Gathercole,
2013; Holmes, Gathercole, & Dunning, 2009).
Recent evidence indicated that transfer effects might be
enhanced if the training regime taps higher-level EF pro-
cesses instead of focusing on basic processing commodities
or specific strategies (Lustig, Shah, Seidler, & Reuter-
Lorenz, 2009; Noack, Lövdén, Schmiedek, & Lindenber-
ger, 2009). Other studies showed that transfer of training
can only occur if the training task and the transfer task
engage overlapping cognitive processing components and
brain regions (Dahlin et al., 2008).
Psychological Research

Even though quite a number of studies have investigated
the transferability of WM and EF training, only very few of
them included transfer tasks from the domain of academic
abilities. Yet, considering the strong relationship between
both these cognitive domains and academic success (see
‘‘Working memory, executive functions, and mathematics’’
and ‘‘Working memory, executive functions, and read-
ing’’), one may assume that even small increases in the
efficacy of WM and EF have the potential to improve
achievement in the classroom. In the following section, we
will review the few existing studies that have addressed
this issue (for a summary, see Table 1) by means of pro-
cess-based training (i.e., training of specific cognitive
processes without explicit strategy training). Most of these
studies have focused on children with cognitive deficits or
learning difficulties. This is not surprising, because these
children particularly need interventions designed to
improve their cognitive and academic performances.
Moreover, even though all of the studies reviewed below
have applied tasks that were referred to as WM training
tasks (e.g., Cogmed, Jungle Memory, Braintwister), these
tasks did not only require storage, but also included
additional processing demands, such as secondary tasks,
that posed strong demands on EF. For instance, participants
were required to monitor current information, inhibit
irrelevant stimuli, update relevant information for recall,
and manage two tasks simultaneously. Thus, according to
the current and well-accepted models of EF described in
‘‘Working memory, executive functions, and academic
achievement’’ (e.g., Miyake et al., 2000; Miyake &
Friedman, 2012), these training regimes relied on multiple
executive control processes. In keeping with Baddeley’s
(2000) WM model, they can be considered training of the
central executive as well as its subsystems.
Effects of WM and EF training on academic abilities
in children with cognitive and academic deficits
Studies applying Cogmed training
Many training studies have applied the Cogmed training
battery that has been designed to improve working memory
and executive control (http://www.cogmed.com; see also
Klingberg et al., 2005). It includes a variety of verbal and

Table 1 Overview of studies assessing the impact of process-based WM and EF training on academic achievement (AA)
References Sample Type of training Active Type of AA assessed Effects of training
control on AA
group?

Alloway 11–14 years with learning 25 sessions of Jungle Yes Arithmetic, spelling Improvements in
(2012) disabilities Memory WM arithmetic
training
Alloway et al. 10.10 years (mean age) with 28 sessions of Jungle Yes Arithmetic, spelling No improvements
(2013) learning disabilities Memory WM
training
Dahlin (2011) 9–12 years with special 20–25 sessions of No Reading comprehension, word Improvements in
educational needs and Cogmed WM decoding, orthographic reading
attention problems training knowledge comprehension
Dahlin (2013) 9–12 years with attention 25 sessions of No Basic number skills, additions and Improvements in
deficits Cogmed WM subtractions basic number
training skills
Dunning et al. 8.5 years (mean age) with WM 20–25 sessions of Yes Reading, written expression, No improvements
(2013) deficits Cogmed WM mathematical reasoning, number
training operations
Holmes et al. 8–11 years with WM deficits 20–35 sessions of Yes Reading, mathematical reasoning No improvements
(2009) Cogmed WM
training
Holmes and 9–11 years with low academic 20 sessions of No Level of proficiency in English Improvements in
Gathercole performance Cogmed WM and mathematics English and
(2013) training mathematics
Karbach et al. 7–9 years 14 sessions of Yes Reading, mathematics Improvements in
(2013) Braintwister WM reading
training
Loosli et al. 9–11 years 10 sessions of No Reading Improvements in
(2012) Braintwister WM reading
training

123

visuo-spatial short-term memory (STM) and WM tasks. In a
study on children with low WM ability (8–11 years of age),
Holmes et al. (2009) applied an adaptive WM training
regime based on 20–35 sessions of training on tasks drawn
from the Cogmed training battery. At pretest, posttest, and
6 months after the training participants performed a number
of transfer tasks assessing verbal and visuo-spatial STM and
WM as well as standardized tests for basic word reading and
mathematical reasoning serving as proxies for academic
achievement. Compared to an active control group per-
forming non-adaptive training on the same tasks, the adap-
tive training yielded transfer to untrained memory tasks that
was retained for 6 months, especially in terms of WM and
visuo-spatial STM (cf. Holmes & Gathercole, 2013). These
tasks, which are supported by executive control processes
controlling the allocation of attention on cognitively
demanding tasks (e.g., Kane et al., 2004; Kane & Engle,
2003), are particularly predictive of learning and academic
success (e.g., Gathercole et al., 2004) and seem to be prone to
training-induced improvements. Moreover, the Cogmed
training did not transfer to verbal STM which is considered a
distinct subcomponent of WM relying on prefrontal and
parietal neural networks and supporting language learning
(Baddeley, Gathercole, & Papagno, 1998; Smith & Jonides,
1997). However, the study did not provide compelling evi-
dence for transfer to either basic word reading or mathe-
matical reasoning abilities (cf. Dunning et al., 2013), as
could be expected from studies on the relation between WM,
EF, math and reading, reviewed in Sects. ‘‘Working memory,
executive functions, and mathematics’’ and ‘‘Working mem-
ory, executive functions, and reading’’. Even though the authors
reported improvements in terms of mathematical reasoning
6 months after the posttest in the training group, they did not
include the control group into these follow-up measurements.
Therefore, the improvement in the training group cannot be
attributed to the training and most likely reflects the typical
developmental progress over the course of 6 months.
In contrast, recent work from the same group showed a
different pattern of results (Holmes & Gathercole, 2013): In a
field study, teachers administered the Cogmed training to a
sample of children with low academic abilities in grades 5
and 6 (9–11 years of age). Transfer to academic abilities was
assessed based on performance improvements in English and
maths measured by means of national standard assessment
tests. Compared to a passive control group, the training
improved English and maths across the academic year in
grade 6. The younger children (grade 5) did not benefit in
terms of English and a significant between-group difference
in terms of maths was driven by improvements in the training
group as well as a decline in the control group. Still, these
findings indicate that training-induced memory improve-
ments may transfer to ecologically valid measures of aca-
demic achievement in low-achieving students.
123
Psychological Research
Investigating children (9–12 years of age) with special
educational needs and attention problems, Dahlin (2011)
also applied tasks from the Cogmed WM training battery.
In her study, she tested the effect of 25 sessions of WM
training on three measures of reading (reading compre-
hension, word decoding, and orthographical knowledge).
Compared to a passive control group, the WM training
group improved in terms of reading comprehension and
this benefit was retained for 6 months after the training.
This finding is in line with previous results pointing to the
importance of executive processing for language compre-
hension (e.g., Cain, Oakhill, & Bryant, 2004; Swanson,
Howard, & Sáez, 2006; Yeniad et al., 2013, see also
‘‘Working memory, executive functions and reading’’). The
fact that performance did not improve on the control
measures (decoding and orthographical knowledge) indi-
cated that the benefits could not simply be attributed to
general boots in motivation. In another study, Dahlin
(2013) tested for transfer of daily five-week training on
Cogmed WM tasks to math performance (basis number
skills, addition, subtraction) in boys with attentional
problems aged 9–12 years. Results revealed improved
performance in terms of basic number skills that was
maintained across 6 months, but no benefits on the addition
and subtraction tasks. Interestingly, the basic number skills
test included mostly non-verbal material that did not rely
on automatic recall as much as the addition and subtraction
tests. Thus, the lack of transfer to these arithmetic tasks is
consistent with the reduced transfer to verbal memory tasks
previously reported after Cogmed training (e.g., Holmes,
et al., 2009; Holmes & Gathercole, 2013). However, since
control and training groups were not randomized in this
study the results have to be considered with caution (also,
for a recent controversy on Cogmed see Shipstead, Hicks,
& Engle, 2012).
Studies applying other training regimes
In 2012, Alloway published a study assessing the effects of
an interactive WM training regime called Jungle Memory
on academic abilities (arithmetic, spelling). Jungle Mem-
ory included three games involving verbal and visuo-spa-
tial WM and additional processing demands. The
participants were young adolescents (11–14 years of age)
with learning difficulties. Although the sample was very
small (15 subjects), significant between-group differences
showed performance improvements of the training group
on untrained WM tasks and arithmetic tasks, but also a
decline of performance in the active control condition. A
second study involving the Jungle Memory game was
conducted on a larger and younger sample with learning
difficulties (mean age = 10.10 years), and included both
an active (low frequency WM training) and a passive
Psychological Research
control condition (Alloway et al., 2013). The training
improved performance on untrained verbal and visuo-spa-
tial WM tasks, but there were no significant between-group
differences in changes from pretest to posttest (or to fol-
low-up 8 months later) on measures for arithmetic and
spelling. The authors attributed the benefits of WM training
to increased neural efficiency, resulting in improvements in
targeted goal-directed behavior. They also hypothesized
that WM skills may represent some kind of bottleneck in
the sense that individuals with poor working memory
ability have a hard time acquiring the knowledge that is
required to succeed in the classroom. Widening this bot-
tleneck by improving WM may ultimately resulted in
improvements in the performance of academic tasks.
Effects of WM and EF training on academic abilities
in healthy children
Recently, two studies have applied tasks from the Braintw-
ister WM training battery (Buschkuehl, Jaeggi, Kobel, &
Perrig, 2008) in order to test for transfer of WM training to
academic abilities. In the training task, participants had to
perform a complex span task including a verbal recall task
(remember the sequence of animal pictures) against a sec-
ondary processing task (decide on the spatial orientation of
the animal pictures). The first study included children
between the ages of 9 and 11 years that performed 10 ses-
sions of adaptive WM training (Loosli, Buschkuehl, Perrig,
& Jaeggi, 2012). Academic performance in the domain of
reading was assessed by means of a standardized test for
reading abilities. Compared to a passive control group, the
WM training seemed to benefit text reading, but not word
reading. This finding is consistent with the second study
applying tasks from the Braintwister WM training battery
(Karbach, Strobach, & Schubert, 2013). Elementary school
children (7–9 years of age) performed 14 sessions of adap-
tive WM training and standardized tests of academic
achievement in the domains of reading and math before and
after the training. Compared to an active control group that
performed a non-adaptive version of the WM training tasks,
the adaptive WM training improved performance on the
reading test but not on the math test. The authors of both
studies have attributed the transfer of the Braintwister
training to two different standardized tests of reading to the
strong relation of complex span tasks to reading ability (e.g.,
Daneman & Merikle, 1996; Engel de Abreu et al., 2011) and
memory retrieval (Unsworth & Engle, 2006). The same
training, however, turned out to be less beneficial in terms of
math ability (Karbach et al., 2013) at least for children in this
specific age group: As described in ‘‘Working memory,
executive functions and mathematics’’, children seem to
shift from more procedural-based (e.g., counting) to more
memory-based (e.g., fact retrieval) strategies as they grow
older. Thus, while spatial WM is particularly important for
procedural-based strategies that are essential for the learning
and application of new mathematical skills and concepts,
verbal WM is more relevant when learned skills have to be
applied and mathematical processing relies on memory-
based retrieval of solutions or facts (e.g., DeSmedt et al.,
2009; Laski et al., 2013; McKenzie et al., 2003; Zheng et al.,
2011). Given that the children in this study were relatively
young (mean age = 8.4 years), the selection of a training
regime that relied not only on verbal WM but also included
visuo-spatial WM demands or executive control demands—
particularly shifting (Yeniad et al., 2013)—may have
resulted in transfer to other academic abilities, including
math (Dahlin, 2013; Holmes & Gathercole, 2013). In addi-
tion, it seems appropriate to apply specific tests for different
dimensions of mathematic ability, such as arithmetic, story
problems, and geometry, instead of general math tests that
are usually designed to capture performance on a broad range
of math abilities. These specific tests may be more effective
in order to detect distinct training-induced benefits that are
confined to performance on single skills and abilities.
On a more general note, the transfer of WM and EF
training observed in these studies fits well with recent
findings from neuroimaging studies on adults. Training on
updating (Dahlin et al., 2008), and switching tasks (Kar-
bach & Brieber, 2010) has been shown to reduce activity in
fronto-parietal networks that are typically recruited to
perform these tasks. At the same time, both studies
reported an increase of neural activity in the striatum (see
also Olesen et al., 2004), a structure of particular impor-
tance for learning processes that serves as a gating mech-
anism deciding which processes need to be worked on by
the frontal and parietal areas. Thus, this increased activity
in the striatum together with the decreased fronto-parietal
activation indicated that the task processing was more
automated after the training, suggesting a shifted from a
broader, dispersed network to a specific and more optimal
circuit of neural regions that are functionally intercon-
nected to mediate efficient executive control. Even though
neuroimaging studies investigating the effects of process-
based training interventions on academic performance in
children are still lacking, similar neural mechanisms may
have mediated the transfer of training to academic abilities
that heavily rely on WM and EF functioning and the
respective neural resources. However, more research is
clearly needed to explore the neural underpinnings of
transfer to academic performance.
Interim conclusion
Thus, even though evidence for the transferability of WM
and EF training to academic abilities is still limited, recent
developmental findings indicated that cognitive training
123

might indeed support school-related abilities and academic
performance. Given that the interventions that have been
applied in these studies greatly vary in terms of training
material, training intensity, and the type of transfer tasks,
their comparability is certainly limited. Furthermore, it is
still unknown to what extent their effects may be modu-
lated by age-related differences in social and emotional
development or by motivational components. So far,
training-induced benefits seem most pronounced with
respect to the domain of language and reading (Dahlin,
2011; Holmes & Gathercole, 2013; Karbach et al., 2013;
Loosli et al., 2012) and less pronounced in terms of math
and arithmetic (Alloway, 2012; Dahlin, 2013). The fact that
both of the studies reporting transfer to math ability applied
training regimes including verbal as well as visuo-spatial
tasks, while training in verbal tasks did not benefit math,
suggests that the visuo-spatial aspect of the training may
have driven this effect. To confirm this hypothesis, a sys-
tematic comparison of verbal, visuo-spatial, and combined
training is needed. Another interpretation concerns the fact
that transfer to math was only found in studies assessing
children with attention deficits and learning difficulties,
suggesting that training-induced gains may be most
apparent in low-performing individuals and diminished in
well-performing participants. This assumption, which is
closely linked to analyses of individual differences in the
effects of cognitive interventions, is addressed in the fol-
lowing section.
Who benefits most from cognitive training?
The findings reviewed in the preceding sections (along
with numerous other studies from the field of cognitive
training research) have shown that cognitive training
interventions have the potential to yield significant benefits
in EF and WM and to transfer to academic abilities at the
group level, but evidence on individual differences is still
limited. Lately, the question who benefits most from cog-
nitive interventions has received more attention in the field
of cognitive training research and an increasing number of
studies have analyzed why some individuals benefited
more than others. This question obviously is of particular
importance for the adaptation of training interventions to
populations with specific needs, such as students with
cognitive or academic deficits. In the literature, two dif-
ferent accounts have been proposed to explain individual
differences in training-related performance gains: First, the
magnification account (also known as Matthew effect or
scissor effect) assumes that individuals that are already
performing very well will also benefit most from cognitive
interventions. The idea is that high-performing and well-
educated participants have more efficient cognitive
123
Psychological Research
resources to acquire and implement new strategies and
abilities. Thus, with respect to EF and WM, which gradu-
ally develop across childhood and decline in older age
(e.g., Li et al., 2004), cognitive interventions should result
in a magnification of age differences and individual dif-
ferences; baseline cognitive performance at pretest should
be positively correlated with the training-related gains. In
fact, there are a number of earlier studies supporting this
account, most of them from the field of memory strategy
training, for instance by means of the method of loci (e.g.,
Baltes & Kliegl, 1992; Bjorklund & Douglas 1997; Breh-
mer, Li, Mueller, von Oertzen, & Lindenberger, 2007;
Lindenberger, Kliegl, & Baltes, 1992; Verhaeghen, Mar-
coen, & Goossens, 1992).
Second, the compensation account assumes that high-
performing individuals will benefit less from cognitive
interventions, because they are already functioning at the
optimal level, which leaves less room for improvement.
Thus, age differences and individual differences should be
reduced after the intervention, and baseline cognitive per-
formance should be negatively correlated with training
gains. Evidence for the compensation account comes from
a number of studies focusing on EF training, indicating that
training-related benefits on task switching and dual tasks
were larger for children and older adults than for younger
adults (e.g., Bherer et al., 2008; Cepeda, Kramer, & De
Sather, 2001; Dorbath, Hasselhorn, & Titz, (2011); Kar-
bach & Kray, 2009; Kramer et al., 1995; Kray, Eber, &
Karbach, 2008; Kray & Lindenberger, 2000). Consistently,
WM training yielded larger training and transfer effects in
low-performing individuals (Dahlin, 2011; Jaeggi et al.,
2008; Karbach et al., 2013; but see Holmes & Gathercole,
2013; Loosli et al., 2012). While these studies were based
on comparisons at the group level, recent work has also
analyzed individual differences in performance changes,
and, most importantly, correlations between baseline cog-
nitive ability and training-related benefits (cf. Karbach &
Spengler, 2012; Lövdén, Brehmer, Li, & Lindenberger,
2012; Zinke et al., 2013). For instance, Lövdén et al.
(2012) tested the magnification account against the com-
pensation account in a study on episodic memory strategy
training (method of loci), including children (9–12 years),
younger adults (20–25 years), and older adults
(65–78 years). They found that strategy instructions at the
beginning of training reduced individual differences in
memory performance, while further practice after instruc-
tion ultimately magnified individual differences.
In contrast, process-based WM training including ver-
bal, visuospatial, and executive WM training tasks resulted
in compensation effects (i.e., larger training gains in low-
performing individuals) in older adults (65–95 years of
age). Moreover, participants with larger training gains also
showed larger transfer effects. Results from task-switching
Psychological Research
training mirror these findings by showing that children
(8–10 years), younger adults (18–26 years), and older
adults (62–76 years) consistently showed a pattern of
compensation effects not only in terms of performance
gains on the training task, but also for transfer to a new,
untrained switching task in all age groups (Karbach &
Spengler, 2012).
In a similar vein, Dorbath, Hasselhorn and Titz (2013)
examined younger adults (19–35 years) and older adults
(59–80 years) in order to assess whether the level of edu-
cation was related to training gains in focus-switching
performance. While high-educated older adults performed
better than low-educated individuals, there were no edu-
cation-related differences in training gains. Nevertheless,
baseline performance tended to negatively correlate with
training gains, pointing to compensation rather than mag-
nification effects.
In sum, research assessing the role of baseline cognitive
ability for training-related performance gains indicated that
magnification effects occurred more often in the domain of
strategy training, whereas compensation effects were more
likely associated with process-based training interventions
(such as WM and EF training) (for further comments on the
difference between strategy-based and process-based
interventions see Kliegel & Bürki, 2012; Lustig et al.,
2009; Noack et al., 2009; Verhaegehn, 2013).
Effects of other interventions on WM, EF,
and academic abilities
Even though the focus of this review is on the specific impact
of process-based WM and EF training on academic success,
there are of course a variety of other types of interventions
designed to support children’s educational achievement, for
instance by applying strategy-based, curriculum-based,
multi-domain, or physical training approaches (for recent
reviews see Diamond, 2012; Jolles & Crone, 2012; Zelazo &
Lyons, 2012). Effects of these interventions will be briefly
illustrated by means of selected examples and compared to
the effects of process-based interventions.
St. Clair-Thompson, Stevens, Hunt and Bolder (2010)
examined the effects of memory strategy training in ele-
mentary school children (5–8 years of age). Participants
were trained on the Memory Booster training battery
designed to improve the strategies of rehearsal, visual
imagery, creating stories, and grouping items. After 12–16
sessions, the training yielded improvements on untrained
WM tasks, especially the one relying most on executive
control processing (listening recall). In addition, the
authors reported transfer to tasks that assessed following
instructions and mental arithmetic in the classroom, but
there were no improvements on standardized tests of
reading, arithmetic, or mathematics. The authors argued
that this lack of transfer may have been related to the fact
that the standardized achievement tests they chose did not
include high enough demands on maintenance and storage
for the training to be effective. However, it also should be
noted that this result is very much in line with previous
findings indicating that strategy-based memory trainings
often resulted in large gains on the trained tasks but only in
very limited transfer to other measures (Verhaegehn, 2013;
for meta-analyses see Rebok, Carlson, & Langbaum, 2007;
Verhaeghen, et al. 1992).
Other strategy-based interventions, for instance, have
applied mindfulness training in order to improve self-regu-
lation in childhood. Self-regulation refers to the control of
actions, thoughts and emotions and has often been studied
under the label of EF. Importantly, it has been shown to
predict math and reading skills in preschool and elementary
school (e.g., Blair & Razza, 2007) as well as achievement in
adolescence (e.g., Eigsti et al., 2006). In mindfulness train-
ing, participants are instructed to reflect on current actions or
thoughts and their context clearly and objectively, resulting
in a state of sustained attention rather than automated pro-
cessing (cf. Zelazo & Lyons, 2012). The idea is that this state
of reflection supports self-regulation because it improves
sustained attention and cognitive flexibility while suppress-
ing cognitive interference (e.g., emotional reactivity).
Mindfulness training for children includes strategies like
breathing exercises, sitting mediations, and more move-
ment-based relaxation activities (Kaiser-Greenland, 2010).
It is assumed that the training results in a repeated activation
of the prefrontal cortex (reflection training) and the limbic
system (emotion regulation training) that strengthens con-
nections between these neural regions in order to facilitate
their interplay for self-regulation (Zelazo & Lyons, 2012).
Indeed, recent research has shown that mindfulness training
improved attention, concentration, and social-emotional
abilities in middle childhood and early adolescence (grades
1–7; Flook et al., 2010; Schonert-Reichl & Lawlor, 2010).
However, it should be noted that these findings are based on
the reports of teachers and parents and that evidence for
effects on behavioral measures (e.g., tests for WM and EF) or
educational outcomes is still missing.
When it comes to curriculum-based approaches, the
Montessori concept and the Tools of the Mind concept
have been shown to support children’s EF (Diamond,
Barnett, Thomas, & Munro, 2007; Lillard & Else-Quest,
2006). In the study by Lillard and Else-Quest (2006),
children that were educated based on the Montessori cur-
riculum performed better on standardized tests of reading
and math in addition to showing more advanced social
cognition and executive control at the end of kindergarten.
Moreover, they displayed better writing skills and selected
more positive responses to social dilemmas at the end of
123

elementary school. These positive effects of the Montessori
education have been attributed specific features of the
curriculum that drastically differ from traditional educa-
tional settings, such as multi-age classrooms, special edu-
cational materials, absence of grades, self-directed student
work, and inter-student collaboration, that seem to benefit
social and academic development.
The effects of regular physical activity—particularly
aerobic exercise —on WM and EF are well documented in
adults (for a review see Hillman, Erickson, & Kramer,
2008). Studies involving children are rarer and have yiel-
ded mixed results (e.g., Tuckman & Hinkle, 1986; Kamijo
et al., 2011) or they focused on single boosts of physical
activity (e.g., Davis et al., 2011; Zinke, Einert, Pfennig, &
Kliegel, 2012). Some have applied training regimes
including both exercise and character development, such as
martial arts. For instance, Lakes and Hoyt (2004) compared
the effects of tae kwon do training to those of regular
physical education in children between the ages of 5 and
11 years. Their results showed larger improvements in the
tae kwon do group on tests of cognitive inhibition, disci-
pline, and emotion regulation, indicating that the training
generalized to multiple levels of cognitive and behavioral
measures. Others have focused on exercise and relaxation,
such as yoga training, which benefitted task planning and
execution on the Tower of London task in 10–13-year-old
girls (Manjunath & Telles, 2001).
Thus, positive effects on WM, EF, and cascading ben-
efits in terms of academic development seem to be possible
after a variety of different types of interventions. One of
the main differences between these interventions is the
scale they operate on and thereby the way they can be
tailored to individual’s needs: Curriculum-based approa-
ches are by definition meant to target large populations,
such as schools or communities. They usually aim at sup-
porting educational development on a very general level
without focusing on single specific skills or abilities. The
Montessori approach, for example, is designed to improve
cognitive, social, and motivational development. The
advantage of this relatively general approach is that posi-
tive effects are likely to emerge in many different domains
(e.g., Lillard & Else-Quest, 2006); the disadvantage is that
it is impossible to determine which features of the curric-
ulum are driving these effects. The same problem may
occur with respect to approaches like mindfulness or
martial arts training, although these interventions are much
more focused and designed for much smaller groups (at
least compared to curriculum-based approaches). Still, they
seem to be effective in educational settings by supporting
learning to learn and fostering the type behavior and the
discipline that is required in the classroom.
In contrast, the process-based interventions like those
described in this review, are oftentimes computerized, mostly
123
Psychological Research
applied to single individuals or small groups, and usually
target very specific cognitive functions, such as processing
speed, Gf, WM, or EF. While transfer effects may be nar-
rower, these trainings allow disentangling the specific cogni-
tive and neural mechanisms underlying training and transfer
effects. This knowledge can then be used to tailor interven-
tions to individual strengths and weaknesses in order to sup-
port individuals or groups of individuals with specific needs.
Conclusion and future directions
A large body of research has confirmed an essential role of
WM and EF for academic achievement. Considering its
significance for various life outcomes, effective interven-
tions that improve academic abilities are desirable. WM
and EF training interventions have been shown to enhance
academic performance, in particular with respect to the
domain of language and reading. These benefits have not
only been reported for healthy children, but also for pop-
ulations with cognitive deficits and learning difficulties.
Nevertheless, further research is needed to improve our
understanding of the mechanisms mediating transfer of
cognitive training to academic abilities and to be able to
tailor training interventions to the specific needs of certain
populations or individuals. How does the transfer of pro-
cess-based cognitive training to academic abilities vary as a
function of training domain and training task (e.g., verbal
vs. visuo-spatial training tasks)? May it perhaps be more
promising to design domain-specific training regimes,
specifically targeting math, language or science instead of
process-based training in order to support children’s per-
formances in multiple academic domains? Moreover, how
is social and emotional development related to training-
induced improvements? To which degree are training-
related benefits driven by motivational components?
There is also growing evidence showing that training
gains seem to be influenced by individual differences in
baseline performance, with compensation effects more
often occurring in process-based training interventions,
such as WM and EF training. Although this finding needs
to be further corroborated by future research, it has
important implications for the application of training
interventions that are designed to support cognitive func-
tioning and to compensate for pathological deficits.
References
Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Intelligence, person-
ality, and interests: Evidence for overlapping traits. Psycholog-
ical Bulletin, 121(2), 219–245.
Psychological Research
Agostino, A., Johnson, J., & Pascual-Leone, J. (2010). Executive
functions underlying multiplicative reasoning: Problem type
matters. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 105(4),
286–305.
Alloway, T. P. (2007). Automated working memory assessment.
London: Pearson Assessment.
Alloway, T. (2009). Working memory, but not IQ, predicts
subsequent learning in children with learning difficulties.
European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 25(2), 92–98.
Alloway, T. (2012). Can interactive working memory training
improving learning? Journal of Interactive Learning Research,
23(3), 197–207.
Alloway, T., & Alloway, R. (2010). Investigating the predictive roles
of working memory and IQ in academic attainment. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 106(1), 20–29.
Alloway, T., Bibile, V., & Lau, G. (2013). Computerized working
memory training: Can it lead to gains in cognitive skills in
students? Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 632–638.
Alloway, T., Gathercole, S. E., Adams, A.-M., Willis, C., Eaglen, R.,
& Lamont, E. (2005). Working memory and phonological
awareness as predictors of progress towards early learning goals
at school entry. British Journal of Developmental Psychology,
23(3), 417–426.
Alloway, T., & Passolunghi, M. (2011). The relationship between
working memory, IQ, and mathematical skills in children.
Learning and Individual Differences, 21(1), 133–137.
Andersson, U. (2008). Working memory as a predictor of written
arithmetical skills in children: The importance of central
executive functions. British Journal of Educational Psychology,
78(2), 181–203.
Baddeley, A. D. (1996). Exploring the Central Executive. The
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49A(1), 5–28.
Baddeley, A. D. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of
working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(11), 417–423.
Baddeley, A. D. (2006). Working Memory: An overview. In S.
Pickering (Ed.), Working memory and education (pp. 1–31).
Chicago: Academic Press Inc.
Baddeley, A., Gathercole, S., & Papagno, C. (1998). The phonolog-
ical loop as a language learning device. Psychological Review,
105(1), 158.
Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. J. (1974). Working memory. In G.
H. Bower (Ed.), The Psychology of learning and motivation.
Advances in research and theory (pp. 47–89). New York:
Academic Press.
Baltes, P. B., & Kliegl, R. (1992). Further testing of limits of
cognitive plasticity: Negative age differences in a mnemonic
skill are robust. Developmental Psychology, 28, 121–125.
Barrouillet, P., & Lépine, R. (2005). Working memory and children’s
use of retrieval to solve addition problems. Journal of Exper-
imental Child Psychology, 91(3), 183–204.
Berg, D. (2008). Working memory and arithmetic calculation in
children: the contributory roles of processing speed, short-term
memory, and reading. Journal of Experimental Child Psychol-
ogy, 99, 288–308.
Bherer, L., Kramer, A. F., Peterson, M. S., Colcombe, S., Erickson,
K., & Becic, E. (2005). Training effects on dual-task perfor-
mance: Are there age-related differences in plasticity of
attentional control? Psychology and Aging, 20, 695–700.
Bherer, L., Kramer, A. F., Peterson, M. S., Colcombe, S., Erickson,
K., & Becic, E. (2008). Transfer effects in task-set cost and
dual-task cost after dual-task training in older and younger
adults: further evidence for cognitive plasticity in attentional
control in late adulthood. Experimental Aging Research, 34,
188–219.
Bjorklund, D. F., & Douglas, R. N. (1997). The development of
memory strategies. In N. Cowan & C. Hulme (Eds.), The
development of memory in childhood (pp. 201–246). Sussex,
UK: Psychology Press.
Blair, C., & Razza, R. P. (2007). Relating effortful control, executive
function, and false belief understanding to emerging math and
literacy ability in kindergarten. Child Development, 78, 647–663.
Bowey, J. A. (1996). On the association between phonological
memory and receptive vocabulary in five-year-olds. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 63, 44–78.
Brehmer, Y., Li, S. C., Mueller, V., von Oertzen, T. V., &
Lindenberger, U. (2007). Memory plasticity across the life span:
Uncovering children’s latent potential. Developmental Psychol-
ogy, 43(2), 465–477.
Brehmer, Y., Westerberg, H., & Bäckman, L. (2012). Working-
memory training in younger and older adults: Training gains,
transfer, and maintenance. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6,
63.
Bull, R., & Espy, K. (2006). Working memory, executive functioning
and Children’s mathematics. In S. Pickering (Ed.), Working
memory and education (pp. 93–123). Chicago: Academic Press
Inc.
Bull, R., Espy, K., & Wiebe, S. (2008). Short-term memory, working
memory, and executive functioning in preschoolers: Longitudi-
nal predictors of mathematical achievement at age 7 years.
Developmental Neuropsychology, 33(3), 205–228.
Buschkuehl, M., Jaeggi, S., Kobel, A., & Perrig, W. J. (2008).
Braintwister—Aufgabensammlung für kognitives Training. Uni-
versität Bern: Institut für Psychologie.
Cain, K., Oakhill, J., & Bryant, P. (2004). Individual differences in
the inference of word meanings from context: The influence of
reading comprehension, vocabulary knowledge, and memory
capacity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 671–681.
Cantor, J., & Engle, R. W. (1993). Working-memory capacity as
long-term memory activation: An individual-differences
approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning,
Memory, and Cognition, 19(5), 1094–1100.
Carretti, B., Borella, E., Cornoldi, C., & De Beni, R. (2009). Role of
working memory in explaining the performance of individuals
with specific reading comprehension difficulties: A meta-
analysis. Learning and Individual Differences, 19(2), 246–251.
Cartwright, K. (2012). Insights from cognitive neuroscience: The
importance of executive function for early reading development
and education. Early Education & Development, 23(1), 24–36.
Case, R., Kurland, M., & Goldberg, J. (1982). Operational efficiency
and the growth of short term memory span. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 33, 386–404.
Cepeda, N. J., Kramer, A. F., & De Sather, J. C. M. G. (2001).
Changes in executive control across the life span: Examination
of task-switching performance. Developmental Psychology, 37,
715–729.
Chein, J. M., & Morrison, A. B. (2010). Expanding the mind’s
workspace: Training and transfer effects with a complex working
memory task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17, 193–199.
Chooi, W.-T., & Thompson, L. A. (2012). Working memory training
does not improve intelligence in healthy young adults. Intelli-
gence, 40, 531–542.
Colom, R., Abad, F. J., Quiroga, M. Á., Shih, P. C., & Flores-
Mendoza, C. (2008). Working memory and intelligence are
highly related constructs, but why? Intelligence, 36(6), 584–606.
doi:10.1016/j.intell.2008.01.002.
Conway, A. R. A., & Getz, S. J. (2010). Cognitive ability: Does
working memory training enhance intelligence? Current Biol-
ogy, 20(8), R362–R364. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2010.03.001.
Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A
reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and
Brain Sciences, 24(1), 87–185. doi:10.1017/
S0140525X01003922.
123

Dahlin, K. I. E. (2011). Effects of working memory training on
reading in children with special needs. Reading and Writing, 24,
479–491.
Dahlin, K. (2013). Working memory training and the effect on
mathematical achievement in children with attention deficits and
special needs. Journal of Education and Learning, 2(1),
118–133.
Dahlin, E., Neely, A. S., Larsson, A., Bäckman, L., & Nyberg, L.
(2008). Transfer of learning after updating training mediated by
the striatum. Science, 320, 1510–1512.
Daneman, M., & Merikle, P. M. (1996). Working memory and
language comprehension: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulle-
tin & Review, 3(4), 422–433.
Davis, C. L., Tomporowski, P. D., McDowell, J. E., Austin, B. P.,
Miller, P. H., Yanasak, N. E., et al. (2011). Exercise improves
executive function and achievement and alters brain activation in
overweight children: A randomized, controlled trial. Health
Psychology, 30, 91–98.
De Jong, P. F. (2006). Understanding normal and impaired reading
development: A working memory perspective. In S. Pickering
(Ed.), Working memory and education (pp. 33–60). Amsterdam:
Elsevier.
DeSmedt, B., Janssen, R., Bouwens, K., Verschaffel, L., Boets, B., &
Ghesquière, P. (2009). Working memory and individual differ-
ences in mathematics achievement: A longitudinal study from
first grade to second grade. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 103(2), 186–201.
DeStefano, D., & LeFevre, J. (2004). The role of working memory in
mental arithmetic. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology,
16(3), 353–386. doi:10.1080/09541440244000328.
Diamond, A. (2012). Activities and programs that improve children’s
executive functions. Current Directions in Psychological Sci-
ence, 21(5), 335–341.
Diamond, A., Barnett, W. S., Thomas, J., & Munro, S. (2007). Pre-
school program improves cognitive control. Science, 318,
1387–1388.
Dorbath, L., Hasselhorn, M., & Titz, C. (2011). Aging and executive
functioning: A training study on focus-switching. Frontiers in
Psychology, 2, 257.
Dorbath, L., Hasselhorn, M., & Titz, C. (2013). Effects of education
on executive functioning and its trainability. Educational
Gerontology, 39(5), 314–325.
Duncan, J., Burgess, P., & Emslie, H. (1995). Fluid intelligence after
frontal lobe lesions. Neuropsychologia, 33, 261–268.
Dunning, D. L., Holmes, J., & Gathercole, S. E. (2013). Does working
memory training lead to generalized improvements in children
with low working memory? A randomized controlled trial.
Developmental Science, 16(6), 915–925.
Eigsti, I. M., Zayas, V., Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., Ayduk, O., Dadlani,
M., et al. (2006). Predicting cognitive control from preschool to
late adolescence and young adulthood. Psychological Science,
17, 478–484.
Engel de Abreu, P. M. J., Conway, A. R. A., & Gathercole, S. E.
(2010). Working memory and fluid intelligence in young
children. Intelligence, 38(6), 552–561. doi:10.1016/j.intell.
2010.07.003.
Engel de Abreu, P. M. J., Gathercole, S. E., & Martin, R. (2011).
Disentangling the relationship between working memory and
language: The roles of short-term storage and cognitive control.
Learning and Individual Differences, 21(5), 569–574.
Engle, R. W. (2010). Role of working-memory capacity in cognitive
control. Current Anthropology, 51, 17. doi:10.1086/650572.
Engle, R. W., Kane, M. J., & Tuholski, S. W. (1999). Individual
differences in working memory capacity and what they tell us
about controlled attention, general fluid intelligence and func-
tions of the prefrontal cortex. In A. Miyake & P. Shah (Eds.),
123
Psychological Research
Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance
and executive control. London: Cambridge University Press.
Farsides, T., & Woodfield, R. (2003). Individual differences and
undergraduate academic success: The roles of personality,
intelligence, and application. Personality and Individual Differ-
ences, 34(7), 1225–1243. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00111-3.
Flook, L., Smalley, S. L., Kitil, M. J., Galla, B. M., Kaiser-Greenland,
S., Locke, J., et al. (2010). Effects of mindful awareness
practices on executive functions in elementary school children.
Journal of Applied School Psychology, 26, 70–95.
Friedman, N. P., Miyake, A., Corley, R. P., Young, S. E., DeFries, J.
C., & Hewitt, J. K. (2006). Not all executive functions are related
to intelligence. Psychological Science, 17(2), 172–179.
Gathercole, S., Alloway, T., Willis, C., & Adams, A. (2006). Working
memory in children with reading disabilities. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 93(3), 265–281.
Gathercole, S. E., Brown, L., & Pickering, S. J. (2003). Working
memory assessments at school entry as longitudinal predictors of
National Curriculum attainment levels. Educational and Child
Psychology, 20(3), 109–122.
Gathercole, S. E., Pickering, S. J., Knight, C., & Stegmann, Z. (2004).
Working memory skills and educational attainment: Evidence
from national curriculum assessments at 7 and 14 years of age.
Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18(1), 1–16.
Geary, D., Hoard, M., Byrd-Craven, J., & Catherine DeSoto, M.
(2004). Strategy choices in simple and complex addition:
Contributions of working memory and counting knowledge for
children with mathematical disability. Journal of Experimental
Child Psychology, 88(2), 121–151.
Geary, D., Hoard, M., Byrd-Craven, J., Nugent, L., & Numtee, C.
(2007). Cognitive mechanisms underlying achievement deficits
in children with mathematical learning disability. Child Devel-
opment, 78(4), 1343–1359.
Geary, D. C., Hoard, M. K., & Nugent, L. (2012). Independent
contributions of the central executive, intelligence, and in-class
attentive behavior to developmental change in the strategies used
to solve addition problems. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 113(1), 49–65.
Giofrè, D., Mammarella, I. C., Ronconi, L., & Cornoldi, C. (2013).
Visuospatial working memory in intuitive geometry, and in
academic achievement in geometry. Learning and Individual
Differences, 23, 114–122. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2012.09.012.
Hasselhorn, M., & Mähler, C. (2007). Phonological working memory
of children in two German special schools. International Journal
of Disability, Development and Education, 54(2), 225–244.
Hillman, C. H., Erickson, K. I., & Kramer, A. F. (2008). Be smart,
exercise your heart: Exercise effects on brain and cognition.
Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9, 58–65.
Holmes, J., & Adams, J. W. (2006). Working memory and children’s
mathematical skills: Implications for mathematical development and
mathematics curricula. Educational Psychology, 26(3), 339–366.
Holmes, J., & Gathercole, S. E. (2013). Taking working memory
training from the laboratory into schools. Educational Psychol-
ogy, (ahead-of-print), 1–11.
Holmes, J., Gathercole, S. E., & Dunning, D. L. (2009a). Adaptive
training leads to sustained enhancement of poor working
memory in children. Developmental Science, 12, F9–F15.
Holmes, J., Gathercole, S. E., Place, M., Dunning, D. L., Hilton, K.
A., & Elliott, J. (2009b). Working memory deficits can be
overcome: Impacts of training and medication on working
memory in children with ADHD. Applied Cognitive Psychology,
24, 827–836.
Hornung, C., Brunner, M., Reuter, R. A. P., & Martin, R. (2011).
Children’s working memory: Its structure and relationship to
fluid intelligence. Intelligence, 39(4), 210–221. doi:10.1016/j.
intell.2011.03.002.
Psychological Research
Jaeggi, S., Buschkuehl, M., Jonides, J., & Perrig, W. (2008).
Improving intelligence by training working memory. Proceed-
ings of the National Academy of Science, 105, 6829–6833.
Jimerson, S., Egeland, B., & Teo, A. (1999). A longitudinal study of
achievement trajectories: Factors associated with change. Jour-
nal of Educational Psychology, 91, 116–126.
Jolles, D. D., & Crone, E. A. (2012). Training the developing brain: A
neurocognitive perspective. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience.,
6, 76.
Kaiser-Greenland, S. (2010). The mindful child. New York: Free
Press.
Kamijo, K., Pontifex, M. B., O’Leary, K. C., Scudder, M. R., Wu, C.-
T., Castelli, D. M., et al. (2011). The effects of an afterschool
physical activity program on working memory in preadolescent
children. Developmental Science, 14, 1046–1058.
Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2003). Working-memory capacity and
the control of attention: The contributions of goal neglect,
response competition, and task set to Stroop interference.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132(1), 47.
Kane, M. J., Hambrick, D. Z., Tuholski, S. W., Wilhelm, O., Payne,
T. W., & Engle, R. W. (2004). The generality of working
memory capacity: A latent variable approach to verbal and
visuo-spatial memory span and reasoning. Journal of Experi-
mental Psychology: General, 133, 189–217.
Karbach, J. & Brieber, S. (2010). Neuronale Korrelate exekutiven
Kontrolltrainings. In F. Petermann & U. Koglin, 47. Kongress
der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie, S. 135. Lengerich:
Pabst.
Karbach, J., & Kray, J. (2009). How useful is executive control
training? Age differences in near and far transfer of task-
switching training. Developmental Science, 12, 978–990.
Karbach, J., Mang, S., & Kray, J. (2010). Transfer of task-switching
training in older age: The role of verbal processes. Psychology
and Aging, 25, 677–683.
Karbach, J., & Schubert, T. (2013). Training-induced cognitive and
neural plasticity. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 48.
Karbach, J. & Spengler, M. (2012). Who benefits the most? Individual
differences in the transfer of executive control training in
younger and older adults. In A. Bröder et al. (Eds.), Abstracts of
the 54th Meeting for Experimental Psychologists (TEAP), S. 64.
Lengerich: Pabst.
Karbach, J., Strobach, T., & Schubert, T. (2013). Adaptive working-
memory training benefits reading, but not mathematics in middle
childhood. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Kliegel, M., & Bürki, C. (2012). Memory training interventions
require a tailor-made approach: Commentary on McDaniel and
Bugg. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 1,
58–60.
Klingberg, T., Fernell, E., Olesen, P. J., Johnson, M., Gustafsson, P.,
Dahlstrom, K., et al. (2005). Computerized training of working
memory in children with ADHD—A randomized, controlled
trial. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry, 44, 177–186.
Klingberg, T., Forssberg, H., & Westerberg, H. (2002). Training of
working memory in children with ADHD. Journal of Clinical
and Experimental Neuropsychology, 24, 781–791.
Krajewski, K., & Schneider, W. (2009). Exploring the impact of
phonological awareness, visual-spatial working memory, and
preschool quantity-number competencies on mathematics
achievement in elementary school: Findings from a 3-year
longitudinal study. Special Issue: Typical Development of
Numerical Cognition, 103(4), 516–531.
Kramer, A. F., Larish, J. F., & Strayer, D. L. (1995). Training for
attentional control in dual task settings: a comparison of young
and old adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 1,
50–76.
Kray, J., Eber, J., & Karbach, J. (2008). Verbal self-instructions in
task switching: A compensatory tool for action-control deficits in
childhood and old age? Developmental Science, 11, 223–236.
Kray, J., Karbach, J., Haenig, S., & Freitag, C. (2012). Can task-
switching training enhance executive control functioning in
children with attention deficit/-hyperactivity disorder? Frontiers
in Human Neuroscience, 5, 180.
Kray, J., & Lindenberger, U. (2000). Adult age differences in task
switching. Psychology and Aging, 15, 126–147.
Lakes, K. D., & Hoyt, W. T. (2004). Promoting self-regulation
through school-based martial arts training. Applied Develop-
mental Psychology, 25, 283–302.
Landerl, K., & Wimmer, H. (2008). Development of word reading
fluency and spelling in a consistent orthography: An 8-year
follow-up. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(1), 150–161.
Laski, E. V., Casey, B. M., Yu, Q., Dulaney, A., Heyman, M., &
Dearing, E. (2013). Spatial skills as a predictor of first grade
girls’ use of higher level arithmetic strategies. Learning and
Individual Differences, 23, 123–130.
Lee, K., Lee Pe, M., Ang, S. J., & Stankov, L. (2009a). Do measures
of working memory predict academic proficiency better than
measures of intelligence? Psychology Science, 51(4), 403–419.
Lee, K., Ng, E. L., & Ng, S. F. (2009b). The contributions of working
memory and executive functioning to problem representation
and solution generation in algebraic word problems. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 101(2), 373–387. doi:10.1037/
a0013843.
Lee, K., Ng, S., Ng, E., & Lim, Z. (2004). Working memory and
literacy as predictors of performance on algebraic word prob-
lems. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 89(2),
140–158.
LeFevre, J., Fast, L., Skwarchuk, S., Smith-Chant, B., Bisanz, J.,
Kamawar, D., et al. (2010). Pathways to mathematics: Longi-
tudinal predictors of performance. Child Development, 81(6),
1753–1767.
Li, S. C., Lindenberger, U., Hommel, B., Aschersleben, G., Prinz, W.,
& Baltes, P. B. (2004). Transformations in the couplings among
intellectual abilities and constituent cognitive processes across
the life span. Psychological Science, 15, 155–163.
Li, K. Z. H., Roudaia, E., Lussier, M., Bherer, L., Leroux, A., &
McKinley, P. (2010). Benefits of cognitive dual-task training on
balance performance in healthy older adults. Journals of
Gerontology Series A Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences,
65, 1344–1352.
Liepelt, R., Strobach, T., Frensch, P. A., & Schubert, T. (2011).
Improved inter-task coordination skills after extensive dual-task
practice. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 7,
1251–1272.
Lillard, A., & Else-Quest, N. (2006). The early years: Evaluating
Montessori education. Science, 313, 1893–1894.
Lindenberger, U., Kliegl, R., & Baltes, P. B. (1992). Professional
expertise does not eliminate age differences in imagery-based
performance during adulthood. Psychology and Aging, 7,
585–593.
Locascio, G., Mahone, E. M., Eason, S. H., & Cutting, L. E. (2010).
Executive dysfunction among children with reading comprehen-
sion deficits. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43(5), 441–454.
Logie, R. H., Gilhooly, K. J., & Wynn, V. (1994). Counting on
working memory in arithmetic problem solving. Memory and
Cognition, 22, 395–410.
Loosli, S. V., Buschkuehl, M., Perrig, W. J., & Jaeggi, S. M. (2012).
Working memory training improves reading processes in
typically developing children. Child Neuropsychology, 18,
62–78.
Lövdén, M., Brehmer, Y., Li, S. C., & Lindenberger, U. (2012).
Training-induced compensation versus magnification of
123

individual differences in memory performance. Frontiers in
human neuroscience, 6.
Lu, L., Weber, H. S., Spinath, F. M., & Shi, J. (2011). Predicting
school achievement from cognitive and non-cognitive variables
in a Chinese sample of elementary school children. Intelligence,
39(2–3), 130–140.
Lussier, M., Gagnon, C., & Bherer, L. (2012). An investigation of
response and stimulus modality transfer effects after dual-task
training in younger and older. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience,
6, 129.
Lustig, C., Shah, P., Seidler, R., & Reuter-Lorenz, P. A. (2009).
Aging, training, and the brain: A review and future directions.
Neuropsychology Review, 19, 504–522.
Mähler, C., & Schuchardt, K. (2009). Working memory functioning
in children with learning disabilities: Does intelligence make a
difference? Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 53(1),
3–10.
Manjunath, N. K., & Telles, S. (2001). Improved performance in the
Tower of London test following yoga. Indian Journal of
Physiological Pharmacology, 45, 351–354.
McKenzie, B., Bull, R., & Gray, C. (2003). The effects of
phonological and visual-spatial interference on children’s arith-
metical performance. Educational and Child Psychology, 20(3),
93–108.
McLean, J. F., & Hitch, G. J. (1999). Working memory impairments
in children with specific arithmetic learning difficulties. Journal
of Experimental Child Psychology, 74(3), 240–260.
Mellanby, J., Martin, M., & O’Doherty, J. (2000). The ‘gender gap’in
final examination results at Oxford University. British Journal of
Psychology, 91(3), 377–390.
Metsala, J. L. (1999). The development of phonemic awareness in
reading disabled children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 20,
149–158.
Meyer, M. L., Salimpoor, V. N., Wu, S. S., Geary, D. C., & Menon,
V. (2010). Differential contribution of specific working memory
components to mathematics achievement in 2nd and 3rd graders.
Perspectives on Math Difficulty and Disability in Children,
20(2), 101–109.
Minear, M., & Shah, P. (2008). Training and transfer effects in task
switching. Memory & Cognition, 36, 1470–1483.
Miyake, A., & Friedman, N. (2012). The nature and organization of
individual differences in executive functions four general
conclusions. Current Directions in Psychological Science,
21(1), 8–14.
Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H.,
Howerter, A., & Wager, T. (2000). The unity and diversity of
executive functions and their contributions to complex ‘‘frontal
lobe’’ tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology,
41(1), 49–100.
Miyake, A., & Shah, P. (1999). Models of working memory:
Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control.
Cambridge: University Press.
Nation, K., Adams, J. W., Bowyer-Crane, C. A., & Snowling, M. J.
(1999). Working Memory Deficits in Poor Comprehenders
Reflect Underlying Language Impairments. Journal of Experi-
mental Child Psychology, 73(2), 139–158. doi:10.1006/jecp.
1999.2498.
Noack, H., Lövdén, M., Schmiedek, F., & Lindenberger, U. (2009).
Cognitive plasticity in adulthood and old age: Gauging the
generality of cognitive intervention effects. Restorative Neurol-
ogy & Neuroscience, 27, 435–453.
Oberauer, K. (2002). Access to information in working memory:
Exploring the focus of attention. Journal of Experimental
Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28(3), 411–421.
123
Psychological Research
Olesen, P. J., Westerberg, H., & Klingberg, T. (2004). Increased
prefrontal and parietal activity after training of working memory.
Nature Neuroscience, 7, 75–79.
Passolunghi, M. C., & Mammarella, I. C. (2012). Selective spatial
working memory impairment in a group of children with
mathematics learning disabilities and poor problem-solving
skills. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(4), 341–350.
Pickering, S. (Ed.). (2006). Working memory and education. Chicago:
Academic Press Inc.
Preßler, A.-L., Krajewski, K., & Hasselhorn, M. (2013). Working
memory capacity in preschool children contributes to the acqui-
sition of school relevant precursor skills. Learning and Individual
Differences, 23, 138–144. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2012.10.005.
Raghubar, K. P., Barnes, M. A., & Hecht, S. A. (2010). Working
memory and mathematics: A review of developmental, individ-
ual difference, and cognitive approaches. Perspectives on Math
Difficulty and Disability in Children, 20(2), 110–122. doi:10.
1016/j.lindif.2009.10.005.
Rasmussen, C., & Bisanz, J. (2005). Representation and working
memory in early arithmetic. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 91, 137–157.
Raven, J. C., Court, J. H., & Raven, J. (1986). Coloured progressive
matrices. London: H. K. Lewis.
Rebok, G. W., Carlson, M. C., & Langbaum, J. B. (2007). Training
and maintaining memory abilities in healthy older adults:
traditional and novel approaches. The Journals of Gerontology
Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 62(Spe-
cial Issue 1), 53–61.
Richmond, L. L., Morrison, A. B., Chein, J. M., & Olson, I. R. (2011).
Working memory training and transfer in older adults. Psychol-
ogy and Aging, 26, 813–822.
Rohl, M., & Pratt, C. (1995). Phonological awareness, verbal working
memory and the acquisition of literacy. Reading and Writing,
7(4), 327–360.
Salminen, T., Strobach, T., & Schubert, T. (2012). On the impacts of
working memory training on executive functioning. Frontier in
Human Neuroscience, 6, 166.
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of
selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and
theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psy-
chological Bulletin, 124, 262–274.
Schmiedek, F., Lövdén, M., & Lindenberger, U. (2010). Hundred
days of cognitive training enhance broad cognitive abilities in
adult- hood: Findings from the COGITO study. Frontiers in
Aging Neuroscience, 2, 27.
Schonert-Reichl, K. A., & Lawlor, M. S. (2010). The effects of a
mindfulness-based education program on pre- and early adoles-
cents’ well-being and social and emotional competence. Mind-
fulness, 1(3), 137–151.
Schuchardt, K., Mähler, C., & Hasselhorn, M. (2008). Working
memory deficits in children with specific learning disorders.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41(6), 514–523.
Shipstead, Z., Hicks, K. L., & Engle, R. W. (2012). CogMed working
memory training: Does the evidence support the claims? Journal
of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 1, 185–193.
Smith, E. E., & Jonides, J. (1997). Working memory: A view from
neuroimaging. Cognitive Psychology, 33(1), 5–42.
Söderqvist, S., Nutley, S. B., Ottersen, J., Grill, K. M., & Klingberg,
T. (2012). Computerized training of non-verbal reasoning and
working memory in children with intellectual disability. Fron-
tiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 271.
Spinath, B. (2012). Academic achievement. In V. Ramachandran
(Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behaviour (2nd ed., pp. 1–8). San
Diego, CS: Academic Press.
Psychological Research
St. Clair-Thompson, H. L., Stevens, R., Hunt, A., & Bolder, E.
(2010). Improving children’s working memory and classroom
performance. Educational Psychology, 30, 203–219.
Stothard, S., & Hulme, C. (1992). Reading comprehension difficulties
in children. Reading and Writing, 4(3), 245–256. doi:10.1007/
BF01027150.
Strobach, T., Frensch, P. A., Soutschek, A., & Schubert, T. (2011).
Investigation on the improvement and transfer of dual-task
coordination skills. Psychological Research, 76, 794–811.
Swanson, H. (2004). Working memory and phonological processing
as predictors of children’s mathematical problem solving at
different ages. Memory & Cognition, 32(4), 648–661.
Swanson, H. L., & Alloway, T. P. (2012). Working memory, learning,
and academic achievement. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, T.
C. Urdan, McCormick Christine B., G. M. Sinatra, & J. Sweller
(Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook, Vol 1: Theories,
constructs, and critical issues (1st ed., pp. 327–366). Washing-
ton, DC: American Psychological Association.
Swanson, H. L., Howard, C. B., & Sáez, L. (2006). Do different
components of working memory underlie different subgroups of
reading disabilities? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(3),
252–269.
Thorell, L. B., Lindqvist, S., Bergman Nutley, S., Bohlin, G., &
Klingberg, T. (2008). Training and transfer effects of executive
functions in preschool children. Developmental Science, 12,
106–133.
Tuckman, B. W., & Hinkle, J. S. (1986). An experimental study of the
physical and psychological effects of aerobic exercise on school-
children. Health Psychology, 5, 197–207.
Unsworth, N., & Engle, R. W. (2006). A temporal-contextual retrieval
account of complex-span: An analysis of errors. Journal of
Memory and Language, 54, 346–362.
van der Sluis, S., de Jong, P. F., & van der Leij, A. (2007). Executive
functioning in children, and its relations with reasoning, reading,
and arithmetic. Intelligence, 35(5), 427–449.
Verhaegehn, P. (2013). The elements of cognitive aging: Meta-
analyses of age-related differences in processing speed and their
consequences. Oxford: University Press.
Verhaeghen, P., Marcoen, A., & Goossens, L. (1992). Improving
memory performance in the aged through mnemonic training: A
meta-analytic study. Psychology and Aging, 7, 242.
Wang, T., Ren, X., Altmeyer, M., & Schweizer, K. (2013). An
account of the relationship between fluid intelligence and
complex learning in considering storage capacity and executive
attention. Intelligence, 41(5), 537–545. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2013.
07.008.
Willoughby, M. T., Kupersmidt, J. B., & Voegler-Lee, M. E. (2012).
Is preschool executive function causally related to academic
achievement? Child Neuropsychology, 18(1), 79–91.
Yeniad, N., Malda, M., Mesman, J., van Ijzendoorn, M. H., & Pieper,
S. (2013). Shifting ability predicts math and reading perfor-
mance in children: A meta-analytical study. Learning and
Individual Differences, 23, 1–9. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2012.10.
004.
Zelazo, P. D., & Lyons, K. E. (2012). The potential benefits of
mindfulness training in early childhood: A developmental social
cognitive neuroscience perspective. Child Development Per-
spectives, 6(2), 154–160.
Zheng, X., Swanson, H. L., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2011). Working
memory components as predictors of children’s mathematical
word problem solving. Journal of Experimental Child Psychol-
ogy, 110(4), 481–498. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2011.06.001.
Zinke, K., Einert, M., Pfennig, L., & Kliegel, M. (2012). Plasticity of
executive control through task switching training in adolescents.
Frontiers in human neuroscience, 6.
Zinke, K., Zeintl, M., Rose, N. S., Putzmann, J., Pydde, A., & Kliegel,
M. (2013). Working memory training and transfer in older
adults: effects of age, baseline performance, and training gains.
Developmental Psychology. doi:10.1037/a0032982
123