The study of working memory has been vast and varied in the field of psychology. Just the aspect of its capacity has had many experiments detailed in several publications. One of many questions asked is whether one can train working memory capacity(wmc) in order to increase it. If we can increase wmc, what other effects would that training have on other facets of the human mind? The first two questions are tackled in both Jaeggi (2008), which attempted to show the positive effects of wmc training on both wmc and fluid intelligence, and Harrison (2013), which attempted to replicate the findings of previous research in order to verify effects. Lastly, Owens (2013) looked to show how wmc training could affect the depressed. All of this research shows just how
…show more content…
When looking for evidence that one can train wmc Jaeggi (2008) found that for all research participants that underwent training, their scores on the traditional wmc test did increase, not only did it increase but the increases were positively correlated with the amount of training and the level that the participants reached in the training. They also found when they did a post test of the subjects after training, it also increased proportionally with the amount and level of training, which suggests that working memory and fluid intelligence are related in some way. When Harrison (2013) went to retest these results, as they hypothesized that some of the researched into fluid intelligence was flawed, they defined their testing measure by simple tasks, correlated to working memory, and complex tasks, correlated with Gf. What they found differed from previous research. While they also measured a noticeable increase in the performance of subjects in the simple tasks, after training, they saw no correlation between training and the complex tasks. Their findings suggest that there is still work to be done in defining what wmc training can and cannot
When looking for evidence that one can train wmc Jaeggi (2008) found that for all research participants that underwent training, their scores on the traditional wmc test did increase, not only did it increase but the increases were positively correlated with the amount of training and the level that the participants reached in the training. They also found when they did a post test of the subjects after training, it also increased proportionally with the amount and level of training, which suggests that working memory and fluid intelligence are related in some way. When Harrison (2013) went to retest these results, as they hypothesized that some of the researched into fluid intelligence was flawed, they defined their testing measure by simple tasks, correlated to working memory, and complex tasks, correlated with Gf. What they found differed from previous research. While they also measured a noticeable increase in the performance of subjects in the simple tasks, after training, they saw no correlation between training and the complex tasks. Their findings suggest that there is still work to be done in defining what wmc training can and cannot