Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory

Susanne M. Jaeggi; Martin Buschkuehl; John Jonides; Walter J. Perrig

doi:10.1073/pnas.0801268105

New Research In

Edited by Edward E. Smith, Columbia University, New York, NY, and approved March 18, 2008 (received for review February 7, 2008)

Abstract

Fluid intelligence (Gf) refers to the ability to reason and to solve new problems independently of previously acquired knowledge. Gf is critical for a wide variety of cognitive tasks, and it is considered one of the most important factors in learning. Moreover, Gf is closely related to professional and educational success, especially in complex and demanding environments. Although performance on tests of Gf can be improved through direct practice on the tests themselves, there is no evidence that training on any other regimen yields increased Gf in adults. Furthermore, there is a long history of research into cognitive training showing that, although performance on trained tasks can increase dramatically, transfer of this learning to other tasks remains poor. Here, we present evidence for transfer from training on a demanding working memory task to measures of Gf. This transfer results even though the trained task is entirely different from the intelligence test itself. Furthermore, we demonstrate that the extent of gain in intelligence critically depends on the amount of training: the more training, the more improvement in Gf. That is, the training effect is dosage-dependent. Thus, in contrast to many previous studies, we conclude that it is possible to improve Gf without practicing the testing tasks themselves, opening a wide range of applications.

Footnotes

^‡To whom correspondence may be addressed. E-mail: sjaeggi{at}umich.edu or mbu{at}umich.edu
Author contributions: S.M.J. and M.B. contributed equally to this work; and S.M.J., M.B., J.J., and W.J.P. wrote the paper.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
See Commentary on page 6791.
This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.
↵§ Note that the specific training gain was well explained by a linear function for all groups (8 days training: R² = 0.78, F(1,134) = 473.44, P < 0.001; 12 days training: R² = 0.81, F(1,202) = 863.59, P < 0.001; 17 days training: R² = 0.73, F(1,287) = 769.63; 19 days training: R² = 0.79, F(1,321) = 1230.23, P < 0.001).
↵¶ Although this procedure differs from the standardized procedure, there is evidence that this timed procedure has little influence on relative standings in these tests, in that the correlation of speeded and non-speeded versions is very high (r = 0.95; ref. 37).
© 2008 by The National Academy of Sciences of the USA