PWR-102 · Attention & Executive Control

Working-memory updating

Working-memory games can make you better at working-memory games. High-powered trials do not show that this raises intelligence or broad mental ability.

Revision 7T · Full Tutorial Edition · Release manifest · Methodology · Corrections

One source of teaching truth

Canonical Power learning unit · TLU-PWR-102

This tutorial teaches how to analyse a completed running-memory record without doing a memory drill. For each five-item sequence, derive the three correct last-two pairs, compare them with the fictional responses, score exact ordered pairs and distinguish order, lost-item and rule-format errors. You will not extend the sequence, practise the task or claim that a score measures intelligence or everyday memory.

Canonical Power page
PWR-102 · Working-memory updating
Full tutorial
Open full tutorial
Practical authority
Governed non-operational research tutorial; no capability self-practice
Current treatment
Full research tutorial
Research depth
focused · 3 bound sources
Risk framing
low
Capability self-practice
No operational capability self-practice; research practicum available
Pathway membership
G-CUR-009

Open My Power Path Inspect the canonical record

Read before using this page

Explanation is not permission.

This dossier explains the evidence and its limits. It is not a diagnosis, personal recommendation, assessment, clearance, performance promise or training programme. Actionable teaching appears only when the canonical Power record explicitly authorises it.

Complete bounded explanation

What this power means.

Capability to develop or express working-memory updating in a declared context without inheriting broader claims.

What the current evidence supports

Working-memory updating tasks are trainable as tasks, but strong controlled studies do not show broader cognitive-ability transfer.

How to observe or measure it without overclaiming

Accuracy and load on a declared updating task cannot establish intelligence, learning capacity or everyday memory; independent construct measures are required.

Myth

Expand your mental RAM

Metric

Performance on the trained task and independent functional memory outcomes after delay

Boundary

Task practice cannot establish IQ, general cognition or dementia prevention.

Negative and limiting findings

  • A randomized placebo-controlled study found no positive transfer from 20 dual-n-back sessions to any measured cognitive ability.

Claims this evidence cannot support

  • Increase IQ with n-back
  • Expand working memory permanently
  • Prevent dementia with brain games
  • External memory weakens the brain

Individual tutorial · RESEARCH EXPLORATION

How to learn this Power now.

This tutorial teaches how to analyse a completed running-memory record without doing a memory drill. For each five-item sequence, derive the three correct last-two pairs, compare them with the fictional responses, score exact ordered pairs and distinguish order, lost-item and rule-format errors. You will not extend the sequence, practise the task or claim that a score measures intelligence or everyday memory.

  1. Frame the questionState the capability claim narrowly enough that evidence could support or limit it.
  2. Map the evidenceDistinguish existence, measurement, trainability, retention, transfer, safety and functional value.
  3. Find uncertaintyIdentify small samples, proxy measures, missing controls, null findings and unresolved authority questions.
  4. Compare alternativesConsider competing explanations and what evidence would change the current treatment.
  5. Stay non-operationalUse the record for research literacy only until a separate gate authorises instruction.

Authority boundary: Titan teaches a complete Power-specific research method because operational capability practice is not currently justified. The method is Power-specific; its actionability follows this treatment.

Related Powers: PWR-097 · PWR-098 · PWR-099 · PWR-100

Direct evidence register

Sources that support—and limit—the claim.

Citation roles are explicit. A source may support existence or trainability while simultaneously limiting transfer, certainty, generalisation or safety.

  1. Primary empirical supportLimiting / contrary
    No evidence of intelligence improvement after working memory training: a randomized, placebo-controlled study

    Thomas S Redick; Zach Shipstead; Tyler L Harrison; Kenny L Hicks; David E Fried; David Z Hambrick; Michael J Kane; Randall W Engle · 2013 · Primary research

  2. Primary empirical supportLimiting / contrary
    Putting brain training to the test

    Adrian M Owen; Adam Hampshire; Jessica A Grahn; Robert Stenton; Said Dajani; Alistair S Burns; Robert J Howard; Clive G Ballard · 2010 · Primary research

  3. Primary empirical supportLimiting / contrary
    Effects of Computerized Updating and Inhibition Training in Older Adults: The ACTOP Three-Arm Randomized Double-Blind Controlled Trial

    Amélie Boujut; L V Verty; Sotirios Maltezos; Maxime Lussier; Samia Mellah; Louis Bherer; Sylvie Belleville · 2020 · Primary research

Current teaching and evidence boundary

The next gate remains visible.

No external confirmation is required for the current bounded explainer permission. Guide permission remains not ready; any guide, stronger efficacy, generalisation, protocol, promotion or independent-validation claim requires a new adjudication.

A complete governed research tutorial is available at /tutorials/pwr-102/. It supplies a fictional record-analysis method, worked example, corrections, delayed review and evidence boundary. It does not authorise capability self-practice.