Talk:Working memory training

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 February 2020 and 2 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Btking111. Peer reviewers: Ars121.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Tag

About the "Neutrality Disputed" tag: The article elaborates solely on the scholarly opinion that working memory can be expanded by training. This conclusion from Klingberg et al.'s research is far from undisputed. A neutral article will necessarily have to detail the arguments of the other side as well, and do this in a neutral way. -DOT —Preceding unsigned comment added by DirkOliverTheis (talk • contribs) 06:33, 27 July 2009

By the way: The article was written almost completely by a user named "Cogmed", which is also the name of the company selling Klingberg's software. I suggest that the article be deleted. -DOT —Preceding unsigned comment added by DirkOliverTheis (talk • contribs) 06:39, 27 July 2009

I'm but a mere anonymous user (I swear I don't work for Cogmed or have any connection to this article other than finding it via Stumbleupon last night), but taking down this article would be a huge waste. Find some counterpoints and put them in there, but the topic being discussed here is very intriguing and it would be a shame to see it removed. If this guy's research is truly "far from undisputed" I don't think it would take Wikipedia's Powers That Be too much effort to find some counterpoints to include. And if vanity rules were violated via the author, rewrite the article and don't remove it... it's concept is generalized and relevant even if its content isn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.251.128.198 (talk) 18:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I nom'd this article for CSD when it was first created, but it was denied. Personally, I still think that this subject is sufficiently covered over at Working memory. Is there anything in this article that isn't covered sufficiently over there? Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I view this page as an advert. It was I think written by someone from the Cogmed company and the page *asserts* that working memory can be improved, etc - conclusions which are not exactly accepted in general in the scientific community but which ARE heavily pushed by Cogmed. The only other edits the original author ("Cogmed") has done has been to point links in other articles to this page (in one case, duplicate links in one article; in other, changing a level 2 header into a link!). I would like to see this article deleted. It contains nothing which is not present in Working Memory and acts to mislead the unwary. Toby Douglass (talk) 14:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This article reads like promotional material for the Cogmed company. It does not provide any information on the subject that the working memory article does not. It should be removed. 174.96.214.134 (talk) 22:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

suggested improvements and argument for non-merging

The main arguments i see against merging into working memory are:

• the working memory is quite long (longer than 7 +- 2 bits of memory :P, making it difficult to read by anyone except people who have trained in the Cogmed(R) program, and people who have already trained no longer need to read this advert, whoops, i meant, article)
• the fad and company(ies) are likely to continue to exist and get attention, making them moderately notable, and people finding nothing obvious in wikipedia will tend to go to the nicely written adverts
• the possibility of changing the capacity of working memory still remains open (e.g. plug-in RAM cards; didn't Marvin Minsky actually try this?)

Sorry for the semi-joking nature of my (parentheses). i wouldn't seriously oppose a merger, but i think that expanding the working memory article to include the fad aspect would distract from that article, but be natural in this article. Shipstead et al. are very diplomatic - after all, that's a scientific article. They've even been careful enough to webcitation their quote of cogmed.com's disputed claim.

If people think that the article is getting a bit closer to something sensible, then please propose removal (or be bold) of them. Maybe more of Shipstead should be incorporated here.

Boud (talk) 23:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe somebody needs to come over here and either delete this thing, or at least turn this one company and it sycophants onto one link or maybe two. The disgraceful obvious sham article is a bad thing for Wikipedia. Having three degrees from Ga Tech myself, I would be a lot more interested in what they learned, that for sure! If it were a survey, then did they find anything else we should know? For example, is there research disputing the position of this for-profit endeavor, Cogmed, that hijacked this article. (Most states' won't issue a business name with "Med" in it unless medical science is licensed there somehow. Is their product FDA-approved? Is it anything-approved? Etc.)

Is there an editor for this topic? I sense these references need to be scanned for ...applicability. ("On-going research?" and "a conference"?) Maybe we should know if any of these is a power point slide show handout and has no publishing credits ...let alone page numbers. Does each support the statement? Are enough of these statements supported? This is so bad!

Just look at the first few words: "Working memory training is the claim that..." Now, am I the only one who notices that this sentence says "training" is a "claim"? This makes no sense. Was that a bad edit? How old?

What the heck, I'll fix that right now. But somebody else please come over here and comb the refs and some some more facts to this ...thing. Product claims! How brazenly uneducated!

--JimRodgers (talk) 21:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Pasted info

I have copied an important amount of info from the ADHD working memory training article, since it was actually about WM training in general and not specifically in relationship to ADHD. I have pasted it here since content is OK, although referencing could be much improved (mostly primary sources and all in ADHD).--87.113.19.53 (talk) 18:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)