> the findings on Dual-N-Back and working memory are less ambiguous and more positive Huh, I guess this is what I was missing. I had the impression that even o

> the findings on Dual-N-Back and working memory are less ambiguous and more positive Huh, I guess this is what I was missing. I had the impression that even on working memory in particular, dual-n-back had mostly failed on a practical level - it just created training effects that broke the validity of certain tests. If that's not the case, I'm suddenly much more interested.