How many papers support this gap analysis?

4 papers from our local library contribute to this synthesis, with an average publication year of 2020.

Can I get a manuscript addressing this gap reviewed here?

Yes — AI Review runs 8 specialised agents over the full PDF and returns a structured editorial report in one pass, for 30 credits. Start at /review. An open-access publication route is in preparation and is not open for submissions yet.

psychology4 papersavg year 2020weak evidence

In terms of discriminant validity, results of Study 1

Research gap analysis derived from 4 psychology papers in our local library.

The gap

In terms of discriminant validity, results of Study 1 indicated that the postulated sub-components were insufficient to explain a large amount of variance in working memory span tasks, in Study 2 the same was demonstrated for reasoning task

Evidence profile

Sourced from the abstract and stated research gap of the source papers, classified as general, drawn from work published between 2012 and 2026, spanning 4 journals. Those papers have been cited 595 times in total.

Research trend

Established — well-defined area with open sub-problems.

Supporting evidence — 4 representative gaps

No evidence of intelligence improvement after working memory training: A randomized, placebo-controlled study. (2012) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · cited 470× · doi
Many published working memory training studies suffer from design limitations (no-contact control groups, single measures of cognitive constructs), mixed results (transfer of training gains to some tasks but not others, inconsistent transfer to the same tasks across studies), and lack of theoretical grounding (identifying the mechanisms responsible for observed transfer).
generalabstractevidence 5/5
Keywords: transfer training tasks published working memory suffer design limitations contact control groups single measures cognitive
Cognitive-motor dual-task training differentially affects visual working memory, multifocal attention, and multisensory integration in youth soccer players (2026) · Frontiers in Sports and Active Living · doi
The study identifies a gap in the existing research on the effects of cognitive-motor dual-task training on visuospatial working memory, multifocal attention, and multisensory integration. The study addresses the limitation of traditional laboratory-based interventions, which often lack ecological validity.
generalstated research gapevidence 5/5
Keywords: study identifies gap existing research effects cognitive-motor dual-task
Cognitive Training: A Field in Search of a Phenomenon (2022) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · cited 114× · doi
Recent meta-analyses summarizing the extent empirical evidence have resolved the apparent lack of consensus in the field and led to a crystal-clear conclusion: The overall effect of far transfer is null, and there is little to no true variability between the types of cognitive training.
generalabstractevidence 4/5
Keywords: recent meta analyses summarizing extent empirical evidence resolved apparent lack consensus field crystal clear conclusion
Towards a Process Model of Sustained Attention Tests (2019) · Journal of Intelligence · cited 11× · doi
In terms of discriminant validity, results of Study 1 indicated that the postulated sub-components were insufficient to explain a large amount of variance in working memory span tasks, in Study 2 the same was demonstrated for reasoning tasks.
generalabstractevidence 4/5
Keywords: tasks terms discriminant validity postulated components insufficient explain large amount variance working memory span reasoning

Questions about this gap

In terms of discriminant validity, results of Study 1 indicated that the postulated sub-components were insufficient to explain a large amount of variance in working memory span ta… This is supported by 4 representative gap statements extracted from 4 papers, rated weak evidence.

Explore this gap further

Run this gap as a query across open scholarly engines for the latest related literature.

Find research gaps on this topic →Google Scholar ↗Semantic Scholar ↗OpenAlex ↗Europe PMC ↗CORE ↗

Working on this gap? Review it with us.

Science AI Journal reviews manuscripts in one pass with 8 specialised AI agents calibrated on 69,000+ real peer reviews.

Run an AI review Run a pre-submission check

Tools for your next paper

Pre-CheckIs your paper ready? A Tier 1–5 acceptance probability in seconds.Journal FinderA ranked shortlist of target journals from a 17,500-venue index.Duplicate Publication CheckerCheck prior-publication & salami-slicing risk across 8 sources.Citation GeneratorFreeA DOI or title → APA, MLA, Vancouver, Chicago, BibTeX, RIS. No signup.Graphical Abstract MakerFreeTurn your findings into a colorblind-safe graphical abstract.AI Review8 specialist agents return an editor-ready review of your full PDF.

Compare the category — Honest roundups of the AI research tools, ours listed alongside the alternatives.