N-back task
A continuous matching task that requires monitoring a sequence and updating what matters.
Performance task The format describes how observations are obtained, not an evidence rating.
What it measures
Performance when the current stimulus must be compared with one a specified number of positions earlier.
What people do
A stream of letters, positions or other stimuli is presented; the participant identifies when the current item matches the one presented N positions back (for example, 1-back, 2-back or 3-back). Load, stimulus type and target frequency define different versions.
What the scores mean
Inspect hits, false alarms (or signal-detection sensitivity) and timing rather than treating percent correct alone as capacity. Accuracy can rise when targets are rare even if a response strategy is uninformative.
This explains the logic of a score. It does not supply a test form, individual result or administration manual.
Development and versions
Wayne Kirchner introduced the continuous N-back paradigm in 1958 to study age differences in rapid-paced information retention. Later cognitive neuroscience and working-memory studies developed many variants, including the implementations examined by Susanne Jaeggi, Martin Buschkuehl, Walter Perrig and Beat Meier in 2010.
Evidence: (Jaeggi et al., 2010); (Spielman et al., 2020)
Reliability and validity evidence
Their three-experiment 2010 study questioned N-back’s concurrent validity as an individual-differences measure of working memory, partly because of modest reliability and weak correlations with complex span tasks. That finding does not make every N-back protocol useless for experimental load comparisons or establish that training transfers to intelligence.
Evidence belongs to a version, sample and interpretation. Read the source notes for what was actually inspected.
Evidence: (Jaeggi et al., 2010); (Spielman et al., 2020)
Where it is used
Experimental manipulations of memory load; individual assessment requires implementation-specific evidence.
Limits and common misreadings
- N-back and digit span are not interchangeable tasks.
- Practice changes familiarity as well as performance.
- More difficult is not automatically more reliable.
Read an example
Original teaching example
A synthetic sequence has infrequent targets. A person who always says “no match” can appear accurate while missing every target. Separating hits from false alarms reveals what an overall accuracy percentage hides.
Constructed for learning; this is not a result from the instrument’s validation study.
Access and permission
Confirm software and stimulus rights for the exact implementation. No normed test or training efficacy claim is offered here.
Textbook connection
Related contextPsychology 2e: 8.1 How Memory Functions
Conceptual context; the instrument-specific sources in this profile provide the primary evidence.
Related measures
Read a measure critically · Explore score examples · Review research methods
Sources and inspection notes
Checked October 22, 2026. An inspection date is not a publication date. Publisher information is not presented as independent validation; abstract-only and indexed-excerpt access are identified below.
- Jaeggi, S. M., Buschkuehl, M., Perrig, W. J., & Meier, B. (2010). The concurrent validity of the n-back task as a working memory measure. Memory (Hove, England), 18(4), 394–412. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211003702171Consulted sourcePrimary research: indexed abstract
Three experiments with different stimuli and loads; the reported reliability concern belongs to those implementations. N-back is not treated as equivalent to every working-memory measure.
- Spielman, R. M., Jenkins, W. J., & Lovett, M. D. (2020). Psychology 2e. OpenStax. https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/8-1-how-memory-functionsTextbook: conceptual context
Conceptual context; the instrument-specific sources in this profile provide the primary evidence.