Table 1.

Description of the variables analyzed in the global intervention studies.

Reference Objective	Method			Results
	Sample	Neuropsychological assessment	Intervention
Study 39 (Vallat et al., 2005)	(a) Type and age: Healthy older adults, age > 65 years. (b) Groups: Experimental group 1 (n=85), experimental group 2 (n=68), control group (n=85); no sample loss reported. (c) Inclusion criteria: no dementia or memory impairment, adequate intellectual functioning. (d) Exclusion criteria: degenerative neurological disorder; severe psychotic traits, depression, agitation, or behavioral problems; history of alcohol or substance abuse; systemic disease.	(a) Functions and abilities: attention; working memory; immediate execution, logic, recent word list, and short-term memories; learning potential; naming, repetition, auditory, written, and reading language; visuo-constructive ability; planning; bimanual coordination; visuo-manual coordination speed; phonetic and semantic fluency; abstraction; categorization. (b) Frequency: Six assessments of 6 months each - four with the same neuropsychological battery and two with ADAS-COG.	(a) Design: randomized clinical trial; double-blind; longitudinal; quasi-experimental. (b) Type of rehabilitation: group modality; involving all cognitive functions; experimental group 1 (training: cognitive, social skills, alternative therapies, musical therapy, culture); experimental group 2 (similar to group 1, but not following an organized timetable); control group (untrained). (c) Theoretical framework: Developed by the author based on Braak and Braak’s model of Alzheimer’s staging. (d) Procedures: cognitive training of attention and orientation, memory, language, visuo constructive ability, executive function, visuo-manual coordination, and praxia. (e) Duration: 2 years, 180 sessions, 1.5 h per session twice a week.	• Significant improvements in immediate memory in experimental group 1, particularly in the second year. • Recent logic execution memory was significantly  improved in all three groups. • Working memory was only statistically significant in experimental group 1 on the second year.
To assess the efficacy and specificity of WM rehabilitation, focusing mainly on central executive and phonological loop.
Study 23 (Westerberg et al., 2007)	(a)  Type and age: Healthy independent-living elderly adults, with ages ranging from 71 to 87 years. (b) Groups: Experimental group: early training (n=29); control group (late training, n=20). (c) Inclusion criterion: subjective complaints of cognitive or memory dysfunction.	(a) Functions and abilities: working memory, primary and secondary memory. (b) Frequency: Pre- and post-intervention assessments separated by 3 months  each with a 6 month follow-up after training; four different but equivalent batteries.	(a) Design: clinical trial. (b) Type of rehabilitation: group modality, 3 modules: [i] memory skills, [ii] goal management, and [iii] psychosocial training. Both groups were submitted to the same training but at different times. (c) Theoretical framework: Jacoby (1991); difference between two major components of recall: one more automatic and familiarity-based and the other more controlled and recollective. (d) Procedures: memory skills learning and organization, external and internal techniques. (e) Duration: 12 weeks, one session per week.	• No training-related improvement in working, primary, or recognition memory. • Positive results were found only in the experimental group.
To examine the effects of WM training in adult patients with stroke.