Advanced Brain Monitoring Named “Most Innovative Medical Device Company” at Global Health and Pharma Awards (Sleep Review):
“Advanced Brain Monitoring Inc was named the “Most Innovative Medical Device Company” by Global Health and Pharma at its 2016 Healthcare and Pharmaceutical awards. “This award recognizes our company’s successes in developing technologies which enable clinicians and clinical trial sponsors to profile brain health through the analysis of the brain’s electrical activity (EEG) during sleep and wake,” says Chris Berka, Advanced Brain Monitoring CEO…The company was recently awarded a $1.5 mm grant from National Institute of Health to expand its database of awake and sleep EEG in patients with neurodegenerative diseases. “The envisioned future is for routine brain health assessments during sleep and waking to be conducted in a manner similar to a mammogram or colonoscopy,” says Berka. “Ultimately, early detection will increase the likelihood that an intervention can be matched to the patient based on the presence of brain biomarkers and administered prior to the onset of cognitive decline.”
To learn more:
Successful innovators dissected key market & technology trends and models to validate and commercialize innovation, with a particular emphasis on how to create a loyal user base and gain mainstream distribution via a diversity of channels. Read the rest of this entry »
By: Nick Almond
I was really interested in the recent critique of the BBC brain training experiment by Dr. Elizabeth Zelinski. I think Owens et al (2010) was a critical piece of research which was not conducted in the right way and was focusing on the wrong sample population. I totally agree with the comments by Dr. Zelinski regarding the potential for sample bias and the use of some questionable cognitive measures. However, I would like to take this critique further and question whether the study was value for money when there are other studies which cannot achieve funding but would, in my opinion, show the criticism/scepticism of the use-it-or-lose-it theory.
I think there is not enough criticism about the age of the sample population used in Owens et al. (2010). We have conclusive cognitive and neurological evidence that cognitive/neurological plasticity exists in young adults. There is also adequate evidence that neuroplasticity is evident in older adults. The critical point which I want to make about the sample population in Owens et al. study is that it did not target the correct sample population, that is, older adults who are at risk of cognitive/neuronal atrophy. It does not matter if younger adults improve on brain training tasks, or if skills picked up by younger adults from brain training are not transferred to other cognitive domains, simply because younger adults are good at these skills/cognitive functions. Therefore there is a possibility that ceiling or scaling effects mask the true findings in Owens et al. (2010), as indicated by Zelinski.
The recruitment of the sample population is also very concerning and I do not feel that their control group was appropriate. Read the rest of this entry »