Sharp Brains: Brain Fitness and Cognitive Health News

Neuroplasticity, Brain Fitness and Cognitive Health News

Icon

The debate continues: Review finds weak evidence standards behind commercially-available brain training programs

balance_scaleBrain Game Claims Fail A Big Sci­en­tif­ic Test (NPR):

In Octo­ber 2014, more than 70 sci­en­tists pub­lished an open let­ter object­ing to mar­ket­ing claims made by brain train­ing com­pa­nies. Pret­ty soon, anoth­er group, with more than 100 sci­en­tists, pub­lished a rebut­tal say­ing brain train­ing has a sol­id sci­en­tif­ic base.

So you had two con­sen­sus state­ments, each signed by many, many peo­ple, that came to essen­tial­ly oppo­site con­clu­sions,” Simons says.

In an effort to clar­i­fy the issue, Simons and six oth­er sci­en­tists reviewed more than 130 stud­ies of brain games and oth­er forms of cog­ni­tive training…The sci­en­tists found that “many of the stud­ies did not real­ly adhere to what we think of as the best prac­tices,” Simons says…“The eval­u­a­tion was very even-hand­ed and raised many excel­lent points,” says George Rebok, a psy­chol­o­gist at Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­si­ty who has been involved in brain train­ing research for the past 20 years. “It real­ly helped raise the bar in terms of the lev­el of sci­ence that we must aspire to.”

StudyDo “Brain-Train­ing” Pro­grams Work? (Psy­cho­log­i­cal Sci­ence in the Pub­lic Inter­est)

  • From the abstract: This arti­cle pro­vides such a review, focus­ing exclu­sive­ly on the use of cog­ni­tive tasks or games as a means to enhance per­for­mance on oth­er tasks…Based on this exam­i­na­tion, we find exten­sive evi­dence that brain-train­ing inter­ven­tions improve per­for­mance on the trained tasks, less evi­dence that such inter­ven­tions improve per­for­mance on close­ly relat­ed tasks, and lit­tle evi­dence that train­ing enhances per­for­mance on dis­tant­ly relat­ed tasks or that train­ing improves every­day cog­ni­tive per­for­mance. We also find that many of the pub­lished inter­ven­tion stud­ies had major short­com­ings in design or analy­sis that pre­clude defin­i­tive con­clu­sions about the effi­ca­cy of train­ing, and that none of the cit­ed stud­ies con­formed to all of the best prac­tices we iden­ti­fy as essen­tial to draw­ing clear con­clu­sions about the ben­e­fits of brain train­ing for every­day activ­i­ties. We con­clude with detailed rec­om­men­da­tions for sci­en­tists, fund­ing agen­cies, and pol­i­cy­mak­ers that, if adopt­ed, would lead to bet­ter evi­dence regard­ing the effi­ca­cy of brain-train­ing inter­ven­tions.

To learn more:

Leave a Reply...

Loading Facebook Comments ...

One Response

  1. Steve Zanon says:

    The paper’s con­clu­sion — “Prac­tic­ing a cog­ni­tive task con­sis­tent­ly improves per­for­mance on that task and close­ly relat­ed tasks, but the avail­able evi­dence that such train­ing gen­er­al­izes to oth­er tasks or to real-world per­for­mance is not com­pelling”.

    Since the evi­dence for “far trans­fer” or some form of “pas­sive trans­fer” to more dis­tant cog­ni­tive domains is absent, a bet­ter (or next gen­er­a­tion) solu­tion might be to active­ly train a series of (broad­er) cog­ni­tive func­tions toward and includ­ing an end goal. I pro­pose a dis­tinc­tion in “far trans­fer” effect between (1) “pas­sive trans­fer” — hop­ing untrained cog­ni­tive func­tions will ben­e­fit and (2) “active trans­fer” — a high­ly per­son­alised plan to train as many relat­ed cog­ni­tive func­tions as prac­ti­cal over time and in some log­i­cal order towards an iden­ti­fied end goal.

    We have been talk­ing about cog­ni­tive train­ing as a “gym equip­ment” for years but have failed to walk the talk, still rely­ing on high­ly unpre­dictable trans­fer effects (even in the cel­lu­lar biol­o­gist camp). Gym equip­ment is fan­tas­tic as an aid to phys­i­cal capac­i­ty build­ing with­out the need to sell far down­stream effects. It is ful­ly accept­ed in the fit­ness mar­ket. With the right train­ing regime and coach­ing strat­e­gy toward your end goal, it gets you to your objec­tive sig­nif­i­cant­ly faster.

    Cog­ni­tive train­ing is great as an aid to men­tal capac­i­ty build­ing with­out the need to sell far down­stream effects. Con­sis­tent­ly being able to improve on a dis­crete cog­ni­tive func­tion is a rea­son­able claim, that hope­ful­ly every­one can agree on, which estab­lish­es both use­ful­ness and cred­i­bil­i­ty.

    My hope is that more sci­en­tists and com­mer­cial appli­ca­tions can work on extend­ing their train­ing deploy­ment strate­gies toward high­ly per­son­alised plans. This will be a sig­nif­i­cant dis­tinc­tion from the first gen­er­a­tion of pri­ma­ry effect “off-the-shelf” prod­ucts that we have today.

Leave a Reply

Categories: Cognitive Neuroscience, Education & Lifelong Learning, Health & Wellness

Tags: , , ,

About SharpBrains

As seen in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, BBC News, CNN, Reuters,  SharpBrains is an independent market research firm tracking how brain science can improve our health and our lives.

Search in our archives

Follow us and Engage via…

twitter_logo_header
RSS Feed

Watch All Recordings Now (40+ Speakers, 12+ Hours)