Research Says Brain training doesn't work...
Research Says Brain training doesn't work...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/20/brain-training-games-iq
Is this a pin in the balloon of the "brain training industry?"
Is this a pin in the balloon of the "brain training industry?"
milestones | 2 years ago
Reply
Uhhh... this was known long before DNB came around. The fact of the matter is DNB (WM) training has shown transfer effects the likes of which OTHER brain training tasks do not.
This doesn't dampen the potency of DNB; it enhances it.
Why can't anyone read properly? I'm gobsmacked at how you people are so dull as to leap to these conclusions.
This doesn't dampen the potency of DNB; it enhances it.
Why can't anyone read properly? I'm gobsmacked at how you people are so dull as to leap to these conclusions.
? | 2 years ago
Reply
just read that and was about to post a link, any idea what games were used?
to this day i think playing anything other than n-back or variants thereof, until papers are published... is potentially worthless.
if there was no n-backing done in this study then it should not be surprising.
to this day i think playing anything other than n-back or variants thereof, until papers are published... is potentially worthless.
if there was no n-backing done in this study then it should not be surprising.
medicalstudent | 2 years ago
Reply
medicalstudent | 2 years ago
Reply
The only benefit to dual n-backing that I'm convinced of is to concentration (squashes my 'ADHD' symptoms very effectively).
cevapcici | 2 years ago
Reply
Detailed write up of the study:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vnfv/ncurrent/pdf/nature09042.pdf
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vnfv/ncurrent/pdf/nature09042.pdf
cevapcici | 2 years ago
Reply
"However, the widely held belief that commercially available computerized brain-training programs improve general cognitive function in the wider population in our opinion lacks empirical support."
the tests they used were similar to commercially available brain training games.
of course this wont work; even j-b stated that there is a long line of work showing lack of transfer effects from the cognitive training done to date - hence dnb was a novel test showing transfer to a critical g measure.
importantly, j-b repeated the findings using single n-b.
we will have to wait and see if this can be repeated by others yet again.
the tests they used were similar to commercially available brain training games.
of course this wont work; even j-b stated that there is a long line of work showing lack of transfer effects from the cognitive training done to date - hence dnb was a novel test showing transfer to a critical g measure.
importantly, j-b repeated the findings using single n-b.
we will have to wait and see if this can be repeated by others yet again.
medicalstudent | 2 years ago
Reply
Might this negative result suggest a minimal contributory role for environmental influences generally as regards IQ?
cevapcici | 2 years ago
Reply
The study reveals what is already widely known and what the Jaeggi team had mentioned in their abstract in '08 -- that brain training, whether video games or those that are packaged as "cognitive enhancement" games, show mainly specialized increases with performance on the task itself.
I'm surprised the authors in this study did not at least mention the Jaeggi study even in passing, since it does provide some empirical support that an intense WM training task can raise performance on a reasoning task that is not specifically trained for by the training task. But the authors do leave themselves an out with this caveat:
"Although we cannot exclude the possibility that more focused approaches, such as face-to-face cognitive training, may be beneficial in some circumstances, we believe that these results confirm that six weeks of regular
computerized brain training confers no greater benefit than simply answering general knowledge questions using the internet."
Notice though that the rhetoric changes here from "couldit be/is it possible that..." (in which the authors have answered "not likely since...") to a statement that is followed by a more sweeping dismissal of brain training that allows for certain exceptions.
It is these exceptions that need to be more thoroughly examined to determine specifically what segments of the population can benefit from brain training and what segments are just wasting their time (if their goal is cognitive improvement and not entertainment). This study reveals that, on the whole, brain training is ineffective for the majority but what we don't know is if targeted intensive tasks such as dual n back might well benefit certain groups.
To me that's the only question still standing:
viz, which training tasks might benefit which group of people?
My guess is that those with above average intelligence whose weakness lies in sustaining focus and attention, will benefit from intense WM training such as the dual n back. There may be learning disabled groups that would benefit as well.
But I question if it's G that's being improved in these samples or if it's just some sort of modulation of existing G to the WM domain which then transfers to fluid intelligence given the well supported functional overlap between wm and fluid IQ. (Jaeggi did not reveal starting IQ for her group, but if they were students at a selective university then the average starting IQ was likely over 1 sd above the mean).
Also, there are those with head injury as well as seniors who might benefit from training. However, the severe cases of dementia or head injury or even memory loss that comes with advanced age, might inhibit possibilities of being able to even begin the training or carry it out over a period of time...
This study (more or less fairly I'd say given the large sample size) debunks the value of these games for use by the general population to become "smarter" (which is implicit in the marketing claims of brain training companies). This particular study it seems overtly aims to undermine the industry and its attendant wild claims. Notice how the first sentence of the abstract begins:
"Brain training, or the goal of improved cognitive function through the regular use of computerized tests, is a multimillionpound
industry..."
Clear the smoke, crack the mirrors!
I'm surprised the authors in this study did not at least mention the Jaeggi study even in passing, since it does provide some empirical support that an intense WM training task can raise performance on a reasoning task that is not specifically trained for by the training task. But the authors do leave themselves an out with this caveat:
"Although we cannot exclude the possibility that more focused approaches, such as face-to-face cognitive training, may be beneficial in some circumstances, we believe that these results confirm that six weeks of regular
computerized brain training confers no greater benefit than simply answering general knowledge questions using the internet."
Notice though that the rhetoric changes here from "couldit be/is it possible that..." (in which the authors have answered "not likely since...") to a statement that is followed by a more sweeping dismissal of brain training that allows for certain exceptions.
It is these exceptions that need to be more thoroughly examined to determine specifically what segments of the population can benefit from brain training and what segments are just wasting their time (if their goal is cognitive improvement and not entertainment). This study reveals that, on the whole, brain training is ineffective for the majority but what we don't know is if targeted intensive tasks such as dual n back might well benefit certain groups.
To me that's the only question still standing:
viz, which training tasks might benefit which group of people?
My guess is that those with above average intelligence whose weakness lies in sustaining focus and attention, will benefit from intense WM training such as the dual n back. There may be learning disabled groups that would benefit as well.
But I question if it's G that's being improved in these samples or if it's just some sort of modulation of existing G to the WM domain which then transfers to fluid intelligence given the well supported functional overlap between wm and fluid IQ. (Jaeggi did not reveal starting IQ for her group, but if they were students at a selective university then the average starting IQ was likely over 1 sd above the mean).
Also, there are those with head injury as well as seniors who might benefit from training. However, the severe cases of dementia or head injury or even memory loss that comes with advanced age, might inhibit possibilities of being able to even begin the training or carry it out over a period of time...
This study (more or less fairly I'd say given the large sample size) debunks the value of these games for use by the general population to become "smarter" (which is implicit in the marketing claims of brain training companies). This particular study it seems overtly aims to undermine the industry and its attendant wild claims. Notice how the first sentence of the abstract begins:
"Brain training, or the goal of improved cognitive function through the regular use of computerized tests, is a multimillionpound
industry..."
Clear the smoke, crack the mirrors!
milestones | 2 years ago
Reply
That the study was carried out for a programme called 'Bang Goes The Theory' may have had some priming influence.
cevapcici | 2 years ago
Reply
You probably would have saved others from some embarrassment had you provided just a precis of the article in question....
Too late now, I guess.
Too late now, I guess.
? | 2 years ago
Reply
Ah yes, the unbearable mortification of having anonymous posts in a forgotten corner of the internet picked at by an anonymous poster.
? | 2 years ago
Reply
Sounds like you're one of those embarrassed people; you did such a poor job of hiding it, too.
Thanks for the amusement. ;-)
Thanks for the amusement. ;-)
? | 2 years ago
Reply
medicalstudent | 2 years ago
Reply
There is some research showing people with age-related cognitive decline become better drivers and have improvements in non-task related memory after using specific training programs. It may be that the programs used in the study were not adequate. Perhaps also there may be gains when there is an initial deficit, or perhaps a perceived one(?), for a particular task. The studies have been for various populations, schizophrenics showed a range of improvements, with PositScience, I think Lumosity has done some studies with its software.
? | 2 years ago
Reply
