How could two teams of scientists examine the same literature and come to conflicting “consensus” views about the effectiveness of brain training?
The disagreement might result from different standards used when evaluating the evidence. To date, the field has lacked a comprehensive review of the brain-training literature, one that examines both the quantity and the quality of the evidence according to a well-defined set of best practices. This article provides such a review.
Read the article at Psychological Science in the Public Interest</em>.
Seven psychologists reviewed every single scientific paper put forward to support these products—and found them wanting.
Read the full article at The Atlantic.
Want to be smarter? More focused? Free of memory problems as you age? If so, don’t count on brain games to help you.
That’s the conclusion of an exhaustive evaluation of the scientific literature on brain training games and programs. It was published Monday in the journal Psychological Science in the Public Interest.
Read the full article at National Public Radio (NPR).
Lumosity’s ads, seemingly ubiquitous, appeared on television, radio and podcasts. The company purchased hundreds of search engine keywords so that computer users seeking information on dementia, Alzheimer’s and memory would encounter its online ads.
Broader questions of whether cognitive training works, and for whom, still generate considerable debate, given that human brains change and grow throughout life, a quality called “neuroplasticity.”
Read the full article at The New York Times.
The company that created the Lumosity “brain training” program has agreed to pay $2 million to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it deceived consumers into believing that its mind games could help users excel at work and school and reduce or delay “cognitive impairment associated with age and other serious health conditions.”
Read the full article at NBC News.