Another nail in the coffin of brain training.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22708717
Abstract
Numerous recent studies seem to
provide evidence for the general intellectual benefits of working memory
training. In reviews of the training literature, Shipstead, Redick, and
Engle (2010, 2012) argued that the field should treat recent results
with a critical eye. Many published working memory training studies
suffer from design limitations (no-contact control groups, single
measures of cognitive constructs), mixed results (transfer of training
gains to some tasks but not others, inconsistent transfer to the same
tasks across studies), and lack of theoretical grounding (identifying
the mechanisms responsible for observed transfer). The current study
compared young adults who received 20 sessions of practice on an
adaptive dual n-back program (working memory training group) or an
adaptive visual search program (active placebo-control group) with a
no-contact control group that received no practice. In addition, all
subjects completed pretest, midtest, and posttest sessions comprising
multiple measures of fluid intelligence, multitasking, working memory
capacity, crystallized intelligence, and perceptual speed. Despite
improvements on both the dual n-back and visual search tasks with
practice, and despite a high level of statistical power, there was no
positive transfer to any of the cognitive ability tests. We discuss
these results in the context of previous working memory training
research and address issues for future working memory training studies
No comments:
Post a Comment