Use the labels in the right column to find what you want. Or you can go thru them one by one, there are only 29,294 posts. Searching is done in the search box in upper left corner. I blog on anything to do with stroke. DO NOT DO ANYTHING SUGGESTED HERE AS I AM NOT MEDICALLY TRAINED, YOUR DOCTOR IS, LISTEN TO THEM. BUT I BET THEY DON'T KNOW HOW TO GET YOU 100% RECOVERED. I DON'T EITHER BUT HAVE PLENTY OF QUESTIONS FOR YOUR DOCTOR TO ANSWER.
Changing stroke rehab and research worldwide now.Time is Brain!trillions and trillions of neuronsthatDIEeach day because there areNOeffective hyperacute therapies besides tPA(only 12% effective). I have 523 posts on hyperacute therapy, enough for researchers to spend decades proving them out. These are my personal ideas and blog on stroke rehabilitation and stroke research. Do not attempt any of these without checking with your medical provider. Unless you join me in agitating, when you need these therapies they won't be there.
What this blog is for:
My blog is not to help survivors recover, it is to have the 10 million yearly stroke survivors light fires underneath their doctors, stroke hospitals and stroke researchers to get stroke solved. 100% recovery. The stroke medical world is completely failing at that goal, they don't even have it as a goal. Shortly after getting out of the hospital and getting NO information on the process or protocols of stroke rehabilitation and recovery I started searching on the internet and found that no other survivor received useful information. This is an attempt to cover all stroke rehabilitation information that should be readily available to survivors so they can talk with informed knowledge to their medical staff. It lays out what needs to be done to get stroke survivors closer to 100% recovery. It's quite disgusting that this information is not available from every stroke association and doctors group.
Wednesday, August 15, 2018
Targeted training: Converging evidence against the transferable benefits of online brain training on cognitive function
Inconsistent results on brain training likely due to vague definitions of transfer.
•
First to provide objective definition and quantitative metrics for task selection.
•
Maximized the benefits of training by using very similar training and test tasks.
•
No transferable benefits of brain training independent of training task.
•
Performance on outcome measure identical to control group.
Abstract
There
is strong incentive to improve our cognitive abilities, and brain
training has emerged as a promising approach for achieving this goal.
While the idea that extensive ‘training’ on computerized tasks will
improve general cognitive functioning is appealing, the evidence to
support this remains contentious. This is, in part, because of poor
criteria for selecting training tasks and outcome measures resulting in
inconsistent definitions of what constitutes transferable improvement to
cognition. The current study used a targeted training approach to
investigate whether training on two different, but related, working memory
tasks (across two experiments, with 72 participants) produced
transferable benefits to similar (quantified based on cognitive and
neural profiles) untrained test tasks. Despite significant improvement
on both training tasks, participants did not improve on either test
task. In fact, performance on the test tasks after training were nearly
identical to a passive control group. These results indicate that,
despite maximizing the likelihood of producing transferable benefits,
brain training does not generalize, even to very similar tasks. Our
study calls into question the benefit of cognitive training beyond
practice effects, and provides a new framework for future investigations
into the efficacy of brain training.
No comments:
Post a Comment