In this section
@article{Owen:2010:10.1038/nature09042,
author = {Owen, AM and Hampshire, A and Grahn, JA and Stenton, R and Dajani, S and Burns, AS and Howard, RJ and Ballard, CG},
doi = {10.1038/nature09042},
journal = {Nature},
pages = {775--778},
title = {Putting brain training to the test},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature09042},
volume = {465},
year = {2010}
}
TY - JOUR
AB - 'Brain training', or the goal of improved cognitive function through the regular use of computerized tests, is a multimillion-pound industry, yet in our view scientific evidence to support its efficacy is lacking. Modest effects have been reported in some studies of older individuals and preschool children, and video-game players outperform non-players on some tests of visual attention. 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 central question is not whether performance on cognitive tests can be improved by training, but rather, whether those benefits transfer to other untrained tasks or lead to any general improvement in the level of cognitive functioning. Here we report the results of a six-week online study in which 11,430 participants trained several times each week on cognitive tasks designed to improve reasoning, memory, planning, visuospatial skills and attention. Although improvements were observed in every one of the cognitive tasks that were trained, no evidence was found for transfer effects to untrained tasks, even when those tasks were cognitively closely related.
AU - Owen,AM
AU - Hampshire,A
AU - Grahn,JA
AU - Stenton,R
AU - Dajani,S
AU - Burns,AS
AU - Howard,RJ
AU - Ballard,CG
DO - 10.1038/nature09042
EP - 778
PY - 2010///
SN - 1476-4687
SP - 775
TI - Putting brain training to the test
T2 - Nature
UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature09042
UR - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20407435
VL - 465
ER -
