A Large-Scale, Cross-Sectional Investigation Into the Efficacy of Brain Training

Brain training is a large and expanding industry, and yet there is a recurrent and ongoing debate concerning its scientific basis or evidence for efficacy. Much of evidence for the efficacy of brain training within this debate is from small-scale studies that do not assess the type of “brain trainin...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Adam Hampshire, Stefano Sandrone, Peter John Hellyer
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Frontiers Media S.A. 2019-07-01
Series:Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnhum.2019.00221/full
id doaj-9bf30fc27db54ca2aae6e914e58f0329
record_format Article
spelling doaj-9bf30fc27db54ca2aae6e914e58f03292020-11-25T03:12:39ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Human Neuroscience1662-51612019-07-011310.3389/fnhum.2019.00221435181A Large-Scale, Cross-Sectional Investigation Into the Efficacy of Brain TrainingAdam Hampshire0Stefano Sandrone1Peter John Hellyer2The Computational, Cognitive and Clinical Neuroimaging Laboratory, Division of Brain Sciences, Imperial College London, London, United KingdomThe Computational, Cognitive and Clinical Neuroimaging Laboratory, Division of Brain Sciences, Imperial College London, London, United KingdomCentre for Neuroimaging Sciences, King’s College London, London, United KingdomBrain training is a large and expanding industry, and yet there is a recurrent and ongoing debate concerning its scientific basis or evidence for efficacy. Much of evidence for the efficacy of brain training within this debate is from small-scale studies that do not assess the type of “brain training,” the specificity of transfer effects, or the length of training required to achieve a generalized effect. To explore these factors, we analyze cross-sectional data from two large Internet-cohort studies (total N = 60,222) to determine whether cognition differs at the population level for individuals who report that they brain train on different devices, and across different timeframes, with programs in common use circa 2010–2013. Examining scores for an assessment of working-memory, reasoning and verbal abilities shows no cognitive advantages for individuals who brain train. This contrasts unfavorably with significant advantages for individuals who regularly undertake other cognitive pursuits such as computer, board and card games. However, finer grained analyses reveal a more complex relationship between brain training and cognitive performance. Specifically, individuals who have just begun to brain train start from a low cognitive baseline compared to individuals who have never engaged in brain training, whereas those who have trained for a year or more have higher working-memory and verbal scores compared to those who have just started, thus suggesting an efficacy for brain training over an extended period of time. The advantages in global function, working memory, and verbal memory after several months of training are plausible and of clinically relevant scale. However, this relationship is not evident for reasoning performance or self-report measures of everyday function (e.g., employment status and problems with attention). These results accord with the view that although brain training programs can produce benefits, these might extend to tasks that are operationally similar to the training regime. Furthermore, the duration of training regime required for effective enhancement of cognitive performance is longer than that applied in most previous studies.https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnhum.2019.00221/fullbrain trainingefficacy of brain trainingcross sectional studymemorycommercial brain training
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Adam Hampshire
Stefano Sandrone
Peter John Hellyer
spellingShingle Adam Hampshire
Stefano Sandrone
Peter John Hellyer
A Large-Scale, Cross-Sectional Investigation Into the Efficacy of Brain Training
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
brain training
efficacy of brain training
cross sectional study
memory
commercial brain training
author_facet Adam Hampshire
Stefano Sandrone
Peter John Hellyer
author_sort Adam Hampshire
title A Large-Scale, Cross-Sectional Investigation Into the Efficacy of Brain Training
title_short A Large-Scale, Cross-Sectional Investigation Into the Efficacy of Brain Training
title_full A Large-Scale, Cross-Sectional Investigation Into the Efficacy of Brain Training
title_fullStr A Large-Scale, Cross-Sectional Investigation Into the Efficacy of Brain Training
title_full_unstemmed A Large-Scale, Cross-Sectional Investigation Into the Efficacy of Brain Training
title_sort large-scale, cross-sectional investigation into the efficacy of brain training
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
series Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
issn 1662-5161
publishDate 2019-07-01
description Brain training is a large and expanding industry, and yet there is a recurrent and ongoing debate concerning its scientific basis or evidence for efficacy. Much of evidence for the efficacy of brain training within this debate is from small-scale studies that do not assess the type of “brain training,” the specificity of transfer effects, or the length of training required to achieve a generalized effect. To explore these factors, we analyze cross-sectional data from two large Internet-cohort studies (total N = 60,222) to determine whether cognition differs at the population level for individuals who report that they brain train on different devices, and across different timeframes, with programs in common use circa 2010–2013. Examining scores for an assessment of working-memory, reasoning and verbal abilities shows no cognitive advantages for individuals who brain train. This contrasts unfavorably with significant advantages for individuals who regularly undertake other cognitive pursuits such as computer, board and card games. However, finer grained analyses reveal a more complex relationship between brain training and cognitive performance. Specifically, individuals who have just begun to brain train start from a low cognitive baseline compared to individuals who have never engaged in brain training, whereas those who have trained for a year or more have higher working-memory and verbal scores compared to those who have just started, thus suggesting an efficacy for brain training over an extended period of time. The advantages in global function, working memory, and verbal memory after several months of training are plausible and of clinically relevant scale. However, this relationship is not evident for reasoning performance or self-report measures of everyday function (e.g., employment status and problems with attention). These results accord with the view that although brain training programs can produce benefits, these might extend to tasks that are operationally similar to the training regime. Furthermore, the duration of training regime required for effective enhancement of cognitive performance is longer than that applied in most previous studies.
topic brain training
efficacy of brain training
cross sectional study
memory
commercial brain training
url https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnhum.2019.00221/full
work_keys_str_mv AT adamhampshire alargescalecrosssectionalinvestigationintotheefficacyofbraintraining
AT stefanosandrone alargescalecrosssectionalinvestigationintotheefficacyofbraintraining
AT peterjohnhellyer alargescalecrosssectionalinvestigationintotheefficacyofbraintraining
AT adamhampshire largescalecrosssectionalinvestigationintotheefficacyofbraintraining
AT stefanosandrone largescalecrosssectionalinvestigationintotheefficacyofbraintraining
AT peterjohnhellyer largescalecrosssectionalinvestigationintotheefficacyofbraintraining
_version_ 1724649361986551808