Do "Brain-Training" Programs Work?
Do "Brain-Training" Programs Work?
复制标题
DOI：
10.1177/1529100616661983
复制
发表时间：
2016-10-01
影响因子：
25.4
通讯作者：
Stine-Morrow, Elizabeth A. L.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Simons, Daniel J.;Boot, Walter R.;Stine-Morrow, Elizabeth A. L.
2014年，两组科学家发表了关于大脑训练干预或“大脑游戏”对改善认知的功效的公开信。第一封信是一个由70多名科学家组成的国际组织的共识声明，声称大脑游戏并没有提供一种有科学依据的方法来改善认知功能或避免认知能力下降。几个月后，一个由133名科学家和实践者组成的国际小组反驳说，文献中充满了大脑训练对各种认知和日常活动的好处的证明。两组科学家如何在研究同一篇文献时，就大脑训练的有效性达成相互矛盾的“共识”呢？在某种程度上，这种分歧可能是由于在评估证据时使用了不同的标准。到目前为止，该领域还缺乏对大脑训练文献的全面审查，根据一套定义明确的最佳实践来检查证据的数量和质量。本文提供了这样一个审查，专注于使用认知任务或游戏作为一种手段，以提高其他任务的性能。我们为这种大脑训练干预措施指定并证明了一套最佳实践，然后使用这些标准来评估所有已发表的同行评议的干预研究，这些研究在认知训练数据（www.cognitivetrainingdata.org）上列出的领先的大脑训练公司的网站上引用，该网站托管了来自大脑训练支持者的公开信。这些引文大概代表了最能支持有效性声明的证据。基于这项研究，我们发现了大量证据表明大脑训练干预措施可以提高训练任务的表现，很少有证据表明这种干预措施可以提高密切相关任务的表现，很少有证据表明训练可以提高远距离相关任务的表现或训练可以提高日常认知表现。我们还发现，许多已发表的干预研究在设计或分析方面存在重大缺陷，无法对训练的有效性得出明确的结论，并且没有一项引用的研究符合我们认为对得出关于大脑训练对日常活动的益处的明确结论至关重要的所有最佳实践。最后，我们对科学家、资助机构和政策制定者提出了详细的建议，如果这些建议被采纳，将有助于更好地证明大脑训练干预的有效性。
In 2014, two groups of scientists published open letters on the efficacy of brain-training interventions, or "brain games," for improving cognition. The first letter, a consensus statement from an international group of more than 70 scientists, claimed that brain games do not provide a scientifically grounded way to improve cognitive functioning or to stave off cognitive decline. Several months later, an international group of 133 scientists and practitioners countered that the literature is replete with demonstrations of the benefits of brain training for a wide variety of cognitive and everyday activities. How could two teams of scientists examine the same literature and come to conflicting "consensus" views about the effectiveness of brain training?In part, 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, focusing exclusively on the use of cognitive tasks or games as a means to enhance performance on other tasks. We specify and justify a set of best practices for such brain-training interventions and then use those standards to evaluate all of the published peer-reviewed intervention studies cited on the websites of leading brain-training companies listed on Cognitive Training Data (www.cognitivetrainingdata.org), the site hosting the open letter from brain-training proponents. These citations presumably represent the evidence that best supports the claims of effectiveness.Based on this examination, we find extensive evidence that brain-training interventions improve performance on the trained tasks, less evidence that such interventions improve performance on closely related tasks, and little evidence that training enhances performance on distantly related tasks or that training improves everyday cognitive performance. We also find that many of the published intervention studies had major shortcomings in design or analysis that preclude definitive conclusions about the efficacy of training, and that none of the cited studies conformed to all of the best practices we identify as essential to drawing clear conclusions about the benefits of brain training for everyday activities. We conclude with detailed recommendations for scientists, funding agencies, and policymakers that, if adopted, would lead to better evidence regarding the efficacy of brain-training interventions.