Cargando…

Brain Training in Children and Adolescents: Is It Scientifically Valid?

Background: Brain training products are becoming increasingly popular for children and adolescents. Despite the marketing aimed at their use in the general population, these products may provide more benefits for specific neurologically impaired populations. A review of Brain Training (BT) products...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rossignoli-Palomeque, Teresa, Perez-Hernandez, Elena, González-Marqués, Javier
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5946581/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29780336
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00565
_version_ 1783322228836794368
author Rossignoli-Palomeque, Teresa
Perez-Hernandez, Elena
González-Marqués, Javier
author_facet Rossignoli-Palomeque, Teresa
Perez-Hernandez, Elena
González-Marqués, Javier
author_sort Rossignoli-Palomeque, Teresa
collection PubMed
description Background: Brain training products are becoming increasingly popular for children and adolescents. Despite the marketing aimed at their use in the general population, these products may provide more benefits for specific neurologically impaired populations. A review of Brain Training (BT) products analyzing their efficacy while considering the methodological limitations of supporting research is required for practical applications. Method: searches were made of the PubMed database (until March 2017) for studies including: (1) empirical data on the use of brain training for children or adolescents and any effects on near transfer (NT) and/or far transfer (FT) and/or neuroplasticity, (2) use of brain training for cognitive training purposes, (3) commercially available training applications, (4) computer-based programs for children developed since the 1990s, and (5) relevant printed and peer-reviewed material. Results: Database searches yielded a total of 16,402 references, of which 70 met the inclusion criteria for the review. We classified programs in terms of neuroplasticity, near and far transfer, and long-term effects and their applied methodology. Regarding efficacy, only 10 studies (14.2%) have been found that support neuroplasticity, and the majority of brain training platforms claimed to be based on such concepts without providing any supporting scientific data. Thirty-six studies (51.4%) have shown far transfer (7 of them are non-independent) and only 11 (15.7%) maintained far transfer at follow-up. Considering the methodology, 40 studies (68.2%) were not randomized and controlled; for those randomized, only 9 studies (12.9%) were double-blind, and only 13 studies (18.6%) included active controls in their trials. Conclusion: Overall, few independent studies have found far transfer and long-term effects. The majority of independent results found only near transfer. There is a lack of double-blind randomized trials which include an active control group as well as a passive control to properly control for contaminant variables. Based on our results, Brain Training Programs as commercially available products are not as effective as first expected or as they promise in their advertisements.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5946581
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-59465812018-05-18 Brain Training in Children and Adolescents: Is It Scientifically Valid? Rossignoli-Palomeque, Teresa Perez-Hernandez, Elena González-Marqués, Javier Front Psychol Psychology Background: Brain training products are becoming increasingly popular for children and adolescents. Despite the marketing aimed at their use in the general population, these products may provide more benefits for specific neurologically impaired populations. A review of Brain Training (BT) products analyzing their efficacy while considering the methodological limitations of supporting research is required for practical applications. Method: searches were made of the PubMed database (until March 2017) for studies including: (1) empirical data on the use of brain training for children or adolescents and any effects on near transfer (NT) and/or far transfer (FT) and/or neuroplasticity, (2) use of brain training for cognitive training purposes, (3) commercially available training applications, (4) computer-based programs for children developed since the 1990s, and (5) relevant printed and peer-reviewed material. Results: Database searches yielded a total of 16,402 references, of which 70 met the inclusion criteria for the review. We classified programs in terms of neuroplasticity, near and far transfer, and long-term effects and their applied methodology. Regarding efficacy, only 10 studies (14.2%) have been found that support neuroplasticity, and the majority of brain training platforms claimed to be based on such concepts without providing any supporting scientific data. Thirty-six studies (51.4%) have shown far transfer (7 of them are non-independent) and only 11 (15.7%) maintained far transfer at follow-up. Considering the methodology, 40 studies (68.2%) were not randomized and controlled; for those randomized, only 9 studies (12.9%) were double-blind, and only 13 studies (18.6%) included active controls in their trials. Conclusion: Overall, few independent studies have found far transfer and long-term effects. The majority of independent results found only near transfer. There is a lack of double-blind randomized trials which include an active control group as well as a passive control to properly control for contaminant variables. Based on our results, Brain Training Programs as commercially available products are not as effective as first expected or as they promise in their advertisements. Frontiers Media S.A. 2018-05-04 /pmc/articles/PMC5946581/ /pubmed/29780336 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00565 Text en Copyright © 2018 Rossignoli-Palomeque, Perez-Hernandez and González-Marqués. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Psychology
Rossignoli-Palomeque, Teresa
Perez-Hernandez, Elena
González-Marqués, Javier
Brain Training in Children and Adolescents: Is It Scientifically Valid?
title Brain Training in Children and Adolescents: Is It Scientifically Valid?
title_full Brain Training in Children and Adolescents: Is It Scientifically Valid?
title_fullStr Brain Training in Children and Adolescents: Is It Scientifically Valid?
title_full_unstemmed Brain Training in Children and Adolescents: Is It Scientifically Valid?
title_short Brain Training in Children and Adolescents: Is It Scientifically Valid?
title_sort brain training in children and adolescents: is it scientifically valid?
topic Psychology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5946581/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29780336
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00565
work_keys_str_mv AT rossignolipalomequeteresa braintraininginchildrenandadolescentsisitscientificallyvalid
AT perezhernandezelena braintraininginchildrenandadolescentsisitscientificallyvalid
AT gonzalezmarquesjavier braintraininginchildrenandadolescentsisitscientificallyvalid