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...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
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 |