How to play 20 questions with nature and lose: Reflections on 100 years of brain-training research

56Citations
Citations of this article
189Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Despite dozens of empirical studies and a growing body of meta-analytic work, there is little consensus regarding the efficacy of cognitive training. In this review, we examine why this substantial corpus has failed to answer the often-asked question, “Does cognitive training work?” We first define cognitive training and discuss the general principles underlying training interventions. Next, we review historical interventions and discuss how findings from this early work remain highly relevant for current cognitive-training research. We highlight a variety of issues preventing real progress in understanding the underlying mechanisms of training, including the lack of a coherent theoretical framework to guide training research and methodological issues across studies and meta-analyses. Finally, suggestions for correcting these issues are offered in the hope that we might make greater progress in the next 100 y of cognitive-training research.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Katz, B., Shah, P., & Meyer, D. E. (2018). How to play 20 questions with nature and lose: Reflections on 100 years of brain-training research. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 115(40), 9897–9904. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1617102114

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free