Cognitive Training: A Field in Search of a Phenomenon
Gobet F, Sala G · 2022
grade Bcritiqueindependentnot-applicable
Sample
Response to Green et al. (2019), drawing on the accumulated meta-analytic record
Population
All ages
Design
The current state-of-the-field statement, and the most useful single source for understanding why the field keeps declaring the question open. Argues the persistent optimism results from neglecting the meta-analytic results and ignoring the statistical explanation - that apparent positive effects are sampling error plus artefacts.
Key findings
The overall far-transfer effect is null and there is little to no true variability between types of cognitive training - two claims that together remove the field's standard escape hatch ('it works for the right programme / the right population'). Recommends redirecting research to near transfer or to other methods of improving cognition.
Genetic confound
Low; the underlying evidence base is randomised.
Effects
| Outcome | Metric | Value | Measure | Timing | Vs | Horizon | Class |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Far transfer, overall | pooled meta-analytic effect | null | standardized | post-training | unclear | end-of-treatment | far-transfer |
| True variability between training types | tau-squared | little to none | standardized | post-training | none | not-applicable | far-transfer |
Cited by
- Does working-memory or brain training transfer to intelligence and achievement?no effectconf: highgc: low