As a result of considerable potential scientific and societal implications, the possibility of enhancing cognitive ability by training has been one of the most influential topics of cognitive psychology in the last two decades. However, substantial research into the psychology of expertise and a recent series of meta-analytic reviews have suggested that various types of cognitive training (e.g., working memory training) benefit performance only in the trained tasks. The lack of skill generalization from one domain to different ones-that is, far transfer-has been documented in various fields of research such as working memory training, music, brain training, and chess. Video game training is another activity that has been claimed by many researchers to foster a broad range of cognitive abilities such as visual processing, attention, spatial ability, and cognitive control. We tested these claims with three random-effects meta-analytic models. The first meta-analysis (k = 310) examined the correlation between video game skill and cognitive ability. The second meta-analysis (k = 315) dealt with the differences between video game players and nonplayers in cognitive ability. The third meta-analysis (k = 359) investigated the effects of video game training on participants' cognitive ability. Small or null overall effect sizes were found in all three models. These outcomes show that overall cognitive ability and video game skill are only weakly related. Importantly, we found no evidence of a causal relationship between playing video games and enhanced cognitive ability. Video game training thus represents no exception to the general difficulty of obtaining far transfer. (PsycINFO Database Record

Theory building in science requires replication and integration of findings regarding a particular research question. Second-order meta-analysis (i.e., a meta-analysis of meta-analyses) offers a powerful tool for achieving this aim, and we use this technique to illuminate the controversial field of cognitive training. Recent replication attempts and large meta-analytic investigations have shown that the benefits of cognitive-training programs hardly go beyond the trained task and similar tasks. However, it is yet to be established whether the effects differ across cognitive-training programs and populations (children, adults, and older adults). We addressed this issue by using second-order meta-analysis. In Models 1 (k = 99) and 2 (k = 119), we investigated the impact of working-memory training on near-transfer (i.e., memory) and far-transfer (e.g., reasoning, speed, and language) measures, respectively, and whether it is mediated by the type of population. Model 3 (k = 233) extended Model 2 by adding six meta-analyses assessing the far-transfer effects of other cognitive-training programs (video-games, music, chess, and exergames). Model 1 showed that working-memory training does induce near transfer, and that the size of this effect is moderated by the type of population. By contrast, Models 2 and 3 highlighted that fartransfer effects are small or null. Crucially, when placebo effects and publication bias were controlled for, the overall effect size and true variance equaled zero. That is, no impact on far-transfer measures was observed regardless of the type of population and cognitive-training program. The lack of generalization of skills acquired by training is thus an invariant of human cognition.

No abstract

A recent meta-analysis (Stanmore et al. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 78:34-43, 2017) claimed that exergames exert medium-size positive effects on people's overall cognitive function. The present article critically tests this claim. We argue that the meta-analysis reported inflated effect sizes mainly for three reasons: (a) some effect sizes were miscalculated; (b) there was an excessive amount of true heterogeneity; and (c) no publication-bias-corrected estimates were provided. We have thus recalculated the effect sizes and reanalyzed the data using a more robust approach and more sophisticated techniques. Compared to Stanmore's et al., our models show that: (a) the overall effect sizes are substantially smaller; (b) the amount of true heterogeneity, when any, is much lower; and (c) the publication-bias analyses suggest that the actual effect of exergames on overall cognitive function is slim to null. Therefore, the cognitive benefits of exergames are far from being established.