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

Abstract

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.

Home-based cognitive training in pediatric patients with acquired brain injury: preliminary results on efficacy of a randomized clinical trial

“…Cicerone and colleagues 70 suggested that more complex metacognitive abilities (e.g., cognitive self-monitoring, emotional self-appraisal, and imagined use of strategies in real situations) should be stimulated in pediatric ABI to generate CCT effects on everyday functioning. This would explain why numerous studies found no generalization effects of CCT programs, questioning their usefulness with respect to adjustment in ecological settings [71][72][73] .…”

Schoolchildren’s Compensatory Strategies and Skills in Relation to Attention and Executive Function App Training

“…In this regard, it is important for future strategy-based training designs to consider child developmental factors. In our view, this approach can overcome the limitations of previous cognitive training designs in attention and EF, in terms of generalization and long-term effects (Rossignoli-Palomeque et al, 2018). Thirdly, this analysis has helped to clarify the relevance of instructional comprehension and self-instruction as compensatory strategies.…”

“…Nevertheless, the limitations of process-based training have been found in the far transfer or generalization of the training in the user’s everyday life. Similarly, limitations have been found in long-term effects (Rossignoli-Palomeque et al, 2018). The aim of EF training should be the generalization of the training in children’s daily life, in cognitive skills, academic performance, and social adjustment, which are considered “far transfer.” A significant number of previous studies on EF training efficacy fail to find or examine these types of transfer results (Rossignoli-Palomeque et al, 2018).…”

“…Similarly, limitations have been found in long-term effects (Rossignoli-Palomeque et al, 2018). The aim of EF training should be the generalization of the training in children’s daily life, in cognitive skills, academic performance, and social adjustment, which are considered “far transfer.” A significant number of previous studies on EF training efficacy fail to find or examine these types of transfer results (Rossignoli-Palomeque et al, 2018). To overcome this limitation of traditional process-based training, strategy-based training provides guidance with the tasks which help users to identify the strategies needed to perform those tasks.…”

Rehabilitation of Executive function in Paediatric Traumatic brain injury (REPeaT): protocol for a randomized controlled trial for treating working memory and decision-making

“…While research investigating the impact of Cogmed in brain injuries supports improvements in similar tasks as those in Cogmed training, other results are inconclusive. [ 71 ]. Hence, further research investigating the efficacy of Cogmed in improving performance in similar tasks as well as generalizability to other functional outcomes is required.…”