[ryanferg]

All of these brain training products are suspect. Evidence for far transfer (training in one task transferring to a different domain task) is surprisingly hard to find, and empirical findings otherwise tend to disappear or diminish when replicated.

Many of the pro-brain-training camp have already begun to shift the goal posts. First it was 'simple games increase IQ,' which turned out to be difficult to prove when well controlled studies were performed. Now it's more along the lines of 'These simple games might have preventative effects against age related declines!,' which is an even harder claim to actually prove given the difficulties performing well controlled studies on aged participants.

In the cognitive science world, if we discovered a solid far transfer paradigm, especially one which transferred to something like G(eneral Intelligence), it would be our anti-baldness pill\flying car\4-day cellphone battery. People thought that these working memory transfer effects were the real deal and got very excited about it, money poured in, and the water got muddied by all these scientists with conflicts.

I obviously don't put much stock in working memory training. I wish it worked like they said, but I don't think it does. If far-transfer shows up at all, it's tiny, and doesn't persist after delay.

[bberrry]

I was under the impression that Dual-n-Back[0] had real benefits. Is that not the case?

[0] http://brainworkshop.sourceforge.net/

[cant_kant]

From a meta-analysis:

" The 20 studies included here were all completed between 2008 and 2013....Sample sizes of treatment groups varied between 7 and 36 participants, and control groups between 8 and 43"

"net effect of n-back training on Gf outcome measures, about the equivalent of 3–4 points on a standardized IQ test"

ie: very small groups, tiny effect. Sounds dubious to me, like much research in the social "sciences"

Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory:a meta-analysis http://scottbarrykaufman.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/au-e...

[w1ntermute]

Gwern's done extensive research into this, and his meta-analysis has shown there's "a net gain (medium-sized) on the post-training IQ tests"[0, 1].

0: http://www.gwern.net/DNB%20meta-analysis

1: http://www.gwern.net/DNB%20FAQ

[ryanferg]

So it definitely transfers 'near'. You'll get better at the dual-n-back test. And possibly other visio-spatial working memory tests. But the question of far transfer- will it make you smarter- is probably not. Here is a link to a 2015 meta-analysis that looks at the question of working memory training (including dual-n-backs) transferring to other working memory tasks:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/084fvteji1tyz8t/2015-schwaighofer....

Melby-Lerva
g & Hulme, 2013, is also pretty damning.

[pocketstar]

4-day smartphone* battery, I can remember when I only charged my mobile telephone once a week.

[function_seven]

I'm sure that same mobile telephone was capable of far less than a smartphone. I remember my Nokias being able to last for days on end (unless I played a lot of Snake!)

While I wouldn't trade my current smartphone for one of those, I do miss the lack of battery anxiety, and wish the manufacturers would make models for those of us who aren't obsessed with thinness. An iPhone 6 at 5/8" (15mm) would be awesome.