You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to brain-trainin...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to brain-t...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
So your intention was to emphasize research done in specific time period, because it yields results you like. I like those results too, but it's misleading to call it "meta-analysis", if you omit tens of studies with not-so-desirable outcomes. To amend your argument, when you need comprehensiveness (all studies), then each subset is equally essential (be it "most recent" or "least recent").
Also, if you target layman readers, it's unfair to expect they can judge your scientific article "for themselves" - that's the one thing they can't do. And man, is there plenty of disagreement on effectiveness of cognitive training - even in meta-analyses and especially on the amount. Au et al. states Gf effect size 0.24, Schwaighofer 0.14 (that's 42% difference!), which translates to 3.6 or 2.1 points of IQ respectively - so what stable 7 points are you talking about? Even not taking into account other factors (disputed Au, not all tests standardized for sd=15, or that further meta-analyses are underway - I myself was requested by 2 other scientists to share my data in last year) - to advertise a precise number of IQ points improvement is borderline ridiculous.
So to summarize:
We can conclude based on the meta-reviews of all the published experiments that IQ gains from training are real – for both younger and older adults.
Most criticism of the training-for-IQ literature hinges on the active vs passive control issue – and whether gains on IQ measures (which there certainly are) are due to a placebo effect or not. Counterarguments to this criticism include the following:
What is needed before placebo criticisms can be regarded as a serious challenge is evidence for a placebo effect in the form of experiments where expectations are systematically varied, or adding a third group to the controlled trial set-up, which takes an existing intervention that is known to work – if both that group and the group given the effective intervention fail to beat the placebo, researchers know that their trial design is flawed. It’s important to do studies that directly look at neuroplasticity effects in brain mechanisms too.
Based on the 2014-2015 meta-analyses and commentaries we can conclude that there are not sufficient grounds to discredit the claim that working memory training is an effective and efficient strategy for improving IQ.
Whether you choose Brain Workshop, or CogMed or IQ Mindware software, there is a point to training with the dual n-back for IQ increases, despite the bad press. And as the review explains, there are substantial gains with working memory that last for several months after training due to neurplasticity change in the fronto-parietal network.