首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>other >Brain Training in Children and Adolescents: Is It Scientifically Valid?
【2h】

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

机译:儿童和青少年的大脑训练:科学有效吗?

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

>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.
机译:>背景:大脑训练产品在儿童和青少年中越来越受欢迎。尽管针对其在普通人群中的使用进行了营销,但这些产品可能为特定的神经系统受损人群提供更多好处。在实际应用中,需要对大脑训练(BT)产品进行分析,同时考虑其支持研究的方法学局限性,以分析其功效。>方法:对PubMed数据库(至2017年3月)进行了搜索,包括:(1)关于对儿童或青少年进行脑部训练的使用的经验数据,以及对近距离转移(NT)和/或远距离转移(FT)和/或神经可塑性的任何影响,(2)将脑训练用于认知训练目的, (3)商业可用的培训应用程序,(4)自1990年代以来开发的针对儿童的基于计算机的程序,以及(5)相关的印刷版和经同行评审的材料。>结果:数据库搜索总共得出16,402个参考文献,其中70篇符合审查的纳入标准。我们根据神经可塑性,远近转移,长期影响及其应用方法对程序进行分类。关于功效,仅发现10项研究(占14.2%)支持神经可塑性,大多数脑训练平台声称基于此类概念,但未提供任何支持性的科学数据。三十六项研究(51.4%)显示了远距离转移(其中有7个是非独立的),只有11例(15.7%)在随访中保持了远距离转移。考虑到方法论,有40项研究(68.2%)没有被随机化和控制。对于那些随机分组的研究,只有9项研究(12.9%)是双盲的,只有13项研究(18.6%)的试验中包括了主动对照组。>结论:总体上,很少有独立研究发现远距离转移和长期影响。大多数独立结果仅在转移附近。缺乏双盲随机试验,其中包括一个主动对照组和一个被动对照组以适当地控制污染物变量。根据我们的结果,作为商业产品的脑部训练计划并不像最初预期的那样有效,也不如广告中所承诺的那样有效。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号