Welcome to the Research and Strategy Services at in today's fast-paced.
It’s common for people to think that cognitive training is, well, just cognitive training. This is actually far from the truth. The brain is one of the most complex biological systems we know of, and accordingly, there are myriads of ways to train it.
The surprise is that cognitive training products on the market today can take wildly different approaches to training up the mental muscle between your ears. To give an idea of this, we will compare NeuroTracker to brain trainers, to show just how different such interventions can be. But first, let’s get some perspective on what brain trainers are.
Over the last decade brain training companies like Lumosity, CogMed, Posit Science, NeuroNation and many more, have seen a huge surge in popularity. Over the last few years in particular, they have attracted a lot of attention in the media through an on-going debate over efficacy. The big question is whether or not they actually help their users flex their mental skills in real life – what’s known as far transfer.
This has included a lot of scientific criticism. In a nutshell, the argument is that brain trainers in general help people get better the specific tasks they train on, but that this does not transfer into real-world abilities, or to better mental health. Public scrutiny of the industry has included regulatory actions related to advertising claims, such as the FTC settlement involving Lumosity.
The argument less well heard in the public mind is that, although there are many brain trainer products without evidence of scientific efficacy, there are a number of leaders in the market who do demonstrate training benefits. For example, studies by Posit Science and CogniFit have been reviewed to uphold the gold standard of scientific research and found some improvements in real-world skills such as driving safety. This is essentially a quality versus quantity perspective.
If there are actually some brain training products that can genuinely improve people’s mental abilities, then qualifying which types of training are effective could be important for seeking benefits today. However, even this idea of qualifying brain trainers from one another is too narrow. This is because brain trainers don’t represent the much broader domain of cognitive training - a key point which has been pretty much missed throughout the whole debate in the media.
This is an important notion because future cognitive interventions may continue to expand in scope as neuroscience research advances, meaning tomorrow’s cognitive interventions could hold the potential for benefitting humankind. To get a clearer idea of why brain trainers are just one approach to cognitive training, let’s take a look at some of the typical characteristics of brain trainers.
Though it’s difficult to pin down exactly, and there are exceptions, brain trainers tend to have these similar characteristics.
Long interventions - studies generally show that to achieve benefits, training typically requires 30-50 hours of distributed training, or longer. Across these interventions timescales, near transfer effects, such as gains on standardized neuropsychological tests, tend to be modest or negligible.
Near and narrow transfer – with a few notable exceptions, brain trainer studies to date tend to only support transfer to tasks that are structurally very similar to the actual training tasks. For example, transfer is often related to working memory tests that are not actually that different to the brain training tasks themselves. This leaves a gap in research looking at evidence of far transfer to real-world abilities.
Focused populations – brain trainer products and marketing are dominantly aimed at the active aging market. For this reason, there is little known about their scientific efficacy for other populations and accordingly, they are not a realistic option for most people.
High task complexity – using a ‘potpourri’ approach, brain trainer products usually comprise a range of exercises in the form of short games. This can be as many as 50 or more different games, each with their own rules to figure out. This means there is a lot to learn before actual training can be performed properly.
Ambiguous results – brain trainer games tend to have different ways and strategies to perform them, which factor into how well you do at them. This brings in the issue of practice effects – the notion of picking up different techniques do better. For this reason, it’s difficult to distinguish if an improvement in score means a person’s actual cognitive abilities has improved, or whether they have simply worked out a more efficient way of performing the task. This factor combined with so many different games meansthat interpreting improvements can be challenging when task strategies or game familiarity influence scores.
These characteristics highlight some limitations of brain trainers, however, there are also many advantages, such as motivation from having a variety of exercises, as well as ease of access that comes with being able to train through a web browser. That said, when considering the whole space of cognitive training, it does reveal that brain trainers have certain characteristics that can differ significantly from other forms of intervention. Here we’ll compare NeuroTracker to provide an example of how distinct these differences can be.
These are some of the key factors that define why NeuroTracker is a very specific form of cognitive intervention.
Short interventions – using 6-minute training sessions, multiple studies have reported measurable cognitive improvements following relatively short distributed training interventions. Reported effects include improvements on measures of dynamic attention and related higher-level cognitive functions.
Near and far transfer – studies have reported transfer effects to measures of executive function, working memory, processing speed, and attention in specific populations. Transfer to real-world performance measures has also been investigated, including improvements in passing decision-making accuracy in competitive soccer contexts.
Broad populations – from children to the elderly, amateur athletes to professional athletes, students with learning disabilities to university students, studies have examined NeuroTracker across diverse age groups and performance levels. Research has also explored its use in medical and rehabilitation contexts, including concussion management, though clinical applications require appropriate oversight.
Low task complexity – with just a few simple instructions, an average person can start NeuroTracker training and know exactly what they need to do. This has been shown in studies with young children with conditions such as Autism, ADHD and Intellectual Deficit, who are able to understand the task with minimal instruction. With training over time, the cognitive load of the exercise can be evolved through NeuroTracker’s difficulty settings, or by adding on dual-tasks, but the Core task remains simple.
Scientific results – NeuroTracker presents scores as an objective ‘speed threshold’ measure, designed to minimize influences from task-specific strategy or practice effects. For this reason, it is a tool not only used by researchers to assess an individual’s cognitive state, but also as a metric to assess the effects of other factors on cognitive status. For instance, one study used NeuroTracker to investigate whether exercise improves cognitive function, and another used its measures to assess concussion recovery.
This infographic highlights some of the characteristics that make NeuroTracker unique.
As we’ve seen, cognitive training methods can vary greatly, not just in terms of what they do, but more importantly, in the effects they can transfer. In addition, companies which engage in peer-reviewed frontier research should be recognized for the benefits they can bring to people wanting to enhance their mental abilities – which let’s face it, is virtually everyone on the planet.
A prime example of fulfilling this need is the Digital Therapeutics Alliance, a global non-profit association with the mission of broadening the integration of clinically-validated digital therapeutics into healthcare through education, advocacy, and research. Membership is limited to companies that meet defined evidence standards. NeuroTracker has recently been accepted into the alliance, with the goal of researching practical cognitive applications for specific industries.
Another non-profit organization called the ‘Faubert Applied Research Centre’, also works with research partners around the world to develop and validate custom applications of NeuroTracker at a scientific level. Initiatives such as these are dedicated to bringing the potential of cognitive training into the hands of people that can benefit from them.
“We think it’s time that people start to recognize the leaders in the cognitive training industry. After all, you cannot simply lump every cognitive training program together, just like you wouldn’t lump all fitness training programs together. There are, and will be, training tools that stand out from the crowd as definite role models. We believe NeuroTracker’s research foundation positions it among companies prioritizing scientific validation within the cognitive training field.”
Welcome to the Research and Strategy Services at in today's fast-paced.
A new controlled study shows that remote NeuroTrackerX training improved attentional performance and frontal alpha brain activity in university soccer players.
An explanation of a structured habit-building framework for cognitive routines, emphasizing consistency, accountability, and long-term sustainability.
From stereo-3D to adaptive speed thresholds, get the lowdown on what makes NeuroTracker tick.
NeuroTracker is one of the most widely researched cognitive training systems, used in elite sports, military, and human performance settings worldwide. Built on 20 years of neuroscience research.
.png)