Psychological Science in the Public Interest最新文献

英文中文

About the Authors. 关于作者。

IF 25.4 1区心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY

Psychological Science in the Public Interest

Pub Date : 2019-04-15 DOI: 10.1177/1529100617706076

Alberto Boschetti, L. Massaron

Hamish Coates is a Tenured Professor at Tsinghua University Institute of Education, China, and Deputy Director of Tsinghua University Global Research Centre for the Assessment of College and Student Development. He was Professor of Higher Education at the University of Melbourne, Founding Director of Higher Education Research at the Australian Council for Educational Research, and Program Director at the LH Martin Institute for Tertiary Leadership and Management. He concentrates on improving the quality and productivity of higher education.

哈米什·科茨，清华大学教育研究院终身教授，清华大学全球大学生发展评估研究中心副主任。他曾任墨尔本大学高等教育教授、澳大利亚教育研究理事会高等教育研究创始主任、LH Martin高等领导与管理研究所项目主任。他致力于提高高等教育的质量和生产力。

引用次数: 0

About the Authors 关于作者

IF 25.4 1区心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY

Psychological Science in the Public Interest

Pub Date : 2018-12-01 DOI: 10.1177/1529100619831747

M. Bergman, Niels Brügger, A. Kantola, Kristin Skare, J. Straubhaar

Jonathan Corbet got his first look at the BSD Unix source back in 1981, when an instructor at the University of Colorado let him “fix” the paging algorithm. He has been digging around inside every system he could get his hands on ever since, working on drivers for VAX, Sun, Ardent, and x86 systems. He got his first Linux system in 1993 and has never looked back. Jonathan is currently the cofounder and executive editor of Linux Weekly News (http://www.LWN.net). He lives in Boulder, Colorado with his wife and two children.

Jonathan Corbet第一次看到BSD Unix源代码是在1981年，当时科罗拉多大学的一位讲师让他“修复”了分页算法。从那以后，他一直在挖掘他能接触到的每一个系统，为VAX、Sun、Ardent和x86系统开发驱动程序。1993年，他获得了第一个Linux系统，从此再也没有回头。Jonathan目前是《Linux周报》的联合创始人和执行主编(http://www.LWN.net)。他与妻子和两个孩子住在科罗拉多州的博尔德市。

引用次数: 0

Dedication to Walter Mischel 献给Walter Mischel

IF 25.4 1区心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY

Psychological Science in the Public Interest

Pub Date : 2018-12-01 DOI: 10.1177/1529100619828777

引用次数: 0

About the Authors 关于作者

IF 25.4 1区心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY

Psychological Science in the Public Interest

Pub Date : 2018-11-01 DOI: 10.1177/1529100618815879

Reginald Wilson

Art Graesser is a Professor in the Department of Psychology and the Institute of Intelligent Systems at the University of Memphis as well as an Honorary Research Fellow at the University of Oxford. His primary research interests are in cognitive science, discourse processing, and the learning sciences. More specific interests include knowledge representation, question asking and answering, tutoring, text comprehension, conversation, emotions, artificial intelligence, and computational linguistics. He served as editor of the journals Discourse Processes (1996–2005) and Journal of Educational Psychology (2009–2014). His service in professional societies includes having been president of the Empirical Studies of Literature, Art, and Media (1989–1992), the Society for Text and Discourse (2007–2010), the International Society for Artificial Intelligence in Education (2007–2009), and the Federation of Associations in the Behavioral and Brain Sciences Foundation (2012–2013). He and his colleagues have developed and tested software in learning, language, and discourse technologies, including those that hold a conversation in natural language and interact with multimedia (such as AutoTutor) and those that analyze text on multiple levels of language and discourse (Coh-Metrix and QUAID). He has served on four Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) expert panels on problem solving, including acting as chair of the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2015 Collaborative Problem Solving.

Art Graesser是孟菲斯大学心理学系和智能系统研究所的教授，也是牛津大学的荣誉研究员。主要研究方向为认知科学、语篇处理和学习科学。更具体的兴趣包括知识表示、提问和回答、辅导、文本理解、对话、情感、人工智能和计算语言学。曾任《话语过程》(1996-2005)和《教育心理学杂志》(2009-2014)主编。他曾担任文学、艺术和媒体实证研究协会主席(1989-1992)，文本与话语协会主席(2007-2010)，国际人工智能教育协会主席(2007-2009)，行为与脑科学基金会协会联合会主席(2012-2013)。他和他的同事已经开发并测试了学习、语言和话语技术方面的软件，包括那些用自然语言进行对话并与多媒体交互的软件(如AutoTutor)，以及那些在多个语言和话语层面上分析文本的软件(oh- metrix和QUAID)。他曾在经济合作与发展组织(OECD)的四个问题解决专家小组任职，包括担任2015年国际学生评估(PISA)合作问题解决计划的主席。

{"title":"About the Authors","authors":"Reginald Wilson","doi":"10.1177/1529100618815879","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100618815879","url":null,"abstract":"Art Graesser is a Professor in the Department of Psychology and the Institute of Intelligent Systems at the University of Memphis as well as an Honorary Research Fellow at the University of Oxford. His primary research interests are in cognitive science, discourse processing, and the learning sciences. More specific interests include knowledge representation, question asking and answering, tutoring, text comprehension, conversation, emotions, artificial intelligence, and computational linguistics. He served as editor of the journals Discourse Processes (1996–2005) and Journal of Educational Psychology (2009–2014). His service in professional societies includes having been president of the Empirical Studies of Literature, Art, and Media (1989–1992), the Society for Text and Discourse (2007–2010), the International Society for Artificial Intelligence in Education (2007–2009), and the Federation of Associations in the Behavioral and Brain Sciences Foundation (2012–2013). He and his colleagues have developed and tested software in learning, language, and discourse technologies, including those that hold a conversation in natural language and interact with multimedia (such as AutoTutor) and those that analyze text on multiple levels of language and discourse (Coh-Metrix and QUAID). He has served on four Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) expert panels on problem solving, including acting as chair of the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2015 Collaborative Problem Solving.","PeriodicalId":20879,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Science in the Public Interest","volume":"19 1","pages":"iii - iv"},"PeriodicalIF":25.4,"publicationDate":"2018-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1529100618815879","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44343627","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 318

About the Authors 关于作者

IF 25.4 1区心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY

Psychological Science in the Public Interest

Pub Date : 2018-06-01 DOI: 10.1177/1529100618777756

引用次数: 0

About the Authors 关于作者

IF 25.4 1区心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY

Psychological Science in the Public Interest

Pub Date : 2017-12-01 DOI: 10.1177/1529100618766877

S. Harrell

In January 2014, NBR published a two-part interview with Daniel K. Gardner (Smith College) titled “China’s Off-the-Chart Air Pollution and Why It Matters (And Not Only to the Chinese).” The interview touched on a number of issues related not just to pollution and environmental quality in general but also to trade, technology, and quality of life in China, other parts of East Asia, and even the United States. For this roundtable, NBR asked several scholars who work on China and its environmental problems to comment further on the issues raised by Professor Gardner.

2014年1月，NBR发表了对Daniel K.Gardner（史密斯学院）的一篇分为两部分的采访，题为《中国的大气污染及其重要性（不仅对中国人）》。采访涉及到许多问题，不仅涉及污染和环境质量，还涉及中国、东亚其他地区的贸易、技术和生活质量，甚至美国。在这次圆桌会议上，NBR请几位研究中国及其环境问题的学者对Gardner教授提出的问题发表进一步评论。

引用次数: 76

Do “Brain-Training” Programs Work? “大脑训练”项目有效吗?

IF 25.4 1区心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY

Psychological Science in the Public Interest

Pub Date : 2016-10-01 DOI: 10.1177/1529100616661983

D. Simons, W. Boot, N. Charness, S. Gathercole, C. Chabris, D. Hambrick, E. Stine-Morrow

In 2014, two groups of scientists published open letters on the efficacy of brain-training interventions, or “brain games,” for improving cognition. The first letter, a consensus statement from an international group of more than 70 scientists, claimed that brain games do not provide a scientifically grounded way to improve cognitive functioning or to stave off cognitive decline. Several months later, an international group of 133 scientists and practitioners countered that the literature is replete with demonstrations of the benefits of brain training for a wide variety of cognitive and everyday activities. How could two teams of scientists examine the same literature and come to conflicting “consensus” views about the effectiveness of brain training? In part, the disagreement might result from different standards used when evaluating the evidence. To date, the field has lacked a comprehensive review of the brain-training literature, one that examines both the quantity and the quality of the evidence according to a well-defined set of best practices. This article provides such a review, focusing exclusively on the use of cognitive tasks or games as a means to enhance performance on other tasks. We specify and justify a set of best practices for such brain-training interventions and then use those standards to evaluate all of the published peer-reviewed intervention studies cited on the websites of leading brain-training companies listed on Cognitive Training Data (www.cognitivetrainingdata.org), the site hosting the open letter from brain-training proponents. These citations presumably represent the evidence that best supports the claims of effectiveness. Based on this examination, we find extensive evidence that brain-training interventions improve performance on the trained tasks, less evidence that such interventions improve performance on closely related tasks, and little evidence that training enhances performance on distantly related tasks or that training improves everyday cognitive performance. We also find that many of the published intervention studies had major shortcomings in design or analysis that preclude definitive conclusions about the efficacy of training, and that none of the cited studies conformed to all of the best practices we identify as essential to drawing clear conclusions about the benefits of brain training for everyday activities. We conclude with detailed recommendations for scientists, funding agencies, and policymakers that, if adopted, would lead to better evidence regarding the efficacy of brain-training interventions.

2014年，两组科学家发表了关于大脑训练干预或“大脑游戏”对提高认知能力的功效的公开信。第一封信是一个由70多名科学家组成的国际小组的共识声明，信中声称，益智游戏并没有提供一种有科学依据的方法来改善认知功能或避免认知能力下降。几个月后，一个由133名科学家和实践者组成的国际小组反驳说，文献中充斥着大脑训练对各种认知和日常活动的好处的论证。两组科学家在研究同样的文献时，怎么会就大脑训练的有效性得出相互矛盾的“共识”观点呢?在某种程度上，分歧可能源于评估证据时使用的不同标准。迄今为止，该领域还缺乏对大脑训练文献的全面回顾，也就是根据一套定义良好的最佳实践来检查证据的数量和质量。这篇文章提供了这样的回顾，专注于使用认知任务或游戏作为提高其他任务表现的手段。我们为这种大脑训练干预指定并证明了一套最佳实践，然后使用这些标准来评估所有发表的同行评议的干预研究，这些研究被引用在认知训练数据(www.cognitivetrainingdata.org)上列出的领先的大脑训练公司的网站上，该网站托管着大脑训练支持者的公开信。这些引用大概代表了最能支持有效性声明的证据。基于这项研究，我们发现大量证据表明，大脑训练干预可以提高训练任务的表现，但很少有证据表明，这种干预可以提高密切相关任务的表现，而且很少有证据表明，训练可以提高远距离相关任务的表现，或者训练可以提高日常认知表现。我们还发现，许多已发表的干预研究在设计或分析方面存在重大缺陷，无法得出关于训练效果的明确结论，而且被引用的研究没有一项符合我们认为对得出关于大脑训练对日常活动的好处的明确结论至关重要的所有最佳实践。最后，我们为科学家、资助机构和决策者提供了详细的建议，如果这些建议被采纳，将为大脑训练干预的有效性提供更好的证据。

{"title":"Do “Brain-Training” Programs Work?","authors":"D. Simons, W. Boot, N. Charness, S. Gathercole, C. Chabris, D. Hambrick, E. Stine-Morrow","doi":"10.1177/1529100616661983","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100616661983","url":null,"abstract":"In 2014, two groups of scientists published open letters on the efficacy of brain-training interventions, or “brain games,” for improving cognition. The first letter, a consensus statement from an international group of more than 70 scientists, claimed that brain games do not provide a scientifically grounded way to improve cognitive functioning or to stave off cognitive decline. Several months later, an international group of 133 scientists and practitioners countered that the literature is replete with demonstrations of the benefits of brain training for a wide variety of cognitive and everyday activities. How could two teams of scientists examine the same literature and come to conflicting “consensus” views about the effectiveness of brain training? In part, the disagreement might result from different standards used when evaluating the evidence. To date, the field has lacked a comprehensive review of the brain-training literature, one that examines both the quantity and the quality of the evidence according to a well-defined set of best practices. This article provides such a review, focusing exclusively on the use of cognitive tasks or games as a means to enhance performance on other tasks. We specify and justify a set of best practices for such brain-training interventions and then use those standards to evaluate all of the published peer-reviewed intervention studies cited on the websites of leading brain-training companies listed on Cognitive Training Data (www.cognitivetrainingdata.org), the site hosting the open letter from brain-training proponents. These citations presumably represent the evidence that best supports the claims of effectiveness. Based on this examination, we find extensive evidence that brain-training interventions improve performance on the trained tasks, less evidence that such interventions improve performance on closely related tasks, and little evidence that training enhances performance on distantly related tasks or that training improves everyday cognitive performance. We also find that many of the published intervention studies had major shortcomings in design or analysis that preclude definitive conclusions about the efficacy of training, and that none of the cited studies conformed to all of the best practices we identify as essential to drawing clear conclusions about the benefits of brain training for everyday activities. We conclude with detailed recommendations for scientists, funding agencies, and policymakers that, if adopted, would lead to better evidence regarding the efficacy of brain-training interventions.","PeriodicalId":20879,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Science in the Public Interest","volume":"17 1","pages":"103 - 186"},"PeriodicalIF":25.4,"publicationDate":"2016-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1529100616661983","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"65439575","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 781

About the Authors 关于作者

IF 25.4 1区心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY

Psychological Science in the Public Interest

Pub Date : 2016-10-01 DOI: 10.1177/1529100616670674

D. Simons

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He received his Bachelor of Arts from Carleton College and his PhD in experimental psychology from Cornell University. His primary research explores the limits of awareness and memory, the reasons why we often are unaware of those limits, and the implications of such limits. He also maintains an active interest in research best practices and cognitive interventions. He is a Fellow and Charter Member of the Association for Psychological Science and an Alfred P. Sloan Fellow, and he received the American Psychological Association Distinguished Scientific Award for Early Career Contribution to Psychology (in the area of perception/motor performance). He and Christopher F. Chabris jointly received the 2004 Ig Nobel Prize in Psychology and coauthored the New York Times bestselling book The Invisible Gorilla, and Other Ways Our Intuitions Deceive Us. He has authored more than 100 publications, and he currently serves as a Special Associate Editor for Registered Replication Reports at Perspectives on Psychological Science.

伊利诺伊大学厄巴纳-香槟分校。他在卡尔顿学院获得文学学士学位，在康奈尔大学获得实验心理学博士学位。他的主要研究探索了意识和记忆的极限，我们经常不知道这些极限的原因，以及这些极限的含义。他还对研究最佳实践和认知干预保持着积极的兴趣。他是心理科学协会的会员和特许会员，阿尔弗雷德·p·斯隆会员，他获得了美国心理协会杰出科学奖，以表彰他在早期职业生涯中对心理学的贡献(在感知/运动表现领域)。他和克里斯托弗·f·查布里斯共同获得了2004年搞笑诺贝尔心理学奖，并共同撰写了《纽约时报》畅销书《看不见的大猩猩和直觉欺骗我们的其他方式》。他撰写了100多篇出版物，目前他是心理科学视角注册复制报告的特别副编辑。

引用次数: 0

"Sexual orientation, controversy, and science": Corrigendum. “性取向、争议和科学”:更正。

IF 25.4 1区心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY

Psychological Science in the Public Interest

Pub Date : 2016-10-01 DOI: 10.1177/1529100616671516

J. Bailey, Paul L. Vasey, L. Diamond, S. Breedlove, E. Vilain, M. Epprecht

引用次数: 1

Brain-Training Pessimism, but Applied-Memory Optimism 大脑训练悲观，但应用记忆乐观

IF 25.4 1区心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY

Psychological Science in the Public Interest

Pub Date : 2016-10-01 DOI: 10.1177/1529100616664716

J. McCabe, Thomas S. Redick, R. Engle

As is convincingly demonstrated in the target article (Simons et al., 2016, this issue), despite the numerous forms of brain training that have been tested and touted in the past 15 years, there’s little to no evidence that currently existing programs produce lasting, meaningful change in the performance of cognitive tasks that differ from the trained tasks. As detailed by Simons et al., numerous methodological issues cloud the interpretation of many studies claiming successful far transfer. These limitations include small sample sizes, passive control groups, single tests of outcomes, unblinded informantand self-report measures of functioning, and hypothesisinconsistent significant effects. (However, note that, with older adults, a successful result of the intervention could be to prevent decline in the training group, such that they stay at their pretest level while the control group declines.) These issues are separate from problems related to publication bias, selective reporting of significant and nonsignificant outcomes, use of unjustified one-tailed t tests, and failure to explicitly note shared data across publications. So, considering that the literature contains such potential false-positive publications (Simmons, Nelson, & Simonsohn, 2011), it may be surprising and disheartening to many that some descriptive reviews (Chacko et al., 2013; Salthouse, 2006; Simons et al., 2016) and meta-analyses (Melby-Lervåg, Redick, & Hulme, 2016; Rapport, Orban, Kofler, & Friedman, 2013) have concluded that existing cognitive-training methods are relatively ineffective, despite their popularity and increasing market share. For example, a recent working-memory-training metaanalysis (Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016) evaluated 87 studies examining transfer to working memory, intelligence, and various educationally relevant outcomes (e.g., reading comprehension, math, word decoding). The studies varied considerably in terms of the sample composition (age; typical vs. atypical functioning) and the nature of the working-memory training (verbal, nonverbal, or both verbal and nonverbal stimuli; n-back vs. span task methodology; few vs. many training sessions). Despite the diversity in the design and administration of the training, the results were quite clear. Following training, there were reliable improvements in performance on verbal and nonverbal working-memory tasks identical or similar to the trained tasks. However, in terms of far transfer, there was no convincing evidence of improvements, especially when working-memory training was compared to an active-control condition. The meta-analysis also demonstrated that, in the working-memory-training literature, the largest nonverbal-intelligence far-transfer effects are statistically more likely to come from studies with small sample sizes and passive control groups. This finding is not particularly surprising, given other work showing that most working-memory training studies are dramatically underpowered (Bogg &

正如目标文章中令人信服地证明的那样(Simons et al.， 2016，本期)，尽管在过去15年中已经测试和吹捧了多种形式的大脑训练，但几乎没有证据表明，目前现有的程序在认知任务的表现上产生了持久的、有意义的变化，这些变化与训练任务不同。正如Simons等人所详述的那样，许多方法上的问题使许多声称成功远程迁移的研究的解释变得模糊不清。这些限制包括小样本量、被动对照组、单一结果测试、非盲的信息提供者和自我报告功能测量，以及假设不一致的显著影响。(然而，请注意，对于老年人，干预的成功结果可能是防止训练组的下降，这样他们就保持在测试前的水平，而对照组则下降。)这些问题与发表偏倚、选择性报告重要和不重要的结果、使用不合理的单尾t检验以及未能明确注明出版物之间的共享数据相关的问题是分开的。因此，考虑到文献中包含这种潜在的假阳性出版物(Simmons, Nelson， & Simonsohn, 2011)，一些描述性评论(Chacko et al.， 2013)可能会让许多人感到惊讶和沮丧。Salthouse, 2006;Simons et al.， 2016)和荟萃分析(melby - lerv， Redick， & Hulme, 2016;Rapport, Orban, Kofler， & Friedman, 2013)得出的结论是，尽管现有的认知训练方法很受欢迎，市场份额也越来越大，但它们相对无效。例如，最近的一项工作记忆训练元分析(melby - lerv等人，2016)评估了87项研究，这些研究考察了向工作记忆、智力和各种教育相关结果(如阅读理解、数学、单词解码)的转移。这些研究在样本组成(年龄;典型与非典型功能)和工作记忆训练的性质(言语，非言语，或言语和非言语刺激;N-back vs. span任务方法;训练课程少vs.多)。尽管培训的设计和管理各不相同，但结果是相当明确的。训练后，在与训练任务相同或相似的言语和非言语工作记忆任务上，表现都有可靠的改善。然而，在远距离转移方面，没有令人信服的证据表明有改善，特别是当工作记忆训练与主动控制条件相比时。荟萃分析还表明，在工作记忆训练的文献中，从统计数据来看，最大的非语言智力远迁移效应更有可能来自小样本和被动对照组的研究。这一发现并不特别令人惊讶，因为其他研究表明，大多数工作记忆训练研究都严重不足(Bogg & Lasecki, 2015)，而且小样本量的不足研究更有可能产生夸大的效应(Button et al.， 2013)。此外，在各种工作记忆和电子游戏干预研究中，在对照组中观察到不规则的前测后测模式，主要是小样本的原因(回顾，见Redick, 2015;雷迪克和韦伯斯特，2014)。在这些研究中，推论统计和效应大小指标提供了训练“有效”的证据，但描述性统计的调查却讲述了一个不同的故事。具体来说，一些以儿童和年轻人为样本的研究检查了训练前后的智力或其他学业成就。仔细观察发现，训练相对于对照组“提高”了智力或学业成绩，因为对照组从前测到后测有所下降，即训练组从前测到后测没有显著变化。mcabe等。大脑训练悲观主义研究[j] . 2016

{"title":"Brain-Training Pessimism, but Applied-Memory Optimism","authors":"J. McCabe, Thomas S. Redick, R. Engle","doi":"10.1177/1529100616664716","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100616664716","url":null,"abstract":"As is convincingly demonstrated in the target article (Simons et al., 2016, this issue), despite the numerous forms of brain training that have been tested and touted in the past 15 years, there’s little to no evidence that currently existing programs produce lasting, meaningful change in the performance of cognitive tasks that differ from the trained tasks. As detailed by Simons et al., numerous methodological issues cloud the interpretation of many studies claiming successful far transfer. These limitations include small sample sizes, passive control groups, single tests of outcomes, unblinded informantand self-report measures of functioning, and hypothesisinconsistent significant effects. (However, note that, with older adults, a successful result of the intervention could be to prevent decline in the training group, such that they stay at their pretest level while the control group declines.) These issues are separate from problems related to publication bias, selective reporting of significant and nonsignificant outcomes, use of unjustified one-tailed t tests, and failure to explicitly note shared data across publications. So, considering that the literature contains such potential false-positive publications (Simmons, Nelson, & Simonsohn, 2011), it may be surprising and disheartening to many that some descriptive reviews (Chacko et al., 2013; Salthouse, 2006; Simons et al., 2016) and meta-analyses (Melby-Lervåg, Redick, & Hulme, 2016; Rapport, Orban, Kofler, & Friedman, 2013) have concluded that existing cognitive-training methods are relatively ineffective, despite their popularity and increasing market share. For example, a recent working-memory-training metaanalysis (Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016) evaluated 87 studies examining transfer to working memory, intelligence, and various educationally relevant outcomes (e.g., reading comprehension, math, word decoding). The studies varied considerably in terms of the sample composition (age; typical vs. atypical functioning) and the nature of the working-memory training (verbal, nonverbal, or both verbal and nonverbal stimuli; n-back vs. span task methodology; few vs. many training sessions). Despite the diversity in the design and administration of the training, the results were quite clear. Following training, there were reliable improvements in performance on verbal and nonverbal working-memory tasks identical or similar to the trained tasks. However, in terms of far transfer, there was no convincing evidence of improvements, especially when working-memory training was compared to an active-control condition. The meta-analysis also demonstrated that, in the working-memory-training literature, the largest nonverbal-intelligence far-transfer effects are statistically more likely to come from studies with small sample sizes and passive control groups. This finding is not particularly surprising, given other work showing that most working-memory training studies are dramatically underpowered (Bogg &","PeriodicalId":20879,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Science in the Public Interest","volume":"17 1","pages":"187 - 191"},"PeriodicalIF":25.4,"publicationDate":"2016-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1529100616664716","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"65439585","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 28

首页上一页

下一页尾页

类型

全部化学•材料生命科学医学物理工程技术环境•农林材料科学地球科学法学管理学化学环境科学与生态学计算机科学教育学经济学农林科学人文科学生物学数学物理与天体物理心理学综合性期刊其他工业工程理学历史学农学文学信息工程

数据库

全部 ACS Publications Elsevier ieeexplore Springer The Royal Society of Chemistry Wiley

期刊

Psychological Science in the Public Interest

全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.

﹀