Cognitive training is not always effective. This is also the case for the form of cognitive training that this Research Topic focuses on: prolonged performance on game-like cognitive activity. The ultimate goal of this game training is to improve performance for nontrained, ecologically valid target functions. For example, the game training should help children with ADHD to stay focused at school, and help older adults to manage the complexity of daily life. However, so far this goal is too ambitious. Transfer from trained to nontrained tasks is not even guaranteed in a laboratory, so there is a strong need for understanding how, when and for how long the game training has its effect. Which cognitive functions are amenable to game training, for whom, and how? Are there mediating factors for success, such as perception, processing speed and attention? Are the improvements real, or can they be attributed to nonspecific factors, such as outcome expectancy or demand characteristics? Are there better strategies to improve cognitive functions through game training?
This Research Topic of Frontiers in Human Neuroscience is intended to chart current insights in the determinants of success of game training. We therefore welcome papers that help explicitly clarify the (neuro)cognitive plasticity effects of game training. The editors have set the following criteria for submissions:
- Empirical studies should involve a randomized assignment of participants to groups that are matched in contact hours and training duration
- Training should involve repetitive engagement in cognitive activity.
- Cognitive performance measures should be obtained in a transfer context that differs in task characteristics from the training context.
- Results should permit an interpretation of the training effects in terms of the underlying mechanism. Submissions focusing on neural mechanisms underlying cognitive plasticity are particularly encouraged.
- Review papers should cover the field focused on studies with the same inclusion criteria as mentioned above. The review should be innovative and should render a neurocognitive model of training effects.
- We also welcome theoretical contributions and opinion articles that may advance the field in important ways.
In the initial abstract submission, specify to what extent your study fits these criteria. Also specify potential conflicts of interest or commercial interests of all authors.
Cognitive training is not always effective. This is also the case for the form of cognitive training that this Research Topic focuses on: prolonged performance on game-like cognitive activity. The ultimate goal of this game training is to improve performance for nontrained, ecologically valid target functions. For example, the game training should help children with ADHD to stay focused at school, and help older adults to manage the complexity of daily life. However, so far this goal is too ambitious. Transfer from trained to nontrained tasks is not even guaranteed in a laboratory, so there is a strong need for understanding how, when and for how long the game training has its effect. Which cognitive functions are amenable to game training, for whom, and how? Are there mediating factors for success, such as perception, processing speed and attention? Are the improvements real, or can they be attributed to nonspecific factors, such as outcome expectancy or demand characteristics? Are there better strategies to improve cognitive functions through game training?
This Research Topic of Frontiers in Human Neuroscience is intended to chart current insights in the determinants of success of game training. We therefore welcome papers that help explicitly clarify the (neuro)cognitive plasticity effects of game training. The editors have set the following criteria for submissions:
- Empirical studies should involve a randomized assignment of participants to groups that are matched in contact hours and training duration
- Training should involve repetitive engagement in cognitive activity.
- Cognitive performance measures should be obtained in a transfer context that differs in task characteristics from the training context.
- Results should permit an interpretation of the training effects in terms of the underlying mechanism. Submissions focusing on neural mechanisms underlying cognitive plasticity are particularly encouraged.
- Review papers should cover the field focused on studies with the same inclusion criteria as mentioned above. The review should be innovative and should render a neurocognitive model of training effects.
- We also welcome theoretical contributions and opinion articles that may advance the field in important ways.
In the initial abstract submission, specify to what extent your study fits these criteria. Also specify potential conflicts of interest or commercial interests of all authors.
