The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 45 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Brain Training in Children and Adolescents: Is It Scientifically Valid?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00565 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Teresa Rossignoli-Palomeque, Elena Perez-Hernandez, Javier González-Marqués |
| Abstract |
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. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 3 | 7% |
| Japan | 3 | 7% |
| United States | 2 | 4% |
| India | 1 | 2% |
| France | 1 | 2% |
| Germany | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 34 | 76% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 36 | 80% |
| Scientists | 7 | 16% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 2% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 122 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 122 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 23 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 13% |
| Researcher | 15 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 9% |
| Professor | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 21 | 17% |
| Unknown | 28 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 46 | 38% |
| Neuroscience | 10 | 8% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 13 | 11% |
| Unknown | 34 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 November 2020.
All research outputs
#1,250,429
of 26,378,208 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#2,644
of 35,285 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,109
of 343,874 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#74
of 626 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,378,208 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 35,285 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 343,874 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 626 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.