↓ Skip to main content

A Systematic Review of Commercial Cognitive Training Devices: Implications for Use in Sport

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
57 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
58 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
205 Mendeley
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.
Title
A Systematic Review of Commercial Cognitive Training Devices: Implications for Use in Sport
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, May 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00709
Pubmed ID
Authors

David J. Harris, Mark R. Wilson, Samuel J. Vine

Abstract

Background: Cognitive training (CT) aims to develop a range of skills, like attention and decision-making, through targeted training of core cognitive functions. While CT can target context specific skills, like movement anticipation, much CT is domain general, focusing on core abilities (e.g., selective attention) for transfer to a range of real-world tasks, such as spotting opponents. Commercial CT (CCT) devices are highly appealing for athletes and coaches due to their ease of use and eye-catching marketing claims. The extent to which this training transfers to performance in the sporting arena is, however, unclear. Therefore, this paper sought to provide a systematic review of evidence for beneficial training effects of CCT devices and evaluate their application to sport. Methods: An extensive search of electronic databases (PubMed, PsychInfo, GoogleScholar, and SportDiscus) was conducted to identify peer-reviewed evidence of training interventions with commercially available CT devices. Forty-three studies met the inclusion criteria and were retained for quality assessment and synthesis of results. Seventeen studies assessed transfer effects beyond laboratory cognitive tests, but only 1 directly assessed transfer to a sporting task. Results: The review of evidence showed limited support for far transfer benefits from CCT devices to sporting tasks, mainly because studies did not target the sporting environment. Additionally, a number of methodological issues with the CCT literature were identified, including small sample sizes, lack of retention tests, and limited replication of findings by researchers independent of the commercial product. Therefore, evidence for sporting benefits is currently limited by the paucity of representative transfer tests and a focus on populations with health conditions. Conclusions: Currently there is little direct evidence that the use of CCT devices can transfer to benefits for sporting performance. This conclusion, however, stems more from a lack of experimental studies in the sporting field and a lack of experimental rigor, rather than convincing null effects. Subsequently, there is an opportunity for researchers to develop more reliable findings in this area through systematic assessment in athletic populations and major methodological improvements.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 57 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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 205 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 205 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 32 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 10%
Student > Bachelor 17 8%
Researcher 14 7%
Professor 9 4%
Other 38 19%
Unknown 74 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 34 17%
Sports and Recreations 34 17%
Neuroscience 18 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 5%
Computer Science 5 2%
Other 24 12%
Unknown 79 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 50. 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 17 February 2021.
All research outputs
#890,841
of 26,394,137 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#1,896
of 35,307 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,713
of 343,354 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#50
of 639 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,394,137 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 35,307 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 94% 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 343,354 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 639 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.