text: Hypotheses 2 and 3 test pretest to posttest gains on specific problem solving and spatial test scores within each condition. We computed paired t-tests for each measure in each condition. For hypothesis 2 (problem solving gains), we found no significant gains for the Portal 2 condition, from pretest to posttest, for any specific problem solving measure. We also did not find any significant pretest-to-posttest gains for the Lumosity condition across any of the problem solving measures. Results provide partial support for hypothesis 3 (spatial gains). Participants in the Portal 2 condition showed pretest to posttest improvement on the MRT, t(1, 39) = −1.80, p < .05; Cohen's d = .30 under a one-tailed test. Additionally, Portal 2 players' VSNA scores significantly differed from pretest to posttest, t(1, 40) = 2.42, p < .05; Cohen's d = .44. There was no significant improvement for Portal 2 players on the SOT test. For participants in the Lumosity condition, there were no significant pretest-to-posttest improvements on any of the three spatial tests.
  A rigorous study by Redick et al. (2013) suggested that the initial research on brain training generally, and thus the basis for Lumosity (mentioned by name in the paper), may have been compromised by design limitations and lack of theoretical grounding, and criticizes those studies for struggling to adequately explain often mixed results. They reported three relevant findings from their own validation study of dual n-back working memory training:
  Our study yielded three main findings. First, subjects improved with practice on both the dual n-back and visual search tasks. Second, training group subjects showed no transfer to any of the ability measures, in keeping with the prediction outlined in Figure 4D. Third, dual n-back trained subjects reported subjective improvements in various aspects of cognition in the absence of any objective evidence for change.
  The jury is still out on brain training more generally and on when, where and whether it may be useful (e.g., Deveau et al., 2014; Mayas, Parmentier, Andrés and Ballesteros, 2014). However, the Lumosity BPI appears to have little to no scientific validity as a cognitive training method for average consumers.
  $\begingroup$ i think you are understating the potential benefits of dual n-back training. a meta-analysis of studies with healthy volunteers earlier this year found a small improvement (effect size = 0.24), equivalent to 3-4 IQ points. moreover, it doesn't preclude more substantial improvements in those with pre-existing cognitive deficits. REFERENCE: link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13423-014-0699-x $\endgroup$ – faustus May 8 '15 at 18:24
  Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged cognitive-psychology intelligence test brain-training or ask your own question.