Cited by 124Cognitive Abilities and TestingNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

No Effect of Commercial Cognitive Training on Brain Activity, Choice Behavior, or Cognitive Performance

Open access
Kable, Joseph W., Caulfield, M. Kathleen, Falcone, Mary, McConnell, Mairead, Bernardo, Leah, Parthasarathi, Trishala, Cooper, Nicole, Ashare, Rebecca +5 more·2017·The Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

Increased preference for immediate over delayed rewards and for risky over certain rewards has been associated with unhealthy behavioral choices.Motivated by evidence that enhanced cognitive control can shift choice behavior away from immediate and risky rewards, we tested whether training executive cognitive function could influence choice behavior and brain responses.In this randomized controlled trial, 128 young adults (71 male, 57 female) participated in 10 weeks of training with either a commercial web-based cognitive training program or web-based video games that do not specifically target executive function or adapt the level of difficulty throughout training.Pretraining and post-training, participants completed cognitive assessments and functional magnetic resonance imaging during performance of the following validated decision-making tasks: delay discounting (choices between smaller rewards now vs larger rewards in the future) and risk sensitivity (choices between larger riskier rewards vs smaller certain rewards).Contrary to our hypothesis, we found no evidence that cognitive training influences neural activity during decision-making; nor did we find effects of cognitive training on measures of delay discounting or risk sensitivity.Participants in the commercial training condition improved with practice on the specific tasks they performed during training, but participants in both conditions showed similar improvement on standardized cognitive measures over time.Moreover, the degree of improvement was comparable to that observed in individuals who were reassessed without any training whatsoever.Commercial adaptive cognitive training appears to have no benefits in healthy young adults above those of standard video games for measures of brain activity, choice behavior, or cognitive performance.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1523/jneurosci.2832-16.2017

Cites

101 of 101 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kable, J. W., Caulfield, M. K., Falcone, M., McConnell, M., Bernardo, L., Parthasarathi, T., Cooper, N., Ashare, R., Audrain-McGovern, J., Hornik, R., Diefenbach, P., Lee, F. J., & Lerman, C.
Affiliations
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • Drexel University (US)
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Published
2017-07-10
Volume
37
Issue
31
Pages
7390-7402
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W2736288670
Cited by
124
References
101
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 1
FWCI
16.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ScholarlyCommons (University of Pennsylvania) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5t32mh017168-34)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (T32 MH-017168)
  • National Cancer Institute (R01CA170297, R35CA197461)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Keywords
cognitive training, executive function, delay discounting, risk sensitivity, decision-making, brain activity, video games, adaptive training, cognitive performance, young adults
MeSH terms
Adult, Brain, Choice Behavior, Cognition, Female, Humans, Learning, Male, Reward, Task Performance and Analysis, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Executive Function

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review