# data[].attributes.body
Are 'brain training programs' effective?
It is predicted that the use of brain training programs are not directly effective towards the development of the brain and its cognitive skills.

# data[].attributes.body
Do programs specifically stated to train the brain really work? Are improvements of cognitive skills & different areas of the brain affected by the games customers spend billions on annually?

Brain training is a term that describes the use of online games and software to exercise the brain and excel in results. They claim to improve intelligence and cognitive skills such as; memory, attention, processing speed and problem solving by tapping into the brains plasticity- its ability to change.

The Placebo Effect is a theory used to help gain an understanding of what effect a treatment might have on a particular condition. The word placebo itself is anything that seems to be real but isn't exactly. Researchers say brain-training programs allow people to believe it will improve the relevant task, causing better results. This theory is further investigated through the article.

# data[].attributes.body
"Do Brain Training Games Work, Or Is It The Placebo Effect?"
This study aims to explore whether brain-training games (programs) are genuinely effective or they are limited by the placebo effect. The procedure was conducted by George Mason University with researchers advertising two posters around the campus.

One poster invited students to knowingly take part in a study to 'train their brains'. The other poster invited students to take part in training that would provide them with credit.

For this to work, students self-selected into the group they wanted, without outside influence. This first group believed training would help their cognition whilst the second set of student had no idea. Once in the lab, both groups partook in the same brain training task, so the only difference was their beliefs as to why they were there.

The findings displayed that the people who believed the training would boost their cognition performed 5-10 points better on the IQ test they later performed. These results however, cannot be proven as they do not directly suggest the programs work- rather pointing out there are other variables taking place that may also affect the results of the study, being the placebo effect in this case.

# data[].attributes.body
"Do brain training games really improve your brain function?"
The aim of this study was to find out the efficacy of brain-training programs. It was led by Elliot Berkam, psychologist at the University of Orgeon. His study found out that the games and programs effectively improve the performance at certain specific tasks only- in this case, the tasks used in the chosen program.

To reach this conclusion, Elliot and his colleagues concentrated specifically on 'inhibitory control'. This is the ability to stop or put a break on an action that has started. The researchers collected fMRI scans of the subjects: 27 males & 33 females, aged 18 to 30 years, as they worked on self control exercises.

This study presented an arrow pointing left or right, where participants had to press a button that corresponded with the arrow, as quickly as possible. The training group practiced everyday for three weeks while the control group practiced unrelated tasks, following the same schedule.

The results of the scans indicated that the training groups performance had improved slightly more than the control groups performance. Berkamn's study reported that it improved inhibitory control only and therefore, 'these services are jumping a little bit ahead of the science' as the programs may improve the specific task set such as in this case, but do not translate to the overall improvement.

# data[].attributes.body
The evidence I have gathered supports the hypothesis therefore stating they are not directly effective towards the brain and its cognitive skills as said to be. The claim that brain programs offer consumers a scientifically grounded approach is objected as there is no compelling scientific evidence to date.

Potential limitations
A clear potential limitation spread across the two source of evidence is the publication year of the articles being 2016 and 2014, respectively. Furthermore,  another potential limitation was the narrow scope of the second study as it only tested inhibitory control, without testing other brain functions to prove its point.

Biased possibilities
As both studies were performed with the knowledge of the participants and produced helping evidence, there isn't much of a possibility it was biased. This is because the study had witnesses or colleagues taking part in it.

Sources of error
A possible source of error in the second study might have been not conducting further tests on other functions of the brain to strongly argue the point of programs not helping with improvement. Although the first study was conducted well using two test groups, some kind of uniformity on how the participants are recruited in the future could stabalise the results further.

# data[].attributes.body
These two studies were conducted ethically, with consent forms from all participants that took part in the experiments. Additionally, they caused no harm and were conducted by the use of gaming technology to achieve their results. The researchers also told the participants what was going to happen before the experiments took place and therefore did not manipulate or lie to them. Their results were used for scientific purposes only and were not displayed without given permission, as respect was an ethical factor also shown.

# data[].attributes.body
In conclusion, the hypothesis has been supported as brain training programs do not contain convincing evidence that they will directly improve general cognitive abilities. This is supported by the 70 leading cognitive psychologists and neuroscientists who issued a statement (by Stanford Centre on Longetivity) expressing skepticism about how its all marketing and biased companies often boast that their programs are right.

As it's certainly premature to rule out possibility, more and better research will be needed to prove this. As of now, the marketing behind these programs over rule the science. The implications companies argue for are just premature promotions since as of right now, there is only evidence that it is specific to a certain (one) task trained on but no evidence it enhances performance on distantly related tasks as a whole.

The implications of these studies prove to show how brain training games cannot certainly be trusted with improving certain areas of the brain, as the evidence gathered from these findings could be used to benefit the relevant society by warning them of the amount of money spent. Teachers, parents, students and children spend up to 3 billion dollars annually on these supposed improvement programs. Many growing ads are hyping the marvels of these games for excited customers with no real or approved scientific evidence. This information can benefit society to do their own research first.

# data[].attributes.body
Walter. A "Do Brain Training Games Work, Or Is It The Placebo Effect?". [Online]. 2016.  https://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2016/06/21/does-brain-training-work-or-is-it-all-placebo/#45cafddf7497

Elliot. D "Do brain training games really improve your brain function?". [Online]. 2014. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/do-brain-training-games-really-improve-your-brain-function/