Psychological Science in the Public Interest最新文献_第5页

About the Authors 关于作者

IF 25.4 1区心理学

Psychological Science in the Public Interest Pub Date : 2017-12-01 DOI: 10.1177/1529100618766877

S. Harrell

引用次数: 76

Do "Brain-Training" Programs Work? “大脑训练”项目有效吗？

IF 18.2 1区心理学

Psychological Science in the Public Interest Pub Date : 2016-10-01 DOI: 10.1177/1529100616661983

Daniel J Simons, Walter R Boot, Neil Charness, Susan E Gathercole, Christopher F Chabris, David Z Hambrick, Elizabeth A L Stine-Morrow

{"title":"Do \"Brain-Training\" Programs Work?","authors":"Daniel J Simons, Walter R Boot, Neil Charness, Susan E Gathercole, Christopher F Chabris, David Z Hambrick, Elizabeth A L Stine-Morrow","doi":"10.1177/1529100616661983","DOIUrl":"10.1177/1529100616661983","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In 2014, two groups of scientists published open letters on the efficacy of brain-training interventions, or \"brain games,\" for improving cognition. The first letter, a consensus statement from an international group of more than 70 scientists, claimed that brain games do not provide a scientifically grounded way to improve cognitive functioning or to stave off cognitive decline. Several months later, an international group of 133 scientists and practitioners countered that the literature is replete with demonstrations of the benefits of brain training for a wide variety of cognitive and everyday activities. How could two teams of scientists examine the same literature and come to conflicting \"consensus\" views about the effectiveness of brain training?In part, the disagreement might result from different standards used when evaluating the evidence. To date, the field has lacked a comprehensive review of the brain-training literature, one that examines both the quantity and the quality of the evidence according to a well-defined set of best practices. This article provides such a review, focusing exclusively on the use of cognitive tasks or games as a means to enhance performance on other tasks. We specify and justify a set of best practices for such brain-training interventions and then use those standards to evaluate all of the published peer-reviewed intervention studies cited on the websites of leading brain-training companies listed on Cognitive Training Data (www.cognitivetrainingdata.org), the site hosting the open letter from brain-training proponents. These citations presumably represent the evidence that best supports the claims of effectiveness.Based on this examination, we find extensive evidence that brain-training interventions improve performance on the trained tasks, less evidence that such interventions improve performance on closely related tasks, and little evidence that training enhances performance on distantly related tasks or that training improves everyday cognitive performance. We also find that many of the published intervention studies had major shortcomings in design or analysis that preclude definitive conclusions about the efficacy of training, and that none of the cited studies conformed to all of the best practices we identify as essential to drawing clear conclusions about the benefits of brain training for everyday activities. We conclude with detailed recommendations for scientists, funding agencies, and policymakers that, if adopted, would lead to better evidence regarding the efficacy of brain-training interventions.</p>","PeriodicalId":20879,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Science in the Public Interest","volume":"17 1","pages":"103-186"},"PeriodicalIF":18.2,"publicationDate":"2016-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"65439575","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

About the Authors 关于作者

IF 25.4 1区心理学

Psychological Science in the Public Interest Pub Date : 2016-10-01 DOI: 10.1177/1529100616670674

D. Simons

引用次数: 0

"Sexual orientation, controversy, and science": Corrigendum. “性取向、争议和科学”:更正。

IF 25.4 1区心理学

Psychological Science in the Public Interest Pub Date : 2016-10-01 DOI: 10.1177/1529100616671516

J. Bailey, Paul L. Vasey, L. Diamond, S. Breedlove, E. Vilain, M. Epprecht

引用次数: 1

Brain-Training Pessimism, but Applied-Memory Optimism 大脑训练悲观，但应用记忆乐观

IF 25.4 1区心理学

Psychological Science in the Public Interest Pub Date : 2016-10-01 DOI: 10.1177/1529100616664716

J. McCabe, Thomas S. Redick, R. Engle

{"title":"Brain-Training Pessimism, but Applied-Memory Optimism","authors":"J. McCabe, Thomas S. Redick, R. Engle","doi":"10.1177/1529100616664716","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100616664716","url":null,"abstract":"As is convincingly demonstrated in the target article (Simons et al., 2016, this issue), despite the numerous forms of brain training that have been tested and touted in the past 15 years, there’s little to no evidence that currently existing programs produce lasting, meaningful change in the performance of cognitive tasks that differ from the trained tasks. As detailed by Simons et al., numerous methodological issues cloud the interpretation of many studies claiming successful far transfer. These limitations include small sample sizes, passive control groups, single tests of outcomes, unblinded informantand self-report measures of functioning, and hypothesisinconsistent significant effects. (However, note that, with older adults, a successful result of the intervention could be to prevent decline in the training group, such that they stay at their pretest level while the control group declines.) These issues are separate from problems related to publication bias, selective reporting of significant and nonsignificant outcomes, use of unjustified one-tailed t tests, and failure to explicitly note shared data across publications. So, considering that the literature contains such potential false-positive publications (Simmons, Nelson, & Simonsohn, 2011), it may be surprising and disheartening to many that some descriptive reviews (Chacko et al., 2013; Salthouse, 2006; Simons et al., 2016) and meta-analyses (Melby-Lervåg, Redick, & Hulme, 2016; Rapport, Orban, Kofler, & Friedman, 2013) have concluded that existing cognitive-training methods are relatively ineffective, despite their popularity and increasing market share. For example, a recent working-memory-training metaanalysis (Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016) evaluated 87 studies examining transfer to working memory, intelligence, and various educationally relevant outcomes (e.g., reading comprehension, math, word decoding). The studies varied considerably in terms of the sample composition (age; typical vs. atypical functioning) and the nature of the working-memory training (verbal, nonverbal, or both verbal and nonverbal stimuli; n-back vs. span task methodology; few vs. many training sessions). Despite the diversity in the design and administration of the training, the results were quite clear. Following training, there were reliable improvements in performance on verbal and nonverbal working-memory tasks identical or similar to the trained tasks. However, in terms of far transfer, there was no convincing evidence of improvements, especially when working-memory training was compared to an active-control condition. The meta-analysis also demonstrated that, in the working-memory-training literature, the largest nonverbal-intelligence far-transfer effects are statistically more likely to come from studies with small sample sizes and passive control groups. This finding is not particularly surprising, given other work showing that most working-memory training studies are dramatically underpowered (Bogg &","PeriodicalId":20879,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Science in the Public Interest","volume":"17 1","pages":"187 - 191"},"PeriodicalIF":25.4,"publicationDate":"2016-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1529100616664716","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"65439585","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 28

About the Authors 关于作者

IF 25.4 1区心理学

Psychological Science in the Public Interest Pub Date : 2016-09-01 DOI: 10.1177/1529100616645327

H. V. D. Veer, A. Wiles

引用次数: 0

Speed Reading 快速阅读

IF 25.4 1区心理学

Psychological Science in the Public Interest Pub Date : 2016-05-01 DOI: 10.1177/1529100615623268

D. Balota

{"title":"Speed Reading","authors":"D. Balota","doi":"10.1177/1529100615623268","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100615623268","url":null,"abstract":"Compared to listening to a speaker, reading seems more effortful. Why? An obvious difference is that the structure of visual language forces the reader to acquire information in a parasitic manner, looking at patterns of straight and squiggly lines, making eye movements to recognize words, and mapping these onto more “natural” auditory language abilities. But are there ways of bypassing (or minimizing) the extra demands of processing visual language? Many would lead us to believe that the answer is yes. Consider the potential benefits of reading 5 times more quickly than you currently read, with no loss in comprehension. For the past five decades (beginning with Evelyn Wood’s speed-reading programs), there have been training programs that claim to dramatically increase the speed of reading, taking advantage of the massive power of the human brain to leave readers unencumbered by the laborious additional demands of converting print to the system used for spoken language. The target article in this issue has brought together a dream team of researchers who have studied reading and rapid processing of visual information to evaluate the potential efficacy of speed-reading programs. Rayner, Schotter, Masson, Potter, and Treiman argue that if one wants to evaluate such programs, it is critical to first understand the processes that are involved in reading. Thus, the authors provide an in-depth review of the extensive literature on reading, from basic aspects of writing systems to higher-level comprehension. They also review the available empirical evidence evaluating the efficacy of speedreading programs. The review is an outstanding resource for anyone who is interested in reading and speed reading. Rayner et al argue from this literature that speed-reading training programs are unlikely to pay off as advertised because of well-established empirical facts about reading. For example, one approach espoused by speed-reading advocates is to fixate on only a few words within each line of text, thereby decreasing the number of time-consuming fixations that most words receive during normal reading. The notion here is that readers can pick up considerable information in the periphery while fixating a particular word or phrase. Rayner et al. point out that visual information quickly degrades in quality as it extends beyond the fovea and parafovea. Thus, by decreasing fixations, a reader will process fewer words, thereby decreasing comprehension. Another more recent approach is to take advantage of smart devices that use apps to present text one word after another at fixation. This strategy eliminates altogether the “wasted time” devoted to eye movements. There is a rich body of work on presenting text sequentially in this manner (called rapid serial visual presentation), and there is indeed evidence that participants can pick up some information at extraordinarily fast presentation rates. The appeal of this approach is captivating (it can be easily experienced","PeriodicalId":20879,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Science in the Public Interest","volume":"17 1","pages":"1 - 3"},"PeriodicalIF":25.4,"publicationDate":"2016-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1529100615623268","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"65439521","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 17

About the Authors 关于作者

IF 25.4 1区心理学

Psychological Science in the Public Interest Pub Date : 2016-05-01 DOI: 10.1177/1529100615625998

Ross Henderson

引用次数: 0

So Much to Read, So Little Time 要读的书太多，时间太少

IF 25.4 1区心理学

Psychological Science in the Public Interest Pub Date : 2016-01-14 DOI: 10.1177/1529100615623267

K. Rayner, Elizabeth R Schotter, M. Masson, M. Potter, R. Treiman

{"title":"So Much to Read, So Little Time","authors":"K. Rayner, Elizabeth R Schotter, M. Masson, M. Potter, R. Treiman","doi":"10.1177/1529100615623267","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100615623267","url":null,"abstract":"The prospect of speed reading—reading at an increased speed without any loss of comprehension—has undeniable appeal. Speed reading has been an intriguing concept for decades, at least since Evelyn Wood introduced her Reading Dynamics training program in 1959. It has recently increased in popularity, with speed-reading apps and technologies being introduced for smartphones and digital devices. The current article reviews what the scientific community knows about the reading process—a great deal—and discusses the implications of the research findings for potential students of speed-reading training programs or purchasers of speed-reading apps. The research shows that there is a trade-off between speed and accuracy. It is unlikely that readers will be able to double or triple their reading speeds (e.g., from around 250 to 500–750 words per minute) while still being able to understand the text as well as if they read at normal speed. If a thorough understanding of the text is not the reader’s goal, then speed reading or skimming the text will allow the reader to get through it faster with moderate comprehension. The way to maintain high comprehension and get through text faster is to practice reading and to become a more skilled language user (e.g., through increased vocabulary). This is because language skill is at the heart of reading speed.","PeriodicalId":20879,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Science in the Public Interest","volume":"17 1","pages":"34 - 4"},"PeriodicalIF":25.4,"publicationDate":"2016-01-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1529100615623267","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"65439472","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 194

Will the Current Crisis in Police Legitimacy Increase Crime? Research Offers a Way Forward 当前警察合法性危机会增加犯罪吗?研究提供了一条前进的道路

IF 25.4 1区心理学

Psychological Science in the Public Interest Pub Date : 2015-12-01 DOI: 10.1177/1529100615610575

P. Cook

{"title":"Will the Current Crisis in Police Legitimacy Increase Crime? Research Offers a Way Forward","authors":"P. Cook","doi":"10.1177/1529100615610575","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100615610575","url":null,"abstract":"Police legitimacy is all too timely a topic. As I am writing this commentary, instances of police use of lethal force against unarmed civilians are prominent. In Cincinnati, North Charleston, Cleveland, Staten Island, and elsewhere, video recordings have documented what appears to be unprovoked or at least unwarranted violence by a uniformed officer against someone stopped for a minor violation. The fact that the victims in these publicized encounters are minorities, and that the officers’ version of events is sometimes contradicted by the video evidence, suggests that such attacks may be quite common, as has long been asserted by the African American community. Starting with the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, the “Black Lives Matter” campaign has provided a slogan for a growing perception that young black men are targeted by the police in an all-too-literal sense. In June, Gallup reported a drop of 5 percentage points in the fraction of the adult American public who have “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in the police, as compared to the previous poll on this topic in 2013 (http://www.gallup.com/poll/183704/confidence-policelowest-years.aspx). While the police still enjoy more trust than most public institutions, it appears that the publicity given to unwarranted police violence has undercut their legitimacy, at least for the time being. What are the implications of this loss? Tom Tyler, Phillip Goff, and Robert MacCoun argue that police legitimacy is an end in itself but also an important asset in gaining the cooperation and compliance of the public, both with police authority and with the law itself. As the authors suggest, these ideas are becoming well established. In fact, they are supported by a 2004 report of an expert panel convened by the National Research Council (NRC), for which Tyler was a consultant and source (Skogan & Frydl, 2004). The NRC panel contrasted legitimacy with lawfulness, noting that “by legitimacy we mean the judgments that ordinary citizens make about the rightfulness of police conduct and the organizations that employ and supervise them” (p. 291). By this definition, legitimacy is subjective but influenced by the actions of police: “When they adhere to the rules, maintain their neutrality, and treat people with dignity and respect, police legitimacy increases” (p. 292). The NRC panel went on to observe that legitimacy is important not only in influencing the behavior of individual citizens but also in the political process: “If citizens trust the police, they will be willing to invest more authority in the police and spend more taxpayer dollars on them” (p. 291). Thus, the NRC panel’s analysis is the basis for a set of predictions about the consequences of the loss in public trust, such as has occurred over the last year or two:","PeriodicalId":20879,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Science in the Public Interest","volume":"16 1","pages":"71 - 74"},"PeriodicalIF":25.4,"publicationDate":"2015-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1529100615610575","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"65439846","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 21