ACTIVE showed that cognitive training slowed decline in instrumental activities of daily living [1], and that adaptive computerized speed training in particular reduced at-fault car crashes [2], reduced depressive symptoms [3], and most importantly reduced the incidence of dementia [4]. The NIH is spending tens of millions of dollars on follow-up trials to extend the results.
To dismiss ACTIVE in the brief paragraph is...startling.
>> We demonstrate that this optimism is due to the field neglecting the results of meta-analyses >>
A strong statement from a paper that doesn't seem to cover multiple positive meta-analyses of cognitive training [5, for example].
In my view, if you read a lot of papers in this field (and I do), the pattern is that negative articles generally focus on working memory training and effects on IQ or "generalized cognitive ability" (whatever that is); and positive articles generally focus on neurocognitive measures and real-world functional measures. One reasonable interpretation [and there are many!] is that programs focused on using working memory techniques to improve IQ are not generally effective, and programs using speed/attention training to improve specific aspects of cognitive and real-world performance are effective.
Meanwhile, out in the clinical world, cognitive training is now recommended by clinical guidelines from the American Academy of Neurology and the World Health Organization, and offered as a benefit by a dozen Medicare Advantage plans around the country.
Disclaimer: I work at BrainHQ, and have published in this field. Further disclaimer, a HN comment isn't an academic article.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4055506/ [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3057872/ [3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2657170/ [4] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5700828/ [5] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7050567/