The article begins from the premise that psychology has shown that brain training can not cause generalized benefits, and then goes on to review more than 130 p

The article begins from the premise that psychology has shown that brain training can not cause generalized benefits, and then goes on to review more than 130 peer-reviewed publications, meticulously finding fault with each one, and concluding that nothing can be learned from the entire field. It's as if the authors went through an entire forest, finding fault with each tree, but never noticed there was an entire forest (of evidence). I'm an author on one of the studies discussed, and for what it's worth, there are two factual errors in their review of my study alone. The authors then go on to state that people seeking to improve cognitive function would be better served by exercising or going to college. Exercising is an excellent idea, but the evidence for cognitive improvement is certainly no better than for cognitive training, and is arguably worse [1]. College is fine as well, but from a methodological perspective there's never been a randomized controlled trial showing that college improves cognitive function, and arguably all college does is select high-achievers and then further filter them with low-performers dropping out. Endorsing college (with no RCTs) over brain training (with RCTs) suggest a biased review. Disclosure: I work at Posit Science, where we make a brain training program. My work is specifically criticized in the article. [1] http://www.cochrane.org/CD005381/DEMENTIA_aerobic-exercise-to-improve-cognitive-function-in-older-people-without-known-cognitive-impairment http://www.cochrane.org/CD005381/DEMENTIA_aerobic-exercise-t...