Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33821464›Full record

SynthesisPsychonomic bulletin & review2021

A critical systematic review of the Neurotracker perceptual-cognitive training tool.

Christian Vater, Rob Gray, Alex O Holcombe

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Christian VaterInstitute of Sport Science, University of Bern, Bremgartenstrasse 145, CH-3012, Bern, Switzerland. christian.vater@ispw.unibe.ch.
Rob GrayThe Polytechnic School, Arizona State University, Mesa, AZ, USA.
Alex O HolcombeSchool of Psychology, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this systematic review, we evaluate the scientific evidence behind "Neurotracker," one of the most popular perceptual-cognitive training tools in sports. The tool, which is also used in rehabilitation and aging research to examine cognitive abilities, uses a 3D multiple object-tracking (MOT) task. In this review, we examine Neurotracker from both a sport science and a basic science perspective. We first summarize the sport science debate regarding the value of general cognitive skill training, based on tools such as Neurotracker, versus sport-specific skill training. We then consider the several hundred MOT publications in cognitive and vision science from the last 30 years that have investigated cognitive functions and object tracking processes. This literature suggests that the abilities underlying object tracking are not those advertised by the Neurotracker manufacturers. With a systematic literature search, we scrutinize the evidence for whether general cognitive skills can be tested and trained with Neurotracker and whether these trained skills transfer to other domains. The literature has major limitations, for example a total absence of preregistered studies, which makes the evidence for improvements for working memory and sustained attention very weak. For other skills as well, the effects are mixed. Only three studies investigated far transfer to ecologically valid tasks, two of which did not find any effect. We provide recommendations for future Neurotracker research to improve the evidence base and for making better use of sport and basic science findings.

Indexed as

CognitionSportsAgingAttentionHumansMemory, Short-TermAttentionInterventionSportTransferVision

Identifiers

PMID33821464
PMCPMC8500884

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.