ArticleJournal of cognitive enhancement : towards the integration of theory and practice2018
What Do People Expect of Cognitive Enhancement?
Article in Journal of cognitive enhancement : towards the integration of theory and practice, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Beyond expectations: nocebo suggestion affects cognitive performance in older adults.Psychological research · 2026Trial
- Supporting Visual Working Memory in Healthy Aging: A Review of Current Interventions and Perspectives on Future Approaches.Brain sciences · 2026Review
- The influence of informational priming on motor expectancy in transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS).Experimental brain research · 2025Article
- Exploring disparities in self-reported knowledge about neurotechnology.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Perceptions of Brain Training: Public Expectations of Cognitive Benefits From Popular Activities.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2020Article
- Is Cognitive Training Worth It? Exploring Individuals' Willingness to Engage in Cognitive Training.Journal of cognitive enhancement : towards the integration of theory and practice · 2019Article
- Examining the Interactions Between Expectations and tDCS Effects on Motor and Cognitive Performance.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Enhancing cognitive function through mentally challenging exercises ("brain training") or non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) is an enticing yet controversial prospect. Although use of these methods is increasing rapidly, their effectiveness remains questionable. Notably, cognitive enhancement studies have typically failed to consider participants' expectations. However, high expectations could easily make brain-training approaches appear more effective than they actually are. We addressed this major gap in the literature by assessing the perceived effectiveness of brain training and NIBS in a series of surveys. Our results suggest that people are optimistic about the possibilities of cognitive enhancement, particularly through brain training. Moreover, reading a brief message implying high or low effectiveness of such methods can raise or lower expectations, respectively, suggesting that perceptions of brain training are malleable - at least in the short term. Measuring expectations in brain training and NIBS is important to determining whether these cognitive enhancement methods truly are effective.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.