Introduction
In the ever-evolving landscape of cognitive training tools, Neurotracker stands out as a popular choice among athletes, rehabilitation experts, and researchers. This 3D multiple object-tracking (MOT) task is designed to improve perceptual-cognitive skills, but does it deliver on its promises? A recent systematic review by Vater et al. (2021) sheds light on the effectiveness of Neurotracker, offering insights and recommendations for practitioners looking to enhance their skills.
Understanding Neurotracker
Neurotracker is a tool that utilizes a 3D MOT task to assess and train cognitive abilities. It requires users to track multiple moving objects on a screen, purportedly enhancing skills such as attention, working memory, and decision-making. Despite its popularity in sports and rehabilitation, the scientific evidence supporting these claims has been mixed.
Key Findings from the Systematic Review
The review conducted by Vater et al. (2021) critically evaluates the scientific literature on Neurotracker. Here are some of the key takeaways:
- Mixed Evidence for Cognitive Skill Improvement: While some studies suggest improvements in working memory and attention, the evidence is not consistent across all studies. The review highlights the lack of preregistered studies and methodological limitations, which weaken the evidence for cognitive improvements.
- Transfer Effects are Limited: The review found that far transfer effects, where trained skills transfer to real-world tasks, are rare. Most studies showed only near transfer effects, where improvements were limited to tasks similar to the training.
- Recommendations for Future Research: The authors recommend more rigorous research designs, including preregistration and better control groups, to strengthen the evidence base for Neurotracker's effectiveness.
Implications for Practitioners
For practitioners considering Neurotracker as a training tool, it's essential to weigh the current evidence carefully. While Neurotracker may offer some benefits in terms of cognitive skill enhancement, the lack of robust evidence for far transfer effects suggests that it should not replace sport-specific training.
Practitioners are encouraged to stay informed about the latest research developments and consider integrating Neurotracker as a supplementary tool rather than a primary training method. Engaging in further research and experimentation can also provide valuable insights into its effectiveness in specific contexts.
Conclusion
Neurotracker offers an intriguing approach to cognitive training, but its effectiveness remains a topic of debate. By understanding the current evidence and adopting a critical approach, practitioners can make informed decisions about incorporating Neurotracker into their training programs.
To read the original research paper, please follow this link: A critical systematic review of the Neurotracker perceptual-cognitive training tool.
