The NeuroTracker method relies on particular features suggested to be fundamental1 including 1) distributing attention among a number of moving targets among distractors, known in the literature as Multiple Object Tracking 11,12 2) a large visual field 3) speed thresholds 4) binocular 3-dimensional cues (3D) (i.e. The research to date demonstrates that: 1) It is possible to measure individual differences on this ability1,2,3 2) The level of performance corresponds with the learning rate on this task1,2 3) The initial measures are predictive of real-life decision making performance metrics and socially relevant abilities4,5,6 4) The brain is plastic to this process and training on this system shows transfer on real life performance measures7 5) Training on this task improves relevant brain function as measured by cognitive metrics and brain imaging8 6) Benefits are demonstrable in a large population base varying from children with neurodevelopmental conditions all the way to sports professionals1,2,3,6-10 7) All these benefits have been demonstrated with only a few hours of total investment (3 to 5 hours of distributed training).
Given its rapid adoption, it is relevant to summarize the research findings from the scientific community and determine where NeuroTracker stands relative to the original goals.
#Neurotracker 3d mot professional#
Figure 1 is a world map showing the spread of the distribution of the NeuroTracker system used in professional and university settings as of June 2016. The result of this introduction has been a rapid adoption of the technique by independent users, professionals and researchers (around 400,000 total). Also to inherently force the brain to simultaneously solicit different cognitive mechanisms such as dynamic attention, sustained attention, working memory and executive functions during the task. Our approach has been to propose an easy to understand exercise, along with features that would enhance transfer potential that avoids some of the limitations above. We have proposed a method called 3D-MOT in the scientific literature that is now commercially available under the name of NeuroTracker 1,2. Other potential bottlenecks for the scalability of this intervention technique are the lack of simplicity and whether it can generalise to a variety of populations. This approach typically leads to very long training protocols, often between 30-40 hours, and leaves the users and professionals wondering whether this is the most efficient form of brain training. However, although there is growing evidence that enhancing cognitive functions with generic approaches does demonstrate near and far transfer capacities, the established commercial solutions have been criticised because studies tend to only provide evidence of transfer to abilities structurally similar to the training task.Īnother potential criticism is that many solutions use a shotgun approach with a large number of exercises that seemingly address specific aspects of brain function, with the underlying assumption that the brain will be able to use them dynamically and simultaneously, as is often required in real life situations. One assumption underlying this approach is that some perceptual-cognitive systems are fundamental for human performance and that training on these approaches will transfer to other tasks that were not trained but require similar cognitive systems (near transfer) and to real life abilities (far transfer). In the last decade we have seen a dramatic increase of commercially available computerised brain training methods for enhancing perceptual and cognitive capacities of individuals. NSERC-Essilor Industrial Research Chair, CanadaĬogniSens Applied Research Center, Canada Université de Montréal, Scool of Optometry, Canada
0 kommentar(er)
