2. 外语
  3. Brain-training software may be a waste of time. People who played "mind-boosting" games made the same modest cognitive gains as

Brain-training software may be a waste of time. People who played "mind-boosting" games made the same modest cognitive gains as

admin2022-12-30  7
问题     Brain-training software may be a waste of time. People who played "mind-boosting" games made the same modest cognitive gains as those who spent a similar amount of time surfing the web. "It didn’t really make any difference what people did," says Adrian Owen of the Medical Research Council Cognition, who tested brain-training software on volunteers recruited through a BBC television program.
    Owen and his colleagues asked 11 000 volunteers to take tests to measure their reasoning ability and verbal and spatial (空间的) memory. Participants then spent six weeks playing on one of two computer programs, or just surfing the web for pleasure. In one program, which imitates commercial brain-training software, the volunteers solved simple mathematics problems and puzzles that tested their memories. The other was designed specifically to boost cognitive abilities such as reasoning and planning.
    After six weeks, the participants underwent a second round of cognitive tests. Both groups who played the games made modest improvements, yet so did the web surfers. Skills learned via the programs didn’t transfer to the cognitive tests, even when they relied on similar abilities, says Owen. For instance, people who played a game in which they had to find a match for a briefly overturned card struggled at a similar test that used stars "hidden" in boxes. "Even when the tests were conceptually quite similar we didn’t see any improvement," says Owen. He concludes that brain-training software only makes people better at the specific tasks they have been practicing.
    Yet Klingberg, who founded a cognitive-training firm called Cogmed, is indignant at the conclusion that all brain training is bunk. The participants in Owen’s study didn’t practise for long enough and there was no quality control over what practice people did, he says. "Asking subjects to sit at home and do tests online, perhaps with the TV on or other distractions around, is likely to result in noisy data," he says. "This paper does in no way disprove that the brain is plastic or that cognitive functions can be improved by training." Owen counters that his team’s research took place in settings similar to the ones people are likely to practice in. "This is what people are doing. They’re sitting at home on their computers doing brain training. "
What does Klingberg think of Owen’s conclusion?
选项 A、He agrees with the conclusion.
B、He suggests Owen must find more participants.
C、He thinks the conclusion is not rigorous.
D、He thinks Owen should not do tests online.
答案C
解析 由题干中的Klingberg定位到第四段前四句。推理判断题。由定位句可知，克林伯格认为欧文研究的参与者没有练习足够长的时间，并且他们在练习中也没有进行质量控制，受试者所处的环境也会对测试结果产生干扰，由此可以推断他认为欧文的测试结论并不严谨，故正确答案为C)。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/RavD777K
0

大学英语四级

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)