Journal of Cognitive Enhancement

, Volume 2, Issue 1, pp 70–77 | Cite as

What Do People Expect of Cognitive Enhancement?

  • Sheida RabipourEmail author
  • Ronald Andringa
  • Walter R. Boot
  • Patrick S. R. Davidson
Original Article


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.


Brain training Cognitive enhancement Demand characteristics Expectation Intervention design Non-invasive brain stimulation Placebo effect 



We thank Thomas Vitale for help with data collection as well as members of the Neuropsychology Laboratory at the University of Ottawa and the Boot Lab at the Florida State University.

Funding Information

We acknowledge the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the Fonds de Recherche Québec-Santé, the Ontario Graduate Scholarships, and the National Institute on Aging—National Institutes of Health (NIA 2P01AG017211-16A1, Project CREATE IV-Center for Research and Education on Aging and Technology Enhancement) for their support of this work.

Author Contributions

S.R. and P.S.R.D. designed the study and developed the instrument based on previous work from W.R.B. Data collection in Ottawa and via web-based tools was performed by S.R. and P.S.R.D., while R.A. and W.R.B. collected data from Tallahassee. S.R. and P.S.R.D. analyzed the data, drafted the document, and finalized it based on edits from R.A. and W.R.B. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript for submission.


  1. Boot, W. R., Champion, M., Blakely, D. P., Wright, T., Souders, D. J., & Charness, N. (2013a). Video games as a means to reduce age-related cognitive decline: attitudes, compliance, and effectiveness. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 1–9.Google Scholar
  2. Boot, W. R., Simons, D. J., Stothart, C., & Stutts, C. (2013b). The pervasive problem with placebos in psychology: why active control groups are not sufficient to rule out placebo effects. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(4), 445–454. Scholar
  3. Carter, O., & Forte, J. (2016). Medical risks: regulate devices for brain stimulation. Nature, 533(7602), 179. Scholar
  4. (2014). Cognitive training data: an open letter, from Scholar
  5. Farah, M. J. (2015). The unknowns of cognitive enhancement. Science, 350(6259), 379–380. Scholar
  6. Federal Trade Commission (2015). Makers of jungle rangers computer game for Kids settle FTC charges that they deceived consumers with baseless “Brain Training” claims.Google Scholar
  7. Foroughi, C. K., Monfort, S. S., Paczynski, M., McKnight, P. E., & Greenwood, P. M. (2016). Placebo effects in cognitive training. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113(27), 7470–7474. Scholar
  8. Gross, L. (2017). Putting placebos to the test. PLoS Biology, 15(2), e2001998. Scholar
  9. Jwa, A. (2015). Early adopters of the magical thinking cap: a study on do-it-yourself (DIY) transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) user community. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 2(2), 292–335. Scholar
  10. Koroshetz, W. J. (2015). Noninvasive brain stimulation: applications and implications. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.Google Scholar
  11. Lumos Labs Inc. (2017). Lumosity, from Scholar
  12. Miniussi, C., Harris, J. A., & Ruzzoli, M. (2013). Modelling non-invasive brain stimulation in cognitive neuroscience. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 37(8), 1702–1712. Scholar
  13. Moreau, D., Kirk, I. J., & Waldie, K. E. (2016). Seven pervasive statistical flaws in cognitive training interventions. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10, 153. Scholar
  14. Nintendo DS (2017). Brain age: concentration training, from Scholar
  15. Posit Science Inc. (2017). BrainHQ: brain training that works, from Scholar
  16. Rabipour, S., & Davidson, P. S. R. (2015). Do you believe in brain training? A questionnaire about expectations of computerised cognitive training. Behavioural Brain Research, 295, 64–70. Scholar
  17. Rabipour, S., & Raz, A. (2012). Training the brain: fact and fad in cognitive and behavioral remediation. Brain and Cognition, 79(2), 159–179. Scholar
  18. Rabipour, S., Miller, D., Taler, V., Messier, C., & Davidson, P. S. R. (2017). Physical and cognitive exercise in aging. In Handbook of gerontology research methods: understanding successful aging. Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Rabipour, S., Davidson, P. S. R., & Kristjansson, E. (Submitted). Measuring expectations of cognitive enhancement: item response analysis of the expectation assessment scale.Google Scholar
  20. Sahakian, B., & Morein-Zamir, S. (2007). Professor’s little helper. Nature, 450(7173), 1157–1159. Scholar
  21. Schambra, H. M., Bikson, M., Wager, T. D., DosSantos, M. F., & DaSilva, A. F. (2014). It’s all in your head: reinforcing the placebo response with tDCS. Brain Stimulation, 7(4), 623–624. Scholar
  22. Schwarz, K. A., Pfister, R., & Buchel, C. (2016). Rethinking explicit expectations: connecting placebos, social cognition, and contextual perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(6), 469–480. Scholar
  23. SharpBrains (2014). Brain training and cognitive assessment market surpassed $1.3 billion in 2013. Retrieved from Scholar
  24. Simons, D. J., Boot, W. R., Charness, N., Gathercole, S. E., Chabris, C. F., Hambrick, D. Z., & Stine-Morrow, E. A. L. (2016). Do “brain-training” programs work? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 17(3), 103–186. Scholar
  25. Souders, D. J., Boot, W. R., Blocker, K., Vitale, T., Roque, N. A., & Charness, N. (2017). Evidence for narrow transfer after short-term cognitive training in older adults. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, 9.
  26. Steenbergen, L., Sellaro, R., Hommel, B., Lindenberger, U., Kuhn, S., & Colzato, L. S. (2016). “Unfocus” on commercial tDCS headset impairs working memory. Experimental Brain Research, 234(3), 637–643. Scholar
  27. The Stanford Center on Longevity (2014). A consensus on the brain training industry from the scientific community.Google Scholar
  28. Torous, J., Staples, P., Fenstermacher, E., Dean, J., & Keshavan, M. (2016). Barriers, benefits, and beliefs of brain training smartphone apps: an internet survey of younger US consumers. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10, 180. Scholar
  29. Underwood, E. (2016). Cadaver study casts doubts on how zapping brain may boost mood, relieve pain. Science. Retrieved from doi:
  30. Walsh, V. Q. (2013). Ethics and social risks in brain stimulation. Brain Stimulation, 6(5), 715–717. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sheida Rabipour
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ronald Andringa
    • 2
  • Walter R. Boot
    • 2
  • Patrick S. R. Davidson
    • 1
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.School of PsychologyUniversity of OttawaOttawaCanada
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyFlorida State UniversityTallahasseeUSA
  3. 3.Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario Canadian Partnership for Stroke RecoveryOttawaCanada
  4. 4.Bruyère Continuing CareBruyère Research InstituteOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations