Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lumosity fined $2M for deceptive ads of “Brain Training” app

ftc.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 259 posts

Re: Lumosity fined $2M for deceptive ads of “Brain Training” app

#111

Post by ryanferg »

ryanferg wrote: post #106
w1ntermute wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gwern's done extensive research into this, and his meta-analysis has shown there's "a net gain (medium-sized) on the post-training IQ tests"[0, 1]. 0: http://www.gwern.net/DNB%20meta-analysis 1: http://www.gwern.net/DNB%20FAQ

This is really great! I'll have to look into this when I have a little while. Thanks for passing it on. Just on a glance, I disagree that it really shows much of an increase though. Just glancing at the forest plots of those effect sizes tells me that this isn't a very strong effect at all (if it's there). And there is also the so called 'file drawer' effect. I was at one of the big cog psych conferences a few years…

Not to say that I'm not open to the idea. I'd love for it to be true, I just think large-effect-size effects are not often mired in the controversy that this one is. They're hard to find.

Re: Lumosity fined $2M for deceptive ads of “Brain Training” app

#112

Post by jonlucc »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #58
jonlucc wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have seen a proposal to make the cost of tickets based on value of the car. The thinking is that a person with an Audi is not at all disturbed by paying a $20 parking fine, so it isn't an incentive. It's an interesting idea, but I'm not sure how hard it would be to implement.

It would most likely only create incentive to fake the value of the car so that it seems lower than it is.

Well I don't think you'd just walk up to someone and say: "I want to write you a ticket. What's your car worth?" It would have to be pegged to make model and year or something like that.

Re: Lumosity fined $2M for deceptive ads of “Brain Training” app

#113

Post by [deleted] »

knowaveragejoe wrote: post #98
w1ntermute wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gwern's done extensive research into this, and his meta-analysis has shown there's "a net gain (medium-sized) on the post-training IQ tests"[0, 1]. 0: http://www.gwern.net/DNB%20meta-analysis 1: http://www.gwern.net/DNB%20FAQ

Why is this downvoted? I was under the impression that Gwern did solid resarch and was well respected in the HN community.

[deleted]

Re: Lumosity fined $2M for deceptive ads of “Brain Training” app

#114

Post by lettergram »

threatofrain wrote: post #35
lettergram wrote: post #10

I just wanted to share my thoughts, which are simply: "Thank God!" I've been working on a startup: http://synaptitude.me/ (demo is old) Essentially, we can do some of what Luminosity claims (and have independent studies to prove it). Every time someone goes: "Oh it's just like Lumosity" I have to go through and explain the difference. My wife has a degree in neuroscience and I minored in BioE, and we both just HATE L…

It's one thing to say that there are independent studies that demonstrate the validity of your interventions, but it's another to say that there is a current ecology of research and researchers that support your intervention. Can you make that stronger claim? Is there a review article that we can Google?

There is not at this time. However, as mentioned in another product we only have a prototype at this point. We are working with therapists and psychologists to bring the product further (essentislly using them for feedback). The goal being, at some point in the near future we get there.

The challenege is doing that without a large financial backing. It just takes longer.

Re: Lumosity fined $2M for deceptive ads of “Brain Training” app

#115

Post by cant_kant »

bberrry wrote: post #92
ryanferg wrote: post #25

All of these brain training products are suspect. Evidence for far transfer (training in one task transferring to a different domain task) is surprisingly hard to find, and empirical findings otherwise tend to disappear or diminish when replicated. Many of the pro-brain-training camp have already begun to shift the goal posts. First it was 'simple games increase IQ,' which turned out to be difficult to prove when wel…

I was under the impression that Dual-n-Back[0] had real benefits. Is that not the case? [0] http://brainworkshop.sourceforge.net/

From a meta-analysis:

" The 20 studies included here were all completed between 2008 and 2013....Sample sizes of treatment groups varied between 7 and 36 participants, and control groups between 8 and 43"

"net effect of n-back training on Gf outcome measures, about the equivalent of 3–4 points on a standardized IQ test"

ie: very small groups, tiny effect. Sounds dubious to me, like much research in the social "sciences"

Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory:a meta-analysis http://scottbarrykaufman.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/au-e...

Re: Lumosity fined $2M for deceptive ads of “Brain Training” app

#116

Post by jeffwass »

jonlucc wrote: post #36
revelation wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It means they don't have $50m. I'd say that shouldn't matter, we don't give the poor a discount on parking tickets either (actually, we usually make them more expensive).

I have seen a proposal to make the cost of tickets based on value of the car. The thinking is that a person with an Audi is not at all disturbed by paying a $20 parking fine, so it isn't an incentive. It's an interesting idea, but I'm not sure how hard it would be to implement.

The UK does something like this, they call it "means adjusted" fines.

Usually it's done if you challenge a ticket and they still find you guilty. Then they may adjust the fine relative to your financial condition. (I'm not sure how they find that out, eg if they talk to HMRC or other).

Re: Lumosity fined $2M for deceptive ads of “Brain Training” app

#117

Post by jeffwass »

jonlucc wrote: post #36
revelation wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It means they don't have $50m. I'd say that shouldn't matter, we don't give the poor a discount on parking tickets either (actually, we usually make them more expensive).

I have seen a proposal to make the cost of tickets based on value of the car. The thinking is that a person with an Audi is not at all disturbed by paying a $20 parking fine, so it isn't an incentive. It's an interesting idea, but I'm not sure how hard it would be to implement.

The UK does something like this, they call it "means adjusted" fines.

Usually it's done if you challenge a ticket and they still find you guilty. Then they may adjust the fine relative to your financial condition. (I'm not sure how they find that out, eg if they talk to HMRC or other).

Re: Lumosity fined $2M for deceptive ads of “Brain Training” app

#118

Post by lettergram »

pj_mukh wrote: post #56
lettergram wrote: post #10

I just wanted to share my thoughts, which are simply: "Thank God!" I've been working on a startup: http://synaptitude.me/ (demo is old) Essentially, we can do some of what Luminosity claims (and have independent studies to prove it). Every time someone goes: "Oh it's just like Lumosity" I have to go through and explain the difference. My wife has a degree in neuroscience and I minored in BioE, and we both just HATE L…

Woah. I like this. Signed up. This is the specific reason I wanted a system like this. Please don't spam me with updates :P. Just awaiting access to Beta.

I think Ive sent an update every few months (so you know we arent giving up).

Thanks for signing up!

Re: Lumosity fined $2M for deceptive ads of “Brain Training” app

#119

Post by lettergram »

basseq wrote: post #94
lettergram wrote: post #10

I just wanted to share my thoughts, which are simply: "Thank God!" I've been working on a startup: http://synaptitude.me/ (demo is old) Essentially, we can do some of what Luminosity claims (and have independent studies to prove it). Every time someone goes: "Oh it's just like Lumosity" I have to go through and explain the difference. My wife has a degree in neuroscience and I minored in BioE, and we both just HATE L…

This is awesome. My wife is a PhD in Applied Cognition with a dissertation on working memory and attention (including improvement in games and activities). She similarly hates Lumosity. (If you ever want an independent review or consultation of your science, I'll put you in touch.)

Thanks! I may reach out in the future, we could always use feedback :)

Re: Lumosity fined $2M for deceptive ads of “Brain Training” app

#120

Post by fhars »

golergka wrote: post #108

I develop similar product, that focuses on eye training instead of brains. Half of our office is filled with ophthalmologists, with some big names (supposedly — I don't know much about the field). Constant print outs of scientific articles lying around, presentation files stick to the walls (I don't know the proper term, but you know what I mean if you've been into scientific conferences and seminars) and overall vib…

They are exactly like that, in that almost all purported benefits of eye training and brain training alike are not supported by scientific evidence and only very narrow effects exists: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15825744
Post reply on HN