
Lumosity fined $2M for deceptive ads of “Brain Training” app - lpsz
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2016/01/lumosity-pay-2-million-settle-ftc-deceptive-advertising-charges
======
ryanferg
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 well controlled studies were performed. Now it's more
along the lines of 'These simple games might have preventative effects against
age related declines!,' which is an even harder claim to actually prove given
the difficulties performing well controlled studies on aged participants.

In the cognitive science world, if we discovered a solid far transfer
paradigm, especially one which transferred to something like G(eneral
Intelligence), it would be our anti-baldness pill\flying car\4-day cellphone
battery. People thought that these working memory transfer effects were the
real deal and got very excited about it, money poured in, and the water got
muddied by all these scientists with conflicts.

I obviously don't put much stock in working memory training. I wish it worked
like they said, but I don't think it does. If far-transfer shows up at all,
it's tiny, and doesn't persist after delay.

~~~
bberrry
I was under the impression that Dual-n-Back[0] had real benefits. Is that not
the case?

[0]
[http://brainworkshop.sourceforge.net/](http://brainworkshop.sourceforge.net/)

~~~
w1ntermute
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](http://www.gwern.net/DNB%20meta-
analysis)

1: [http://www.gwern.net/DNB%20FAQ](http://www.gwern.net/DNB%20FAQ)

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

~~~
iaw
Because JumpCrisscross's post [0] implies that w1ntermute cherry picked a
component of the Gwern meta-analysis to prove his point while the next
paragraph refuted it.

[0] :
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10846443](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10846443)

------
lettergram
I just wanted to share my thoughts, which are simply: "Thank God!"

I've been working on a startup:
[http://synaptitude.me/](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 Lumosity. Their
misleading ads seriously damaged the public perception, and there is no way
they can assess anything they claim (if it is even possible).

That's pretty much why my startup is working on our applications. We feel
there is a market and can definitely help people, but just "brain games"
(without feedback/guidance) don't do anything.

~~~
jacquesm
The worst that can happen to a good small company is that some overhyped and
overfunded 'start-up' enters the field and spoils the trust built slowly and
over a long time between the consumers and the suppliers of goods and
services.

This is unfortunately not rare at all and the 'hotter' a market seems the more
of these BS artists will enter. In the end you have the same product and the
same relationship with your customers but you're going to end up spending a
lot of time differentiating yourself from the snake oil peddlers and the
damage they can do is very real.

Good companies have gone under in the wake of the scandals triggered by the
fakers. Playing a long game while your field is being torn up by people
playing a short game is extremely frustrating.

~~~
xux
This is actually a form of corporate sabotage some companies use. You'll find
it interesting to read about Coca Cola's Tab Clear[1].

Basically, Pepsi introduced a soda called Crystal Clear that was gaining
momentum in the "clear soda" market. Coke wanted to sabotage the public
perception, so they introduced "Tab Clear" and made it taste so terrible, that
both products failed within 6 months. After that, no one wanted to touch clear
soda for a while. (That is, until Coke reintroduced another drink called
Sprite).

[1][http://thedailyjournalist.com/pen-and-pad/corporate-
sabotage...](http://thedailyjournalist.com/pen-and-pad/corporate-sabotage-
part-1/)

~~~
dhbanes
Wait, what? Sprite had been around long before Tab Clear came and went.

~~~
freehunter
Well he did say "reintroduce". Looking quickly at the Wikipedia page, it looks
like Sprite did have a rebranding effort done in 1994, so... maybe?

------
kazinator
The way I see it, they tapped into a _widely held belief_ , rather than fears.
It is a popular belief that doing mental work staves off cognitive decline
(including age-related). I bet you that everyone at Lumosity actually believes
it because their mother told them that when they were kids.

My wife (Japanese) always says "good for older people" about any sort of
puzzle. She didn't get this from being deceived by Lumosity.

The FTC is being very heavy-handed here.

It's like someone sold carrots claiming they improve vision, and got thrown in
jail.

Testimonials being paid for shills? Like, say it ain't so. Every damed
commercial you've ever seen in your life has fake people presenting fake
testimonials. It's _assumed_.

(Claiming that doing puzzles can stave off Alzheimer's _is_ going somewhat
far, though. That disease has specific physiological causes which can't be
reversed through brain activity.)

~~~
nkrisc
> It's like someone sold carrots claiming they improve vision, and got thrown
> in jail.

No, it's not. It's like they were appropriately fined for profiting off
unproven medical claims.

> Testimonials being paid for shills? Like, say it ain't so. Every damed
> commercial you've ever seen in your life has fake people presenting fake
> testimonials. It's assumed.

And they're labelled as an actor representation. Giving them a pass because
it's "assumed" is irresponsible and harmful to those who might not otherwise
know.

~~~
kolbe
To add another reason why his analogy was irrelevant and misleading, no one
got thrown in jail. Lumosity got fined 0.01% of what some bank fines have been
over the past few years.

~~~
nkrisc
That is also a good point, though I don't see how the comparison to what banks
were fined is relevant or enlightening.

~~~
kolbe
I like to contextualize the real magnitude of 'illions. There are many people
who hear "$2M" and think it's a large fine. It's actually relatively modest,
and I wanted to provide a point of reference for people to know how modest.

~~~
thaumasiotes
> The order also imposes a $50 million judgment against Lumos Labs, which will
> be suspended due to its financial condition after the company pays $2
> million to the Commission.

The whole piece is pretty unclear about whether they're shutting down
Lumosity, or shutting down Lumos Labs while somehow not shutting down
Lumosity.

~~~
thaumasiotes
Oh, I guess I misparsed this originally. I understood it as "The order imposes
a $50 million judgment against Lumos Labs, and Lumos Labs will be suspended
due to its financial condition after paying $2 million".

But, the article as a whole is more intelligible with the meaning "The order
imposes a $50 million judgment against Lumos Labs, and _the judgment_ will be
suspended due to Lumos Labs' financial condition after it pays $2 million".

------
6stringmerc
Based on the ads and no little fine print at the bottom citing any real
science, I was a skeptic from the outset. Never did any real research to find
out if their claims were inflated - or even viable in the first place.
Apparently when challenged by the FTC they didn't have anything solid to show
in their defense.

Oh, and then there's this bit:

 _> The complaint also charges the defendants with failing to disclose that
some consumer testimonials featured on the website had been solicited through
contests that promised significant prizes, including a free iPad, a lifetime
Lumosity subscription, and a round-trip to San Francisco._

Classic huckster move, not surprised, glad they got caught, etc.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Ah, consumer testimonials. I pay very close attention to those. If I learn
they're fake, I blacklist the business. If someone is willing to lie to people
like that on their page, I don't want to have anything to do with them.

~~~
netheril96
I am under the impression that almost all customer testimonials are fake. They
are just too easy to fake one, and hard to catch one, so I assume that they
are all lies.

~~~
TeMPOraL
That's my default assumption too. I don't trust them at all, though I still
give the company the benefit of doubt. Innocent until proven guilty, etc. And
hell, even if they're not lies, they're usually so vague as to be meaningless
anyway.

~~~
Chris2048
It's also worth noting they don't have to be faked, just mis-represented.

You can cherry pick sections of long testimonials.

You can cherry-pick testimonials themselves.

:-/

~~~
Chris2048
Alternate spellings of cherry--pick used to annoy the anally retentive :-)

------
w1ntermute
Great article on this trend of investors/entrepreneurs with no scientific
background thinking they can get into the space and "shake things up":

 _Silicon Valley is confusing pseudo-science with innovation_ [0]

> I don’t think all the VC firms that are moving into the space know what
> they’re doing — so I think you only need a couple of nasty failures to get
> them to pull back. Take Pathway Genomics, for instance, which was selling a
> test that was supposed to tell you if you had cancer. I say "supposed to"
> because it turns out no one — including Pathway Genomics itself — had done
> any research whatsoever to determine the test actually did what it said it
> did. The company sold the test directly to patients through a regulatory
> loophole, and after we wrote about it, the FDA got wind and told them to
> knock it off. But Pathway had investors: Edelson Technology Partners,
> Founders Fund, IBM Watson Group. You’ll notice these are not health care
> firms.

In the next couple of years, we're probably going to see companies like
Nootrobox, Stemcentrx, and Theranos go belly up, after which SV investor
interest in the healthcare industry will dry up, just as it did in the energy
industry after the late 2000s.

0: [http://www.theverge.com/2015/12/29/10642070/2015-theranos-
ve...](http://www.theverge.com/2015/12/29/10642070/2015-theranos-venture-
capital-tech-bubble-disruption)

~~~
ejstronge
I don't know much about Stemcentrx - why do you think they will fail? Their
science page sounds reasonable; antibody-drug conjugates don't seem far-
fetched and I don't think they're the only ones pursuing that therapeutic
paradigm.

~~~
StewsNews
Lumping Stemcentrx in with the others is extremely ill reasoned imo. The most
basic of google searches show some pretty impressive stuff being done there.

[http://stm.sciencemag.org/content/7/302/302ra136](http://stm.sciencemag.org/content/7/302/302ra136)
[http://www.esmo.org/Conferences/Past-Conferences/European-
Ca...](http://www.esmo.org/Conferences/Past-Conferences/European-Cancer-
Congress-2015/News/First-Targeted-Treatment-for-Small-Cell-Lung-Cancer-Shows-
Promise)

While the second link is only phase 1, those are some impressive numbers.

Finally, their clinical trials page ([http://stemcentrx.com/clinical-
trials.html](http://stemcentrx.com/clinical-trials.html)) shows two Pfizer
collaborations, pretty sure Pfizer has a pretty good pulse on these things.

~~~
w1ntermute
As I stated in the sibling comment, Stemcentrx is indeed much more reasonable
than either Theranos or Nootrobox. However, a $5B valuation is still absurdly
optimistic when you consider the comps. There have been massive setbacks at
Verastem even after getting to phase 2[0], and Verastem's science originated
from a top MIT research lab.

0: [https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2015/09/28/verastem-
sha...](https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2015/09/28/verastem-shares-
plunge-after-company-halts-cancer-drug-
trial/trHendPQ0ewSqLm2pixltJ/story.html)

~~~
StewsNews
Agreed, that is a lot if true, the MIT article[0] gave a 3 billion number and
also mentions that the latest valuation was determined by Fidelity not some
silicon valley VC firm. This all leads me to stick with the assertion that I
would not lump the three in any way.

0: [http://www.technologyreview.com/news/541006/peter-thiel-
back...](http://www.technologyreview.com/news/541006/peter-thiel-backs-
biotech-unicorn-fighting-cancer-stem-cells/)

~~~
w1ntermute
The latest valuation is $5B, according to the WSJ[0]. The latest (series G)
round was led by Fidelity, but Founders Fund, ARTIS Ventures, and SV Bank also
participated in it[1]. Also, there's actually talk of Fidelity bringing sanity
to startup valuations[2,3], rather than pumping them up even higher.

You're right that Stemcentrx, unlike Theranos or Nootrobox, doesn't smell of
SV hucksterism. However, rather than comparing Stemcentrx to Theranos or
Nootrobox, compare them to OncoMed, Verastem, and Stemline, which have current
public valuations of $700M, $65M, and $116M, respectively. And none of them
ever exceeded $1.2B in their public valuations.

0: [http://blogs.wsj.com/venturecapital/2015/09/16/peter-
thiel-b...](http://blogs.wsj.com/venturecapital/2015/09/16/peter-thiel-backed-
stemcentrx-emerges-with-5-billion-valuation/)

1: [https://www.crunchbase.com/funding-
round/7db717567346f07e604...](https://www.crunchbase.com/funding-
round/7db717567346f07e604cb2feb8472cb0)

2: [http://fortune.com/2015/11/11/snapchat-isnt-the-only-
startup...](http://fortune.com/2015/11/11/snapchat-isnt-the-only-startup-in-
fidelitys-crosshairs/)

3: [http://fortune.com/2015/11/12/fidelity-marks-down-tech-
unico...](http://fortune.com/2015/11/12/fidelity-marks-down-tech-unicorns/)

------
drglitch
About a year and a half ago i got dragged into the hype (via family
subscription) - and actually enjoyed the games for about 3 days. after that,
the fact that they had a total of about 5 variations, with totally predictable
ordering, got really boring and i went back to 2048. You don't have to be a
neuroscientist to see how this kind of predictable repetitive activity will
make you "get better at it" every time you play...

Cancelling took a couple of emails and threat to dispute the CC charge.

Hooray for FTC!

~~~
tedmiston
I was a big fan of the restaurant server game. There was tons of variation in
customers and their orders as you progressed in levels. Enough so that I could
never really master that one. It felt like a good memory exercise though.

------
jmcgough
One of their recruiters reached out to me - in a former life I worked in a
neuroscience lab researching neurogenesis to improve memory problems from a
neurodegenerative disease (regular exercise can actually do wonders for that).

Would have been a really neat to revisit my academic passion, but as I started
to read papers that had been published on their product, I wasn't convinced of
its efficacy. That, and all of the studies used people with real problems, and
they're marketing it to the general population as a way to "train" your brain,
which feels wrong to me.

------
Laaw
I know this is an unpopular opinion, but I think F.lux is equally as guilty of
this. None of their cited studies are done with light from an LCD screen
(which is prone to white light bleeding), or using their app.

~~~
nommm-nommm
Is flux trying to sell you something? I thought their software was free.

~~~
Laaw
What does cost have to do with anything? We're talking about its ability to do
what it claims.

------
coffeevradar
I have less faith in public radio because my local station is always playing
Lumosity adverts. I'm old enough to remember when the whole "sponsored by"
thing being extended to full ads was a controversial development on US public
radio. Now they're shilling outright scams and doing so with specific promises
that are completely specious.

~~~
jordanlev
When I was a kid, I remember a talk radio show my family listened to that was
one of those consumer watchdog / product review shows. One of the
advertisements that you head a lot back then was for purchasing a star (like,
getting your name registered somewhere and when a new star was discovered by
astronomers it would be named after you?)... It was obviously a scam and all
you'd get is a bogus certificate in the mail.

Anyway, one day someone called into the show and asked about this product that
they advertised, and the host stammered a bit and basically said "well, yeah
that's not true but it's all just for fun, a fun gift for people maybe". Was
funny to hear him trying to justify this obvious scam because they happened to
advertise with the station, even though the entire premise of the show was
calling bullshit on other phony product claims.

~~~
freehunter
My grandmother has a "star named after her". She knows it's fake but she says
she appreciates the thought behind it. Like wearing costume jewelry, you know
that green hunk of plastic the size of a walnut isn't a real emerald but that
doesn't stop people from wearing them.

~~~
estefan
I'll name a grain of sand after her too if you ping me a $100... :-D

~~~
freehunter
See, you gotta do it right. Make it romantic. Stars are romantic. It has to be
on a huge scale, too, so it sounds impressive. And then you need something
tangible, so there has to be a piece of paper, preferably showing how they
could see the thing named after them. Stars are easiest, but you could do
custom constellations named after them. Shouldn't be too hard to hack up a
python script that draws pictures over a star map and prints out certificates
of the brand new constellation.

I'd buy that for my grandma. She'd like that.

------
tedmiston
My perspective on Lumosity and its "science" is different because I was a
paying customer.

I found Lumosity in 2009-2010 and played occasionally, eventually converting
to a paid membership in 2012-2013 and playing weekly on desktop and iOS.

I was even quite proud to make it to the 98th percentile of all players [1].
(For reference, that's statistically consistent with my score on a
standardized IQ test.)

Eventually _something felt off_ about the scoring. At one point I distinctly
recall them catching flack for changing the algorithm to boost you higher for
_playing more_ without necessarily _playing better_.

What I found anecdotally was that playing their games while I was in a
distracted state would help me regain focus to the point where I could work on
a cognitively challenging task, like a programming project, math problems,
etc. afterward that I wouldn't have been able to before playing. I don't claim
(or know) whether any longterm difference was made, but I also didn't join for
that reason and never really cared about that. Lumosity games gave me a brain
reset not dissimilar to a short meditation.

I don't know the science behind this idea, and perhaps it's purely placebo
effect, but personally Lumosity was helpful to my life. That was my
experience.

1:
[https://twitter.com/kicksopenminds/status/426760502128041984](https://twitter.com/kicksopenminds/status/426760502128041984)

------
pbnjay
Every time I heard these ads I cringed. As a scientist (with plenty of
experience in the neuroscience domain) I knew there was no way they could back
up those claims reliably.

I definitely noticed when they toned down the claims, but even then I was
surprised they were still going...

+1 FTC

------
cordite
NPR plays ads on the radio about Lumosity and brain training, nearly every day
for the last year here.

It seemed ED to be more of a "We will give you a chance to raise an arbitrary
number over time if you pay us" and heavy marketing ploy.

Seems like if cow clicker got viral and took peoples money.

~~~
sevensor
They play those ads on NPR here too. They always make me think about what my
dad (a psychologist) told me about IQ tests: all IQ actually measures is how
well you do on IQ tests. It's entirely possible to study for the test and
improve your IQ. Of course, doing this doesn't make you any better at anything
useful, but it might make you eligible for Mensa. (My dad is very skeptical
when it comes to psychometrics.)

~~~
Nutmog
That's a valid criticism if the test taker is trying to cheat, but if its
yourself trying to find out your own IQ and you didn't train for it, it's
still a useful predictor of academic success.

~~~
sevensor
Absolutely, there's some correlation if the test-taker isn't tainted. But I
bring it up here because Lumosity basically tells its customers they're
getting smarter because they're getting better at its "brain-training" games,
when it's pretty clear that the only thing they're likely to get better at is
the games.

------
Briel
>The order also imposes a $50 million judgment against Lumos Labs, which will
be suspended due to its financial condition after the company pays $2 million
to the Commission.

So does that mean after paying this fine, Lumosity is in financial trouble?

~~~
revelation
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).

~~~
jonlucc
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.

~~~
jeffwass
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).

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
Popular in the EU:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-
fine)

I don't think the UK does it much, except in the sense that if you lose a case
you're liable for costs, and for a driving offence judges are more likely to
apply a statutory criminal fine.

Smaller offences have an upper fine limit, and that won't be raised based on
income. But it's always bigger than the token Fixed Penalty Notice fine you
get from the police. Serious offences have unlimited fines, so judges can get
more creative with financial penalties.

------
mrzool
Looks like they toned down their website quite a lot:

[http://www.lumosity.com/](http://www.lumosity.com/)

Confront that with the transcript in the original FTC complaint (from page 7):

[https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/160105lumos...](https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/160105lumoslabscmpt.pdf)

------
jrbedard
Marketplace has done an interesting investigation on those types of mind
games. [http://www.cbc.ca/marketplace/episodes/2014-2015/brain-
train...](http://www.cbc.ca/marketplace/episodes/2014-2015/brain-training-
mind-games)

------
mapt
Ugh. Could have been higher.

My local entertainment mediums were spammed with this ad:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGjr_CJ2n98](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGjr_CJ2n98)

for a solid year or two. The vapid, cultish, yet manic grin. The "Now, with
Neuroscience(tm)!". The recursive caricature of a borderline mentally retarded
person who now feels that everything is right in the world because she's paid
tithe to the Intelligence Authorities. The notion that the commercial is not
only defrauding, but actively mocking anyone too uneducated or uncritical or
low-self-confidence, to doubt their claims. The several percent of her life
it's implied she's supposed to spend engaging in ritual flagellation with
repetitive, poorly designed games, in order to diminish the shaming at not
'working on my mind'.

It is the singular most offensive scumbag commercial advertisement that comes
to mind. It brings on vivid fantasies of punching the smug grin off of this
woman, even though I know intellectually she's just a professional actress,
and I'm a pacifist.

------
georgemcbay
I have something of a litmus test for companies where I just assume any
company that advertises a lot via "live reads" on radio/podcasts is not to be
trusted. Lumosity, LifeLock, etc.

There are outliers for which I wouldn't quite say "not to be trusted" like
Dollar Shave Club and Blue Apron, but even in those cases you are, IMO,
overpaying for a vanishingly small amount of convenience.

I think it holds up pretty well though that putting a lot of effort into
advertising via "live reads" on radio and podcasts is a negative indicator as
to how much you can trust a company.

~~~
cableshaft
So I take it you don't aren't munching on your Naturebox and mailing the
government (using your Stamps.com scale) your application to start a business
(that you created on LegalZoom) making websites via Squarespace, all while
listening to an audiobook you got from Audible, before dozing off on your
Casper mattress wearing nothing but your "Me Undies"?

...I listen to too many podcasts.

~~~
ipsin
Ugh. I know it's just an example, but stamps.com is one of those "borderline
legal frauds", a step away from phone slamming. Opt-in renewal, online signup
and "you have to call us to unsubscribe".

Now I think of stamps.com as the literal devil -- it might be possible to get
a good deal, but you really better know what you've agreed to.

[http://darkpatterns.org/stamps-com-
october-2013/](http://darkpatterns.org/stamps-com-october-2013/)

------
hyperion2010
I wrote my prelims on these kinds of 'training' paradigms and there is zero
credible experimental evidence that ANY of them actually generalize to things
like fluid intelligence or g. For an excellent overview on the real state of
the science see here [0].

0\. [http://longevity3.stanford.edu/blog/2014/10/15/the-
consensus...](http://longevity3.stanford.edu/blog/2014/10/15/the-consensus-on-
the-brain-training-industry-from-the-scientific-community-2/)

------
paulpauper
even though I'm a 'free market' guy, nice to see action being taken against
pseudoscience.

[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brain-training-
doe...](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brain-training-doesn-t-make-
you-smarter/?WT.mc_id=SA_Twitter)

[http://greyenlightenment.com/brain-training-doesnt-make-
you-...](http://greyenlightenment.com/brain-training-doesnt-make-you-smarter/)

'Brain training' no better than 'penis enhancement'...just as dubious

------
balls187
Rose-Hulman (my alma mater), should probably revise this:

[http://www.rose-hulman.edu/news/academics/2012/rose-
hulman-n...](http://www.rose-hulman.edu/news/academics/2012/rose-hulman-
no-9-on-americas-smartest-colleges-list,-cited-for-students-having-best-
memory.aspx)

------
rdl
Building a business on lies and then paying a $2mm fine when caught (without
even 100% probability) seems to be an economically rational strategy.
Unfortunately.

------
marcuniq
Improvement of fluid intelligence by training with dual-n-back was studied in
Jaeggi et al.[0], but could not be successfully replicated [1]. More in the
following article: [http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brain-training-
doe...](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brain-training-doesn-t-make-
you-smarter/)

[0]:
[http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/04/25/0801268105.full...](http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/04/25/0801268105.full.pdf)

[1]:
[http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....](http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0063614)

------
ElginScott
Unfortunately, it’s a lot easier to sell games than neuroscience. Take an
assessment, play games based on that assessment, and take the assessment again
--- garbage in, garbage out. The value is in identifying congitive deficits so
that proper strategies may be put in place that can be practiced in a variety
of contexts such that they are actually transferable to everyday life. There's
not a heck of a lot of science in the Lumosity baseline either, since all
their data comes from an uncontrolled environment on the web. But there are a
number of valid, peer reviewed online neurocognitve batteries available
without having to go to a psychologist for a few grand.

NIH Toolbox (for researchers)
[http://www.nihtoolbox.org/Pages/default.aspx](http://www.nihtoolbox.org/Pages/default.aspx)

Mindprint Learning (which has the Penn CNB for children)
[https://mindprintlearning.com/](https://mindprintlearning.com/)

Brain Resource (which has the Web Neuro for adults)
[http://www.brainresource.com/mybrainsolutions/personal](http://www.brainresource.com/mybrainsolutions/personal)

------
kevinalexbrown
One intuitive way to categorize products is according to the observability of
the value. In one class, it's readily apparent: the storage is cheaper, it
doesn't fail very often, there's little downtime, my payments always go
through, the user experience just feels better, all my friends use it. This
doesn't have to be objective, just 'noticeable'.

On the other hand, it's hard to judge the value of an encryption app, or a
brain training program, because the true value is often hidden. It's difficult
to tell, at least for the average consumer whether an encryption app works.
There might be signs for the more immediately knowledgeable ('why won't the
passwords take special characters, or passwords longer than 12 characters?'),
but it's usually a small group.

Unfortunately, this is probably going to make it harder for the latter kind of
company to grow quickly, because trust takes time to develop. I don't just
need to trust that my data will be safe - the entire value of the product
depends on my trust that it does what it says.

I have no idea if lumosity does what it claimed, but I doubt I could easily
tell in a day or two. Contrast that with instagram or a better computer - the
value (however large or small) is obvious.

------
ericdykstra
On the topic of games and their actual potential impact on cognition and other
aspects of life, Jane McGonigal is doing a lot of interesting research, and I
highly recommend reading or listening to some of her material if you're
interested in the subject. A good starting point is her interview with Tim
Ferriss ([http://fourhourworkweek.com/2015/07/28/jane-
mcgonigal/](http://fourhourworkweek.com/2015/07/28/jane-mcgonigal/)), and from
there check out her books if you're interested in going deeper.

I believe it's in that interview that she says that these kinds of "brain
training" games are less effective than just normal games built for fun at
developing any kind of cognitive ability. I tried Lumosity out for a trial
period to see what it was about, but the games were overly simplistic and not
well-designed from a fun standpoint. I also felt like I was hitting 90% of
their specific "categories" of games with a single game like Starcraft 2,
except a game like Starcraft 2 actually forces you to engage the thinking part
of your brain if you want to perform at any decent level.

------
beilabs
Just going to plug a product I was working on for a while.

Active Memory (From ABC), was working really closely with a team of
neuroscientists out of Australia. Lots of their data goes directly into
research programs. Here's the blurb from their site:

"Active Memory has been developed in partnership with the University of
Melbourne and the Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health. The
program is built on a breakthrough statistical model that examines your game
results and serves up a customised training schedule that challenges your
brain at just the right level of difficulty. Most importantly, the program
aims to measure the changes that are happening to your cognition, based on
your training. Critically, your participation in Active Memory will contribute
to one of the largest studies of its kind into brain training and its
potential health benefits."

Was a really great team to work with. Had a very different angle from
Luminosity and was held to very strict advertising controls through being a
part of ABCs commercial arm.

[https://www.activememory.com](https://www.activememory.com)

~~~
api_or_ipa
The ABC is the Australian Broadcasting Corp, in the same category as the BBC
and the CBC

------
golergka
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 vibe really feels like it's a
university faculty and not a start-up. Damn, we even have fully equipped
ophthalmologist office and get free eye exams when it's not used to measure
our beta-testers.

I always assumed that brain training apps are just like that. What "did not
have the science" really mean in this case? Did they find some errors in peer-
reviewed papers these companies have published? Or they just faked it all?

~~~
fhars
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](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15825744)

~~~
golergka
As I said, I certainly don't know enough to argue about it in scientific
terms, so unfortunately, I have to resort to trust to authority. So, for
comparison with this single paper from 2005, here are recent papers of our
lead researcher (who has a cute habit of going around the office in the
evening and collecting the forgotten tea cups into the washing machine) on the
matter:
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Polat+U%5BAuthor%5D](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Polat+U%5BAuthor%5D)

------
tmtinvestor
None of this has been around long enough to generate good longitudinal data
either way, imo. That said, taking a cognitive assessment across a couple
domains, playing a series of games based on those very same cognitive tasks,
and then retaking the same cognitive assessment seems pretty suspect. I would
think results would be biased, similar to retest effects. At the end of the
day, improvement is either transferred to a variety of other contexts beyond
gaming or not. I would think that the true test. There would be some value in
a diagnostic, something that would identify deficits, and I think Lumosity
offers such a thing but I don't believe it has been rigorously validated.

------
sprague
Is the FDA intervention good or bad?

At first glance, it seems like the answer is yes because the FDA action
signals that outrageous, unprovable claims do not give offer a competitive
advantage. But by making FDA “experts” the sole arbiter of truth, ideas
outside the mainstream are harder to pursue. Some people probably really did
benefit from the Luminosity, but now it’s much harder to figure out why. Note
that the FDA also makes it harder on people like Consumer Reports, Cochrane
Reviews, etc. who get fewer donations and customers because much of what they
could be doing competes with the FDA’s government-subsidized service.

------
interesting_att
The worst part of this is that Lumosity probably did a cost-beenfit analysis
years back, realizing they would make more money via these deceptive ads than
the expected FTC fine.

For those who don't know- Lumosity is killing it. They can easily pay this
fine with their enormous profits.

------
ivanca
So, televangelist can claim that you need to send a "seed" (money) to get good
fortune and get away with it making millions from the most gullible people
around, but a brain-training app is penalized for deceptive ads?

Shit doesn't add up.

------
wnevets
The brain training craze all started with the nintendo's brain age game for
the ds.

------
wodenokoto
While the research underpinning the product has always been weak in it
findings, I find their goal post very low.

If we assume that brain games work, why aren't we comparing this to sudoku,
Tetris, trivial pursuit or memory? Or simply reading a book, doing homework?

It's not like real life is low on intellectual challenges and if brain
training is really transferable, shouldn't solving math problems be
transferable too?

------
nostromo
Where does that money go?

I really hope the FTC doesn't get it. It's a conflict of interest that
permeates local law enforcement all across America.

~~~
iamchmod
FTC puts proceeds of settlement into a "consumer restitution" or "consumer
redress" fund. Consumers who were affected by the bad actors, can claim their
money back via a separate company which administers that fund. After a period
of time, once all affected customers have had time to claim their restitution
(usually 12-24 months), then any remaining money left in the "redress" or
"restitution" fund goes into the FTCs coffers. I can't quickly find stats on
what percentage is usually claimed by consumers. But last time I researched
this, it was pretty low with something like <10% of affected consumers
actually claiming their restitution and 90% going back into FTC budget.

------
mkhalil
Dual n-back, coffee, LSD. All things people swear make you smarter.

Coffee has proven to make brain work better. But it's only temporary.

LSD...well, I've never tried it, but people swear by it. Not sure if
scientists would be allowed to try it on test cases.

~~~
rfrank
anyone who says lsd makes you smarter is already stupid.

~~~
bjshepard
To understand the experience of LSD, I recommend "The New Alchemy" by Alan
Watts.

[http://www.psychedelic-library.org/alchemy.htm](http://www.psychedelic-
library.org/alchemy.htm)

~~~
rfrank
I've done it several times (as well as basically all popular hallucinogens). I
know all about the drug, its impacts on the brain, what it's actually like
being on it, etc. I've also lived around many drippy hippie types in Santa
Cruz, and the new wave of "microdosing is the key to creative coding" types,
and their insights are equally bullshit to me.

~~~
bjshepard
Ok, but I don't know if anything you just said entails the claim that "Anyone
who says LSD makes you smarter is stupid" \-- I may be stupid, but I don't
think the argument that (a) LSD offers a temporary alternate form of
consciousness that (b) can lead to valuable insights and discoveries which (c)
improve your overall cognition is a bad one.

~~~
rfrank
Cocaine leads to a temporary alternate form of consciousness that may or may
not lead to valuable insights too. So does ecstacy, or ketamine, or modafinil,
or coffee, or weed, or the 2c-X family, or whatever RC you want to take, or
yoga, or meditation. A temporary change in perception is not an increase in
intelligence.

------
plg
Where is the scientist? The grad school dropout with one peer reviewed
publication?

[http://www.lumosity.com/about/our_team](http://www.lumosity.com/about/our_team)

------
circa
I did not read the article yet but what immediately comes to mind are those
"try this one weird trick" ads

~~~
mbcrower
I used a weird trick to pay off my mortgage

------
grillvogel
I always wondered how the "brain improvements" from this thing compared to
just playing a video game

------
sidcool
I was subscribed to Lumosity for 2 years.

~~~
quadrangle
Did you use it?

~~~
sidcool
Quite a lot. Religiously followed the schedule. Felt good for doing it. Can't
say it helped or not.

------
atomical
How does Cogmed compare to Lumosity?

------
gobengo
Only 2M...?

------
Kinnard
Did the USDA ever get fined for the Food Pyramid being completely wrong and
then being thrown out[1]? Justice, justice?

[1]
[http://www.pjstar.com/article/20151230/OPINION/151239951](http://www.pjstar.com/article/20151230/OPINION/151239951)

