The first sentence in your dual-n-back article is:
I meta-analyze the >19 studies which measure IQ after an n-back intervention, confirming that there is a net gain of medium effect size.
If you believe that there’s a net gain of medium effect size then why do you think we should throw dual n-back under the bus?
You should probably have read part of the second sentence: “active vs passive control groups criticism: found, and it accounts for most of the net effect size”.
The first sentence in your dual-n-back article is:
If you believe that there’s a net gain of medium effect size then why do you think we should throw dual n-back under the bus?
You should probably have read part of the second sentence: “active vs passive control groups criticism: found, and it accounts for most of the net effect size”.