Notes, Comments, and Commentaries --------------------------------- <br>**Blog posts, discussions, and comments on our paper** - Dan's blog post about the article: [link][1] - Story by Ed Yong at Discover: [link][2] - Popular Science story about the paper: [link][3] - Blog post by Micah Allen: [link][4] - Blog post by Dan Willingham: [link][5] - Dan Willingham's blog post re-posted in the Washington Post: [link][6] - Extended discussion on Google+ between Dan Simons and Fred Hasselman: [link][7] - Blog post by Neurobonkers: [link][8] <br>**Notes and corrections** - In our paper, we cited Sims & Mayer (2002) as part of a list of citations of studies claiming that Tetris training can improve spatial skills. Although they found that frequent Tetris players show superior mental rotation of Tetris shapes, the training study in their paper showed no transfer of training from Tetris to other spatial skills. The improved performance in the Tetris group did not differ from the improvement resulting from retaking the spatial task, and the authors explicitly stated that "Tetris playing experience does not transfer easily to other measures of spatial ability" (p. 112). Thanks to Valerie Sims for alerting us to this error. [1]: http://blog.dansimons.com/2013/07/pop-quiz-what-can-we-learn-from.html [2]: http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/07/09/nice-results-but-what-did-you-expect/ [3]: http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-07/major-flaw-brain-training-studies [4]: http://neuroconscience.com/2013/07/11/when-is-expectation-not-a-confound-on-the-necessity-of-active-controls/ [5]: http://www.danielwillingham.com/1/post/2013/07/out-of-control-fundamental-flaw-in-claims-about-brain-training.html [6]: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/07/17/a-point-no-one-has-apparently-made-before/ [7]: https://plus.google.com/111151617051497281621/posts/W3tCP9iQHKt [8]: http://bigthink.com/neurobonkers/placebo-effects-psychologys-fundamental-flaw-why-active-controls-are-not-enough