Typically, when information is written by scholars, the information is transferred to the end users of the information. The end users, in this case, are the people seeking to find solutions to their research problems from the sources while the scholars are the authors of the sources. It is, therefore, prudent for scholars to take a lot of caution in their writing. They need to keep it simple and have detailed explanations with numerous examples to enable the readers or the end users of their work to have a better understanding of their work. Moreover, having a better understanding will enable the users to gain their needed evidence for their research problems. In a bid to find out how science and technology are written and presented to different audiences. The paper will focus on analyzing "Ten‐year effects of the advanced cognitive training for independent and vital elderly cognitive training trial on cognition and everyday function in older adults" by Rebok et.al.2014. A keen emphasis will be placed on how the article has been translated in the popular media as well as in academic journals.
Rebok and other authors successfully display the way information transits as a function in different. They understand that current readers are experts and focus on quality. Furthermore, they used a simple technique of analysis that can be employed in many subject areas as long as the person researching has a similar subject matter that needs to be communicated to different audiences. Moreover, the article presents a set of scientific implications that can be used for further researches. Consequently, the journal, "Brain Game–maker Lumosity Fined $2 Million for False Advertising” by Underwood primarily addresses a specific target audience; the newcomers in the brain training area. The brain game article was first published as an online material. Some of its contents were unclear starting with the title itself. Due to the contrasting content between its title and the content of the article saw the author fined two million dollars for false advertising. It is, therefore, prudent to have coherence in writing content that can be understood and effectively interpreted by different audiences.
Despite both articles being written for two different types of audiences, one was for online readers while the other was for researchers. There were similarities in their writing and presentation of information. For instance, they both focused on cognitive issues,
1.(a). Rusk says. “Basically, we think the most that they have shown is that with enough practice you get better on these games, or on similar cognitive tasks,” she says. “(Underwood, 1)
In the "Ten‐year effects of the advanced cognitive training for independent and vital elderly cognitive training trial on cognition and everyday function in older adults" article, the phrase changed to:
(b). Cognitive training has demonstrated utility for reducing cognitive declines in normal aging, but evidence of its effectiveness in delaying difficulties in daily function has been limited (Rebok et.al 20).
There is change on how the two articles have presented the same idea. They both state a how a cognitive behavior is important; however, in (1b) the authors portray a greater degree of certainty as compared to the first. By giving more explanations the author has been able to stress out his points than in (1a).
In the scientific perception of the topic in the article, "Ten‐year effects of the advanced cognitive training for independent and vital elderly cognitive training trial on cognition and everyday function in older adults the authors’ focus on scientific elements of presenting information. There was an investigation conducted with participants involved. They also stated the focus, implications, constraints, characteristics and benefits of the research.
Both articles adhered to writing ethics which involved data collection and evaluation. The authors provided a scientific representation of their writing. For instance in the first article;
2. a. “Objectively measured cognitive abilities and self-reported and performance-based measures of everyday function” and also “ Ten-year follow-up of a randomized, controlled single-blind trial with 3 intervention groups and a no-contact control group” (Rebok et.al 21).
2. b. “As evidence of their product’s value, Lumos Labs cites a recent study in the journal PLOS ONE showing that participants who trained with Lumosity for 10 weeks improved on an aggregate assessment of cognition. “Neither the action nor the settlement pertains to the rigor of our research or the quality of the products—it is a reflection of marketing language that has been discontinued,” the company said in a statement “(Underwood, 1).
These two statements clearly show that both authors to research ethics. In 1.a, the article aimed at answering the research question; finding the main effects of cognitive training, in particular, the impacts on day to day functioning and cognitive abilities of a person. Their research time frame was a period of ten years. Several scholars and academicians have analyzed his work. They have conducted controlled, single-blind trial and randomized investigations to find a supporting evidence of their findings. They have even looked into statistical data to improve the validity of their investigations. Moreover, scholars have looked into past literary articles to set the direction for current research studies and find out any existing study gaps that need to be assessed for further fulfillment. Scholars have found out that the advanced cognitive training for the essential and personalized cognitive intervention results in little declines in self-reported instrumental activities of daily living. Factors such as reasoning and speed influence a person’s cognitive abilities. It is, therefore, clear that scientific elements need to be incorporated. Scholars have discovered that advanced cognitive training for the essential and personalized cognitive intervention results in little declines in self-reported instrumental activities of daily living. Factors such as reasoning and speed influence a person’s cognitive abilities. It is, therefore, clear that scientific elements need to be incorporated.
Both articles to managed to gain the attention of their target audience. Furthermore, they also managed to meet their primary objectives of writing. For instance, in the first article the objective was;
3. a. “To determine the effects of cognitive training on cognitive abilities and everyday function over 10 years’ (Underwood, 1)
On the hand the main objective of the second article was to show compliance
3. b. “Lumos Labs, the company that produces the popular “brain-training” program Lumosity, yesterday agreed to pay a $2 million settlement to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for running deceptive advertisements” (Rebok et.al 20).
These illustrations show that they both managed to meet their objectives. The first article ‘brain game’ was mainly written for mass reading since it was published on the internet while the second article was meant for scientific investigations. What comes out predominantly from the article is how the author successfully presented the important mechanisms of marketing fraud that existed in the popularization of some games and software. These games were aimed at improving the cognitive abilities of a person. A person’s memory was also enhanced through these materials. Furthermore, the author also applied scientific elements of writing, for instance, he based some of his arguments from past scientific investigations. The author quoted the findings of the FTC study. The article has also received numerous critics to have not adhered to all writing ethics. Some scholars claimed that the author did an unethical advertisement since its production could not be supported clinically. Consequently, the games provided limited improvements for its users.
The integration between the science and technology was harmoniously integrated. It managed to merge the science and the popular mass media to produce an effective production for its users. Typically, when scientific evidence and elements of writing are transferred to the audience, in most cases there will always be improved decision making processes on issues that involve whether not to be or to be.
In conclusion, the articles "Ten‐year effects of the advanced cognitive training for independent and vital elderly cognitive training trial on cognition and everyday function in older adults" and "Brain Game–maker Lumosity Fined $2 Million for False Advertising” exhaustively shows how science communication can be enhanced to be relevant and useful to different audiences. The authors have successfully integrated science and technology to come up with a communication that is relevant and understood by both science specialists and none specialists. This was achieved by adjusting the information to suit the needs of its readers by deploying linguistic characteristics that focus on dialogic interactions that aim at creating proximity and intimacy. It is, therefore, prudent to have coherence in writing content that can be understood and effectively interpreted by different audiences.
Works cited
Rebok, George W., et al. "Ten‐year effects of the advanced cognitive training for independent and vital elderly cognitive training trial on cognition and everyday functioning in older adults." Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 62.1 (2014): 16-24.
Underwood, Emily. "Brain Game–maker Lumosity Fined $2 Million for False Advertising." Science (2016). Web.
