<p>I doubt there is much about this specific situation, but see <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_training" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_training</a> for a broader discussion:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Scientific investigation into the effectiveness of brain training activities have concluded that they have no impact on intelligence or everyday cognitive ability, and that most programs had no peer reviewed published evidence of their efficacy.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This is not well-referenced on Wikipedia, but I think there is a very clear lesson: if someone wants to make a claim that something they offer is useful, <strong>they need to provide evidence</strong>. No one else needs to bother to show it <em>doesn't</em> work, and if the person trying to sell you on something doesn't bother to actually study the thing they're claiming, then <em>they don't have any idea whether it works, either</em>.</p>
<p>It's important that any evidence provided actually tests the claim being made. Generally speaking, you can &quot;train&quot; your brain doing any task, and more time spent on a task will tend to make you better at that task. So, if you design a visual task that requires both hemispheres to be involved, and requires some communication between them, you can probably design an experiment to measure that activity and that communication. Does that mean &quot;communication between hemispheres improved?&quot; Not necessarily, it just means you've found a task where both hemispheres are involved. If you train your brain to cross your eyes, will it get easier to cross your eyes? Probably. Will it help you solve math problems? Probably not. If someone says &quot;increasing the &quot;processing power&quot; of your conscious activity&quot; you should be thinking &quot;How do they define 'processing power'? What practical use have they connected this to? What actual benefit has been demonstrated?&quot; The phrase is meaningless without definition.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-12-11T21:36:35.920Z
I agree, but unfortunately this is a niche exercise without a name, so I can't even find anyone talking about it except for the stated website and some old message boards.
Philips Screwdriver
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-12-11T22:37:20.150Z
@PhilipsScrewdriver Again, it's the job of the person trying to sell you on it that it's worthwhile. If they haven't bothered to take the time and it's *their thing*, why should anyone else?
Bryan Krause
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-12-11T19:48:46.697Z
2022-12-11T19:48:46.697Z
Bryan Krause
<blockquote>
<p>This exercise aims to stimulate and practice the communication between both hemispheres of the brain, thereby increasing the &quot;processing power&quot; of your conscious activity.</p>
<p><a href="https://thiaoouba.com/concentration-exercise/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://thiaoouba.com/concentration-exercise/</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>The task is to look at the two circles cross-eyed so they overlap in the middle, and to concentrate on that image.</p>
<p><img src="https://thiaoouba.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/cross.gif" alt="gif" /></p>
<p>If you try it, you'll see that the middle circle is unstable, with one of the two circles overlapping the other, but the goal is to see both of them at once. Since the right visual field goes to the left brain and vice versa, being able to combine the two conflicting images into one circle with a cross should improve the communication between the two brain hemispheres.</p>
<p>Is there any validity to this?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-12-11T19:39:54.463Z
Looks like the one statement in your link that's connected to any sort of supporting evidence links to a "file not found" page, so... What do you think?
Bryan Krause
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-12-11T20:57:30.400Z
Also see: [Is "brain training" effective?](https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/4175/7001)
Arnon Weinberg
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-12-11T21:32:30.167Z
@BryanKrause I believe the link is supposed to lead to https://thiaoouba.com/conscious-aura-control/, which describes the intensity of a measurement akin to Kirlian photography increasing while doing his exercise. No external sources though.
Philips Screwdriver
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-12-11T22:36:27.683Z
@PhilipsScrewdriver Looks like a bunch of snake oil to me. You could ask about aspects on Skeptics.SE maybe, certainly doesn't seem intriguing enough to me to bother with.
Bryan Krause
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-12-11T23:04:31.323Z
@BryanKrause I can already guess what 'skeptics' have to say about it. Thank you for answering 
Philips Screwdriver
<neuroscience><concentration>
Can this concentration exercise improve cooperation between the left and right hemisphere?
Philips Screwdriver
# Can this concentration exercise improve cooperation between the left and right hemisphere?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2022-12-11)

> This exercise aims to stimulate and practice the communication between both hemispheres of the brain, thereby increasing the "processing power" of your conscious activity.
>
> <https://thiaoouba.com/concentration-exercise/>

The task is to look at the two circles cross-eyed so they overlap in the middle, and to concentrate on that image.

![gif](https://thiaoouba.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/cross.gif)

If you try it, you'll see that the middle circle is unstable, with one of the two circles overlapping the other, but the goal is to see both of them at once. Since the right visual field goes to the left brain and vice versa, being able to combine the two conflicting images into one circle with a cross should improve the communication between the two brain hemispheres.

Is there any validity to this?

**Tags:** neuroscience, concentration

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Looks like the one statement in your link that's connected to any sort of supporting evidence links to a "file not found" page, so... What do you think?  
> **username_2**: Also see: [Is "brain training" effective?](https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/4175/7001)  
> **username_0**: @BryanKrause I believe the link is supposed to lead to https://thiaoouba.com/conscious-aura-control/, which describes the intensity of a measurement akin to Kirlian photography increasing while doing his exercise. No external sources though.  
> **username_1**: @PhilipsScrewdriver Looks like a bunch of snake oil to me. You could ask about aspects on Skeptics.SE maybe, certainly doesn't seem intriguing enough to me to bother with.  
> **username_0**: @BryanKrause I can already guess what 'skeptics' have to say about it. Thank you for answering   

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2022-12-11. Score: 3 | Accepted answer

I doubt there is much about this specific situation, but see <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_training> for a broader discussion:

> Scientific investigation into the effectiveness of brain training activities have concluded that they have no impact on intelligence or everyday cognitive ability, and that most programs had no peer reviewed published evidence of their efficacy.

This is not well-referenced on Wikipedia, but I think there is a very clear lesson: if someone wants to make a claim that something they offer is useful, **they need to provide evidence**. No one else needs to bother to show it *doesn't* work, and if the person trying to sell you on something doesn't bother to actually study the thing they're claiming, then *they don't have any idea whether it works, either*.

It's important that any evidence provided actually tests the claim being made. Generally speaking, you can "train" your brain doing any task, and more time spent on a task will tend to make you better at that task. So, if you design a visual task that requires both hemispheres to be involved, and requires some communication between them, you can probably design an experiment to measure that activity and that communication. Does that mean "communication between hemispheres improved?" Not necessarily, it just means you've found a task where both hemispheres are involved. If you train your brain to cross your eyes, will it get easier to cross your eyes? Probably. Will it help you solve math problems? Probably not. If someone says "increasing the "processing power" of your conscious activity" you should be thinking "How do they define 'processing power'? What practical use have they connected this to? What actual benefit has been demonstrated?" The phrase is meaningless without definition.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: I agree, but unfortunately this is a niche exercise without a name, so I can't even find anyone talking about it except for the stated website and some old message boards.  
> **username_1**: @PhilipsScrewdriver Again, it's the job of the person trying to sell you on it that it's worthwhile. If they haven't bothered to take the time and it's *their thing*, why should anyone else?  

---

