Good read: A Consensus on the Brain Training Industry from the Scientific Community (bluntly put: it doesn’t work)

This is big. An open letter signed by 73 psychologists, cognitive scientists and neuroscientists from around the world stating that companies marketing “brain games” that are meant to slow or reverse age-related memory decline and enhance other cognitive functions are exploiting customers by making “exaggerated and misleading claims” that are not based on sound scientific evidence. I found the letter here via The Guardian.

In the letter it’s summarized as follows:

We object to the claim that brain games offer consumers a scientifically grounded avenue to reduce or reverse cognitive decline when there is no compelling scientific evidence to date that they do. The promise of a magic bullet detracts from the best evidence to date, which is that cognitive health in old age reflects the long-term effects of healthy, engaged lifestyles. In the judgment of the signatories, exaggerated and misleading claims exploit the anxiety of older adults about impending cognitive decline. We encourage continued careful research and validation in this field.

In the letter the scientists also give 5 recommendations I want to share:

  • Much more research needs to be done before we understand whether and what types of challenges and engagements benefit cognitive functioning in everyday life. In the absence of clear evidence, the recommendation of the group, based largely on correlational findings, is that individuals lead physically active, intellectually challenging, and socially engaged lives, in ways that work for them. Before investing time and money on brain games, consider what economists call opportunity costs: If an hour spent doing solo software drills is an hour not spent hiking, learning Italian, making a new recipe, or playing with your grandchildren, it may not be worth it. But if it replaces time spent in a sedentary state, like watching television, the choice may make more sense for you.
  • Physical exercise is a moderately effective way to improve general health, including brain fitness. Scientists have found that regular aerobic exercise increases blood flow to the brain, and helps to support formation of new neural and vascular connections. Physical exercise has been shown to improve attention, reasoning, and components of memory. All said, one can expect small but noticeable gains in cognitive performance, or attenuation of loss, from taking up aerobic exercise training.
  • A single study, conducted by researchers with financial interests in the product, or one quote from a scientist advocating the product, is not enough to assume that a game has been rigorously examined. Findings need to be replicated at multiple sites, based on studies conducted by independent researchers who are funded by independent sources. Moreover, participants of training programs should show evidence of significant advantage over a comparison group that does not receive the treatment but is otherwise treated exactly the same as the trained group.
  • No studies have demonstrated that playing brain games cures or prevents Alzheimer’s disease or other forms of dementia.
  • Do not expect that cognitively challenging activities will work like one-shot treatments or vaccines; there is little evidence that you can do something once (or even for a concentrated period) and be inoculated against the effects of aging in an enduring way. In all likelihood, gains won’t last long after you stop the challenge.

5 thoughts on “Good read: A Consensus on the Brain Training Industry from the Scientific Community (bluntly put: it doesn’t work)

  1. […] In onderwijs (en daarbuiten) dromen we van ‘far transfer’, wat kortweg neerkomt op dat je door het ene te leren beter wordt in ook iets anders. Leren programmeren zou dan helpen voor algemeen probleemoplossend vermogen (maar wellicht niet), leren schaken zou je slimmer maken, enz. En niet te vergeten ‘far transfer’ is het uitgangspunt achter de vele braintraining spelletjes waarbij je geheugen zou verbeteren door het spelen (maar wellicht niet). […]

  2. […] In onderwijs (en daarbuiten) dromen we van ‘far transfer’, wat kortweg neerkomt op dat je door het ene te leren beter wordt in ook iets anders. Leren programmeren zou dan helpen voor algemeen probleemoplossend vermogen (maar wellicht niet), leren schaken zou je slimmer maken, enz. En niet te vergeten ‘far transfer’ is het uitgangspunt achter de vele braintraining spelletjes waarbij je geheugen zou verbeteren door het spelen (maar wellicht niet). […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.