Brain training doesn't boost brain power, work suggests

[Temujin]

Link

Brain training doesn't boost brain power, work suggests

Brain training games do not improve overall brain power, a scientific study launched by the BBC suggests.

The largest ever investigation followed 11,430 people over six weeks to see what effect, if any, playing brain training computer games would have.

While players got progressively better at the games, the gains were not transferable, Nature journal reports.

Players gained nothing in terms of general reasoning, memory, planning or visuospatial abilities, experts found.

But they say more work is needed to see if workouts for the mind can help keep the brain "fit" as it ages.

Leading game maker Nintendo said their Dr Kawashima brain training games did not claim to be scientifically proven to improve cognitive function.

In a statement it said the games require users to perform a number of "fun challenges incorporating simple arithmetic, memorization and reading".

"In this way it is like a workout for the brain and the challenges in the game can help stimulate the player's brain," it said.

Put to the test

All of the study volunteers were viewers of the BBC One science programme Bang Goes The Theory.

The games tested were designed by scientists from the Medical Research Council and the Alzheimer's Society.

To test the games, participants were asked to do brain training "workouts" for at least 10 minutes a day, three times a week for a minimum of six weeks.

All were randomly assigned to one of three brain training groups.

For a third of the volunteers, the sessions were designed to train their reasoning powers, planning and problem-solving skills.

The second group played games designed to train short-term memory, attention, mathematical abilities and visuospatial skills.

The remaining third were given web-browsing tasks that didn't target any specific cognitive skills.

Tests before and after the training showed none of the interventions boosted people's ability to do everyday thinking tasks, although they did get better at playing the individual games and the specific cognitive tasks these involved.

Dr Adrian Owen, a neuroscientist at the Medical Research Council, said: "The results are clear.

"Statistically, there are no significant differences between the improvements seen in participants who played our brain training games, and those who just went on the internet for the same length of time."

Clive Ballard of the Alzheimer's Society said: "This evidence could change the way we look at brain training games and shows staying active by taking a walk for example is a better use of our time."

Rebecca Wood of the Alzheimer's Research Trust said: "This suggests that 'brain training' does not improve people's cognitive ability.

"More research will tell us if these games have any effect on cognition as we age."

I guess I can't say I'm too surprised here. While I figured it was already assumed that these games were only meant to exercise the brain to keep it flexible, and not as a magical IQ booster, I guess there were a lot of stupid people who ran out and bought these games thinking they would somehow become smart.

[Sea Skimmer]

That’s just a shitty study that could not be considered remotely conclusive. The sample size is nice, but the time frame is far too small. 10 minutes a day three days a week for six weeks is only THREE HOURS total training. Of course that’s not going to do anything; you could easily conclude that normal exercise is totally useless off such a tiny time frame of activity as well.

[RazorOutlaw]

The amount of time for the game caught my eye too. People studying math, a brainy activity if there ever was one, don't get to be better at it if they only do practice problems ten minutes a day. I couldn't imagine a "brain game" being any more beneficial for the same reason.

As an anecdote, I've devoted about an hour three days a week (in between classes) to work on logic problems from a book I recently purchased. So far it seems to have worked for my step-wise thinking. I've noticed a lot of improvements, I just hope that transfers over to my math abilities.

[adam_grif]

Brain training definitely made me better at Sudoku, I'll give it that.

[Modax]

That’s just a shitty study that could not be considered remotely conclusive. The sample size is nice, but the time frame is far too small. 10 minutes a day three days a week for six weeks is only THREE HOURS total training. Of course that’s not going to do anything; you could easily conclude that normal exercise is totally useless off such a tiny time frame of activity as well.

Most likely they simply couldn't afford to do a longer (more conclusive) study, but unfortunately in Academia a flawed study is preferable to no study. In spite of the fact that precisely the reverse is true for the purpose of scientific progress.

[Stark]

Since the onyl 'brain training' apps I've ever used expressly state it's not going to change your intelligence, but just give you practice performing certain tasks, I'm not sure how this is important.

[Modax]

Nobody said anything about these games being magical IQ boosters, or even as a means of changing your intelligence, but that's not the point. It would be worthwhile if gains could be shown in mental arithmetic, attention span, and short term memory, which is what they were testing for. Those kinds of gains might not show up on an IQ test, because they are unlikely to affect *working* memory, problem solving, abstract reasoning, etc. They didn't find evidence for any kind of benefit, but as sea skimmer pointed out, you could say the same thing about the benefits of physical exercise over the same time span. And just because there is a disclaimer on these games doesn't mean anything; exercise equipment generally isn't sold with a guarantee that it will increase your muscle mass.

[Iosef Cross]

The amount of time for the game caught my eye too. People studying math, a brainy activity if there ever was one, don't get to be better at it if they only do practice problems ten minutes a day. I couldn't imagine a "brain game" being any more beneficial for the same reason.

As an anecdote, I've devoted about an hour three days a week (in between classes) to work on logic problems from a book I recently purchased. So far it seems to have worked for my step-wise thinking. I've noticed a lot of improvements, I just hope that transfers over to my math abilities.

Maybe because the type of logic/math skills one develops with training aren't the ones that make you perform better in some kind of tests.

By analogy, if you test the power of an engine of a car, it doesn't matter of it is Schumacher or you that is pushing the accelerator, it doesn't matter how much training the "driver" has. But on the race itself, it matters.

Brain training cannot boost you basic power, but it boosts your specific abilities.

[Iosef Cross]

I think that the amount of training that they have done is significant: 3 hours of training spread over 30 days is much more than 3 hours of training in one day. That's because the brain learns with time and when you are sleeping.

[Stark]

Nobody said anything about these games being magical IQ boosters, or even as a means of changing your intelligence, but that's not the point. It would be worthwhile if gains could be shown in mental arithmetic, attention span, and short term memory, which is what they were testing for. Those kinds of gains might not show up on an IQ test, because they are unlikely to affect *working* memory, problem solving, abstract reasoning, etc. They didn't find evidence for any kind of benefit, but as sea skimmer pointed out, you could say the same thing about the benefits of physical exercise over the same time span. And just because there is a disclaimer on these games doesn't mean anything; exercise equipment generally isn't sold with a guarantee that it will increase your muscle mass.

So it's news when a product that doesn't claim to do something doesn't do it? This just in: Coca Cola doesn't make you taller.

If the study showed that practicing pattern recognition, basic arithmetic, etc didn't improve those -skills-, it'd be meaningful. It doesn't.