Skip to main content

Brain training improves your ability...

Brain training improves your ability... to do brain training.

There has been a huge market for software that aims to claims to improve our cognitive ability by 'training' the brain to be more effective. Apparently Dr Something-or-other's Brain Trainy Thing (I may not have got the title quite right) is the most popular game on the Nintendo DS in the UK.

I have always found something slightly sinister about this kind of software. First there's the pseudo-medical/scientific implication of it being Dr Something-or-other's. The only products I'm used to being labelled Doctor Something's are quack medicine, sandals and bovver boots. Then there's the idea that by doing some basic maths and a few puzzles you can somehow train your brain. To be fair, going on the research recently carried out, it does train your brain - but only to do this particular application. It makes you better at playing this game. The 'training' isn't transferable to other cognitive activities.

This is one of the things that has always worried me about Susan Greenfield over and above the mess of the Royal Institution - she endorses quite an expensive computer brain training product called MindFit, but I have not seen any good evidence for it working, only unconvincing reports that weren't published in reputable journals.

I'm not saying you can't improve the effectiveness of your brain. Practising most things will get you better at that particular thing - this is totally proven. Being in good physical condition, with enough sleep, will help brain function (as anyone who has tried to work with a hangover can testify.) Also, you can use techniques, for instance, to help you generate new ideas more effectively - these don't boost cognitive ability, they just give you new starting points and routes to ideas. But I am always highly dubious of any claims that using some computer program will enhance your general ability to think. It's the brain equivalent of a crash diet - a supposed short cut to something that really needs a much broader, longhaul approach.
Labels:

Comments

  1. Debi22 April 2010 at 11:43

    Did you see this myth debunked on BBC last night? Participants were so disappointed to hear the training had made no appreciable difference to their brain power whatsoever.

    The main thing that makes a genuine difference is exercise ... so I'm just going to have to settle for being stoopid.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Martin Walker3 May 2010 at 12:18

    The premise of Brain Test Britain was quite flawed and ignored prior studies that have shown general benefits from brain training. (Most significantly Jaeggi / Buschkuehl - PNAS 2008 - Working Memory Training Improves Fluid Intelligence.) The team that produced the study have done a disservice to the 11,000 participants and to the millions who will read the reports and dismiss brain training as rot.

    The participants trained for just 10 minutes three times per week. And the training exercises weren't diffuse and not particularly intensive. The Jaeggi / Buschkuehl showed that intensive training on a demanding working memory task for 30 minutes per day five days per week improved intelligence. Why did Dr. Owen ignore the work of his peers when he designed his study?

    I'd invite anyone to try a proven brain training program and witness for themselves the cognitive benefits.

    Martin Walker
    Mind Sparke
    Brain Training Software

    ReplyDelete
  3. Brian Clegg3 May 2010 at 13:15

    Martin, that commment is perilously close to advertising, but I'll leave it in as the reference is interesting. I would have been more impressed if you'd linked to the paper here http://www.pnas.org/content/105/19/6791.full than your company.

    However I ought to stress that this paper in no way proves that a particular product, like Martin's or the one endorsed by Baroness Greenfield (or Dr Thingy's Whatsit) have any benefit.

    Note also the conclusion: 'There will be a need for follow-up on these interesting results because of several limitations of Jaeggi et al.'s study (10), none of them calling into question the obtained results. Eight are of some concern. '

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp
117 comments
Read more

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor
25 comments
Read more

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense
6 comments
Read more