Computer-based
cognitive-training software –popularly known as brain games– claim a growing
share of the marketplace. The Stanford Center on Longevity and the Berlin Max
Planck Institute for Human Development gathered many of the world’s leading
cognitive psychologists and neuroscientists to share their views about brain
games and offer a consensus report to the public. The search for effective
means of mitigating or postponing age-related cognitive declines has taught
most of us to recognize the enormous complexity of the subject matter. Like
many challenging scientific topics, this is a devil of many details. The
consensus of the group is that claims promoting brain games are frequently
exaggerated and at times misleading. Cognitive training produces statistically
significant improvement in practiced skills that sometimes extends to
improvement on other cognitive tasks administered in the lab. In some studies,
such gains endure, while other reports document dissipation over time. Any
mentally effortful new experience, such as learning a language, acquiring a
motor skill, navigating in a new environment, and playing computer games, will
produce changes in those neural systems that support acquisition of the new
skill. As we take a closer look at the evidence on brain games, one issue needs
to be kept in mind: It is not sufficient to test the hypothesis of training-induced
benefits against the assumption that training brings no performance increases
at all. Rather, we need to establish that observed benefits are not easily and
more parsimoniously explained by factors that are long known to benefit
performance, such as the acquisition of new strategies or changes in
motivation. It is well established, that improvements on a particular memory
task often result from subtle changes in strategy that reflect improvement in
managing the demands of that particular task. Such improvement is rewarding for
players (the fun factor) but does not imply a general improvement in memory. In
fact, the notion that performance on a single task cannot stand in for an
entire ability is a cornerstone of scientific psychology. Claims about brain
games often ignore this tenet. In psychology, it is good scientific practice to
combine information provided by many tasks to generate an overall index
representing a given ability. According to the American Psychological
Association, newly developed psychological tests must meet specific
psychometric standards, including reliability and validity. The same standards
should be extended into the brain game industry.
To date, there
is little evidence that playing brain games improves underlying broad cognitive
abilities, or that it enables one to better navigate a complex realm of
everyday life. Some intriguing isolated reports do inspire additional research,
however. For instance, some studies suggest that both non-computerized
reasoning and computerized speed-of-processing training are associated with
improved driving in older adults and a reduction in the number of accidents.
Another study revealed, for a sample of younger adults, that 100 days of
practicing 12 different computerized cognitive tasks resulted in small general
improvements in the cognitive abilities of reasoning and episodic memory, some
of which were maintained over a period of two years. In other studies, older
adults have reported that they felt better about everyday functioning after
cognitive training, but no objective measures supported that impression.
Additional systematic research is needed to replicate, clarify, consolidate,
and expand such results. In a balanced evaluation of brain games, we also need
to keep in mind opportunity costs. Research on aging has shown that the human
mind is malleable throughout life span. In developed countries around the
world, later-born cohorts live longer and reach old age with higher levels of
cognitive functioning than those who were born in earlier times. When
researchers follow people across their adult lives, they find that those who
live cognitively active, socially connected lives and maintain healthy
lifestyles are less likely to suffer debilitating illness and early cognitive
decline in their golden years than their sedentary, cognitively and socially
disengaged counterparts. The goal of research on the effectiveness of
computer-based cognitive exercise is to provide experimental evidence to
support or qualify these observations. Some of the initial results are
promising and make further research highly desirable. However, at present,
these findings do not provide a sound basis for the claims made by commercial
companies selling brain games. Many scientists cringe at exuberant advertisements
claiming improvements in the speed and efficiency of cognitive processing and
dramatic gains in intelligence, in particular when these appear in otherwise
trusted news sources. In the judgment of the signatories below, exaggerated and
misleading claims exploit the anxiety of adults facing old age for commercial
purposes. Perhaps the most pernicious claim, devoid of any scientifically
credible evidence, is that brain games prevent or reverse Alzheimer’s disease.
More
information: