Brain-Training Exercises: Do They Work?

Brain-Training Exercises: Do They Work?

“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.” – Stanford Center on Longevity

They’re fun. They’re challenging. And they’re somewhat addicting.  But do they work? Do brain-training exercises – that is, sitting in front of a computer performing specific repetitive tasks – really improve cognitive function?

An active debate has emerged within the scientific community, with neuroscientists and behavioral psychologists analyzing first-generation data to assess whether brain-training exercises make a substantive difference in cognitive vigor.

This past fall the Stanford Center on Longevity, working with the Berlin Max Planck Institute for Human Development, issued a word of caution, urging consumers to be wary of exaggerated claims that brain-training exercises will significantly enhance brain function, and brain fitness.

And while the Center’s report, in this writer’s view, was quite balanced in assessing the new field, a group of 127 scientists, from 18 countries, took issue with several of the Center’s findings and crafted an Open Letter to share their concerns.  

What’s clear in all of this is that the “brain fitness” movement, in due time, may well resemble the thriving physical fitness movement.  Said Alvaro Fernandez, in a piece for the Huffington Post: “It took decades of conflicting research and confusing media coverage to finally spread the idea that daily life activities are far from sufficient to keep us physically fit . . . From those humble beginnings, health club memberships in 2014 amounted to $78+ billion dollars in annual revenues.” This same notion, many believe, will apply to brain fitness in the coming years. 

So what exactly did the Stanford Center report have to say?  And how did the 127 scientists, in their Open Letter respond? Some highlights:

Stanford Center on Longevity

·        “It would be appropriate to conclude . . . that the potential to learn new skills remains intact throughout the life span. However at this point it is not appropriate to conclude that training-induced changes go significantly beyond the learned skills, that they affect broad abilities with real-world relevance, or that they generally promote ‘brain health’.”

·        “These conclusions do not mean that the brain does not remain malleable, even in old age. Any mentally effortful new experience, such as learning a language, acquiring a motor skill, navigating in a new environment, and, yes, playing commercially available computer games, will produce changes in those neural systems that support acquisition of the new skill.”

·        “Some of the initial [research] 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.”

·        “We also need to keep in mind opportunity costs. Time spent playing the games is time not spent reading, socializing, gardening, exercising, or engaging in many other activities that may benefit cognitive and physical health of older adults. Given that the effects of playing the games tend to be task-specific, it may be advisable to train an activity that by itself comes with benefits for everyday life. Another drawback of publicizing computer games as a fix to deteriorating cognitive performance is that it diverts attention and resources from prevention efforts. The promise of a magic bullet detracts from the message that cognitive vigor in old age, to the extent that it can be influenced by the lives we live, reflects the long-term effects of a healthy and active lifestyle.”

The 127 scientists respond:

·        “. . . [A] substantial and growing body of evidence shows that certain cognitive training regimens can significantly improve cognitive function, including in ways that generalize to everyday life.”

·        “Over three decades, researchers have built a huge body of evidence that brain plasticity is a lifelong phenomenon – as you acknowledge. However, the [Stanford Center] statement fails to acknowledge that this evidence was derived from training experiments directly documenting the improvement of sensory, cognitive, motor, and functional performance.”

Leading the Open Letter movement was Dr. Michael Merzenich, a member of both the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine. Said Merzenich: “The authors of the Longevity Center statement properly concluded that a large body of work has shown there is plasticity throughout the brain and throughout life. . . . It was rather astounding, then, that this same group failed to notice that we proved that through hundreds of studies showing we can drive positive change in the brain through directed, intensive, computer-guided training. It’s silly that anyone would think that we can make cognitive training that works in labs, but not in people’s homes.”

##