Keeping their brains young
Brain-training software may be a waste of time. People who played 鈥渕ind-boosting鈥� games made the same modest cognitive gains as those who spent a similar amount of time surfing the web.
鈥淚t didn鈥檛 really make any difference what people did,鈥� says of the MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit in Cambridge, UK, who tested brain-training software on volunteers recruited through a BBC television programme.
Advertisement
Over the past five years, there has been an explosion in the market for brain-training software, which supposedly keeps the brain youthful. The BBC approached Owen with the idea of testing such software after he wrote a review of the scientific literature on it.
Only a handful of studies existed on the topic, many lacking good controls or enough volunteers, he says. 鈥淭he scientific evidence for it was extremely weak.鈥�
Trivial search
Owen and his colleagues asked 11,000 volunteers to take tests to gauge their reasoning ability and verbal and spatial memory. Participants then spent six weeks playing on one of two computer programs, or just surfing the web for trivia.
In one program, which mimics commercial brain-training software, the volunteers solved simple mathematics problems and puzzles that tested their memories. The other was designed specifically to boost cognitive abilities such as reasoning and planning.
After six weeks, the participants underwent a second round of cognitive tests. Both groups who played the games made modest improvements, yet so did the web surfers.
Hidden stars
Skills learned via the programs didn鈥檛 transfer to the cognitive tests, even when they relied on similar abilities, says Owen. For instance, people who played a game in which they had to find a match for a briefly overturned card struggled at a similar test that used stars 鈥渉idden鈥� in boxes.
鈥淓ven when the tests were conceptually quite similar we didn鈥檛 see any improvement,鈥� says Owen. He concludes that brain-training software only makes people better at the specific tasks they have been practising.
, a psychologist at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, agrees 鈥� to a point. 鈥淎 lot of what is currently marketed as 鈥榖rain-training鈥� is not created based on scientific evidence and not properly tested,鈥� he says.
Noisy data
Yet Klingberg, who founded a cognitive-training firm called , bristles at the conclusion that all brain training is bunk. The participants in Owen鈥檚 study didn鈥檛 practise for long enough and there was no quality control over what practise people did, he says.
鈥淎sking subjects to sit at home and do tests online, perhaps with the TV on or other distractions around, is likely to result in noisy data,鈥� he says. 鈥淭his paper does in no way disprove that the brain is plastic or that cognitive functions can be improved by training.鈥�
Owen counters that his team鈥檚 research took place in settings similar to the ones people are likely to practise in. 鈥淭his is what people are doing. They鈥檙e sitting at home on their computers doing brain training.鈥�
Journal Reference: Nature, DOI: 10.1038/nature09042
