Brain training: does it work? by Nature Video
May 23, 2010 by Game Brainer
Filed under brain training
Brain-training computer games are a multimillion pound industry. But this week, a study published in Nature suggests they may not live up to their promise. Neuroscientist Adrian Owen teamed up with the BBC popular science programme ‘Bang Goes The Theory’ to recruit more than 11000 volunteers for a massive online experiment. The results demolish the widely held belief that the regular use of brain-training games improves general cognitive function. To read the story in full, go to: www.nature.com
Niche Profit Sites
by
alt="Williger - Life Mastery Center for Masterminding Excellence" />
I still think it would have worked on kids.
OMG! Am I the only person here who couldn’t give a stuff bout Brain Training, but is more Interested in how terribly attractive Liz Bonin is????
@rjmehra Whats wrong with what I said?? Are You not that good looking and Clever??
great idea – research 2.0 – many fantastic possibilities
Although you are correct in saying that the experiment was short remember that was in fact the minimum- I’ve been doing it for 6 months, 10mins every day and then often more, sometimes reaching up to an hour- I got a bit hooked. My results were sill no different
PS Look out for me on the video- the one in the green scarf and tartan coat
In the paper we state that people were asked to log in for approximately 10 mins per day several times per week, but (importantly) the range (as stated in the paper) was 2-188 sessions over 6 weeks. People could train for as much or as little as they wanted. The 10 mins per day several times per week was simply the guide they were given.
In fact, several hundred people did upwards of 180 sessions – that’s equivalent to 30 hours training, yet these people did not improve either (in fact, there was no difference between these ‘super trainers’ and people who trained only once in 6 weeks!).
The point is, if you have thousands of participants, ‘the average’ ceases to become important because you have excellent sampling from across the entire range – Adrian Owen
To be specific, the study proved simply that the specific brain games they used in the test were not more efficient than the task they use in their control group. This result is not at all surprising when you consider their tools and their method.
With so many willing subjects involved, it is unfortunate that it was a wasted opportunity to apply depth and rigor and do a serious and responsible job. The ill founded experiment attempts to through the scientific baby out with the brain game bath water, and while, can be hyped for the benefit of promoting a TV show, in our sound-bite world detracts from serious scientific work.
Designing efficient brain training is a complex task that requires many important and essential elements you cannot get simply by compiling basic games (e.g. copying Nintendos game – task 1 with weight relationships) and expecting positive results with minimal training time. This is what makes the difference between gaming activity and a properly designed brain training program
By the way, the study was 6 weeks long, 3 days a week, 10 minutes a day. The total amount of time that these people did brain training is ONLY 3 HOURS TOTAL!
I am glad a study has been done on this but it simply wasn’t conducted over a long enough period of time. If you look at the before and after graphs, there was actually a 6.5% increase in brain power. If the study had been for a year instead of 6 weeks, the increase in brain power would be 56.5% (although probably less, due to a plateau effect, but still a very significant difference.) The brain takes time to improve. There is a reason why we don’t only go to school for only 6 weeks.
@AtomicAbility It weren’t even six month, but just six weeks.
I just laugh at this “study” its so stupid. Six months is nothing to increase someone’s brain power, it would likely take many types of activities, dedication and years from a young age.
I find it interesting that they used the computer as the control.
RaikenXion, please do our gender a favour and keep your generalisations to yourself. Thanks.
Dual N back, peeps.
OMG! shes is a very attractive woman, and shes like intelligent and into science?
The interpretation of this study is astonishingly over-reaching. They designed their own program, applied it at a low intensity in young people, and then saw no effect on cognitive function. To then claim that their data shows that other programs don’t improve cognitive function is like saying “sugar doesn’t help with a headache, and sugar and aspirin are both molecules, so aspirin must not help with headaches either.”
Henry Mahncke
I am a researcher at Posit Science
sucks for all those moms with brin training for the ds,oh well they milked that cow dry long ago anyway
true story….it works