Oops! Brain training doesn't help aging brains
by Vladimir Cole 
{ Apr 24th 2006 at 4:00PM }
In a blow to Nintendo's hopes that their Brain Age: Train Your Brain in Minutes a Day title for the Nintendo DS would sell bajillions of copies to aging boomers who want to halt the rate at which their brains slip into senility, the Wall Street Journal's Science Journal debunks the idea that brain training of any sort can help slow the rate of mental decline.
The Journal quotes a recent study by University of Virginia’s Timothy Salthouse that found "little scientific evidence that engagement in mentally stimulating activities alters the rate of mental aging" calling the belief "more of an optimistic hope than an empirical reality."
Furthermore, "Even in the most mentally engaged elderly -- chess experts, professors, doctors -- mental function declines as steeply as in people to whom mental exercise means choosing which TV show to watch," Sharon Begley -- the author of the piece -- writes.
The news isn't all bad, though. Even though rigorous training fails to halt the rate of decline of our wetware, trained brains do perform trained tasks better, according to the Journal. If, for instance, you were to regularly practice math, you'd be faster with numbers than those who haven't been practicing.
Later this week, Begley will examine which types of training provides boosts brains best. We'll be sure to follow up then.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Marc @ Apr 24th 2006 4:05PM
So what? It's still a cool game.
Sagan @ Apr 24th 2006 4:06PM
So... The Japanese scientist says it does help, and the American scientist says it doesn't help.
Who should I believe?
AnimalTaglits @ Apr 24th 2006 4:07PM
Damn, I thought my brain was going to live forever.
Depress @ Apr 24th 2006 4:08PM
Interesting what tests did they complete with this game? O_o
Fuzz @ Apr 24th 2006 4:12PM
So the scientist confirms it is worthwile. He says you perform trained tasks better. So what if when you are old, your brain doesn't work as well. I just want it to work better while I need it.
Brinstar @ Apr 24th 2006 4:15PM
Brain Age may help me do simple mathematical calculations faster, for example adding up dice rolls in Dungeons & Dragons. This is actually one of the reasons that I got it. It's slightly embarassing not being able to add my D20 rolls to my bonuses as fast as the others at the table. :-P
Also, am looking forward to multi-player arithmetic competitions!
MetaHuman @ Apr 24th 2006 4:16PM
Maybe the mental sharpness comes from how the person FEELS after playing? If the game can make them feel good, their brain can be stimulated.
The brain can do A LOT that science can't prove or disprove yet.
Paul @ Apr 24th 2006 4:18PM
Whatever the case may be, Dr. Kawashima had better be a playable character in the next Smash Brothers.
GOD @ Apr 24th 2006 4:19PM
I'm really enjoying the game none the less. I don't think any scientist would ever say that mental activity (like puzzle solving) is a bad thing.
dvdguy @ Apr 24th 2006 4:20PM
Thank goodness Brain Age isn't a 360 game, 'cause if it was this section would be nothing more than "AHAHAHAHA OMG YOU M$ LUVERS GOT YOUR SOXORS ROXORED PWNED PS3 4EVR!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!1111"
Prof-KOS @ Apr 24th 2006 4:21PM
This is probably half-true. There probably isn't conclusive evidence to one side or the other.
GOD @ Apr 24th 2006 4:22PM
"Dr. Kawashima had better be a playable character in the next Smash Brothers." YES! Someone needs to make I heart Dr. Kawashima shirts.
GlitchCog @ Apr 24th 2006 4:25PM
I thought everyone already knew this was a gimmick. Did people really think doing quick, simple math prevents Alzheimer's to any measureable degree? Or that your brain was actually getting younger because you were getting faster at doing simple puzzles? Brain age is just a high score ranking and has nothing to do with health.
MthdDirector @ Apr 24th 2006 4:29PM
Actually, there's plenty of research that suggests that "brain exercise" can help the brain recover after a stroke or aphasia (hole in the head). What happens is that brain functions are distributed around the affected area.
To then make the argument that there is no scientific evidence to suggest that problem-solving exercises slows the effects of aging (which can be defined at a group of medical conditions which comprise an overall state of "decline") - I think that assertion ignores about 30 years of research into the rehabilitation of patients with severe brain injuries.
Ron Smith @ Apr 24th 2006 4:29PM
The problem is that they used a UVa professor, which everyone knows suck. They should have asked a hokie.
JRM @ Apr 24th 2006 4:35PM
NO ONE KNOWS ABSOLUTELY HOW THE BRAIN WORKS!
they're all just theories and postulates. I'm sure even this scientist is aware of the limitations of his research, just that the wall street journal isn't going to print all 40+ pages of his report.
Tim @ Apr 24th 2006 4:45PM
I knew Tim Salthouse when he was at Georgia Tech. The guy is a legend in the field of cognitive aging. Y'all better recognize... :)
And to #11, the evidence is as conclusive as anything can be in behavioral science. Why would you just write it off so glibly? The data indicate that you can't stop what Salthouse calls "cognitive slowing" simply by doing mental "exercises." The physiology doesn't work that way. The article does mention how older adults can maintain or even increase skill through training (e.g., doing crossword puzzles can increase your verbal skills), but the transfer of the skill is limited (e.g., he increased verbal skills will be primarily constrained to crossword puzzle-related skills). The brain will continue to decline at the same rate (on average) as the guy watching TV; however, you will have a larger vocabulary. On the other hand, both of you will have (again, on average) the same difficulty picking up a novel skill -- much more difficulty than a younger brain.
I worked with a lot of older adults at GaTech during my time there, and invariably, they'd proudly tell me, "I've been doing a lot of crossword puzzles and sudoku lately. Don't want to get the Alzheimer's!" I would just smile and nod. The important thing is that they felt the internal locus of control. AD is a horrible, horrible disease...
Freakhead @ Apr 24th 2006 4:47PM
Pretty retarded study on the WSJ's part.
It would be like saying physical exercise doesn't stop your body from breaking down eventually.
"Later this week, Begley will examine which types of training provides boosts brains best."
So it does help or it doesn't?
JimmyHACK @ Apr 24th 2006 4:51PM
we all new the claim that it made your brain better was just marketing for the game right???
oh wait, we didn't see it cause we thought it would actually help our brains haha....
XBoXXer @ Apr 24th 2006 4:55PM
When I first heard of this game/software I thought how neat! I want it! Almost made me run out and buy a DS just so I could play it.
Then I realized why drop close to $200.- CDN when I can just run down to the book store and pick up one of those paperbacks with all the brain puzzles in it for like about $3.-???
So depending on how you look at it, this game did give me added intelligence.
jon again @ Apr 24th 2006 5:03PM
Jimmy, I fear your brain may be beyond any help.
Eric @ Apr 24th 2006 5:14PM
Was there ever a thought that this game can really lower the speed of brain deterioration? Alzheimer's research hasn't even reached its goal. It's only a conjecture on the part of that Japanese scientist.
What I though of when I read the title Brain Age: Train your brain in minutes a day is that it sharpens your brain by bringing down the "age" or speed/sharpness of your brain when faced with math or logic or whatever else. Not lower the rate of brain deterioration. It just makes you sharper.
So no lost when buying and playing this $20 game. Unless Nintendo explicitly says it will lower brain deterioration it's not false adverstising.
TME @ Apr 24th 2006 5:26PM
Hmm, I wonder how accurate this is. This isn't based off an experiment, it's a survey. According to the Nintendo propaganda brain training helps because it requires quick intense small problem solving to increase blood flow, but if the wall street journal just looked at people who was better educated, this doesn't mean they "trained" their brain. To get accurate results you would have to perform an experiment where some people did the recommended exercises and others didn't and track their progress over the years. This study is prone to lurking variables leading to false leads.
monkeypox @ Apr 24th 2006 5:27PM
honestly, this is about as useful a study as figuring out whether or not video game "violence" is affecting kids. maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. what matters is that you want to further yourself or keep your mind sharp, not believe that a game is a magical fountain of youth.
Marc @ Apr 24th 2006 5:33PM
Paul, I agree with you on the Smash bros. idea. But don't call his character Dr. Kawashima, call him what my friends call him,
the pocket Asian.
Mr. Plow @ Apr 24th 2006 5:35PM
To Ron Smith: "15. The problem is that they used a UVa professor, which everyone knows suck. They should have asked a hokie."
This is in contrast to the great research being done at Virginia Tech, such as the report from a few days ago that said that car accidents are caused by people not paying attention to the road.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-04-20-vehicleaccidents_x.htm
Sorry, I couldn't let an anti-UVa post slide by. A bad review from the WSJ is very bad for Brain Age since many of the people Nintendo is trying to reach is the WSJ crowd. A glowing review could have convinced a lot of WSJ readers to buy a DS, which could have helped to give Brain Age the same success here that it had in Japan. Either way, I'm still having a lot of fun with Brain Age and it was well worth the $20.
jeshi @ Apr 24th 2006 5:53PM
I've read quite a few articles that say playing videogames ( or engaging in any mental stimulation ) helps slow Alzheimer's. Is this scientist denying those studies?
Scorpio @ Apr 24th 2006 5:58PM
#25, without wishing to be facetious, or without assuming that you were being so, is your presentation of some of the university's work an effort to overturn years of common knowledge that car-accidents are caused by supernatural events such as UFOs, pixies and poltergeists? The idea that even a small proportion of car accidents could be caused by people "not paying attention to the road" is certainly revolutionary!
Next thing you know, they'll be telling us that eating too much and not exercising enough is a major factor in obesity... I guess what we should take from Salthouse's results is that there is no need to go to school, read books, or even do your homework, as it will have no effect on your mental aging.
Perhaps he needs to either do a bit of brain training himself, or work on presenting his results in such a way as to make it seem worthwhile being alive.
Of course, I could always go and read the original article in context, but that would be no fun.
SuperUser @ Apr 24th 2006 6:06PM
@ Brinstar
"It's slightly embarassing not being able to add my D20 rolls to my bonuses as fast as the others at the table."
Oh, I know EXACTLY what you mean...
Varian @ Apr 24th 2006 6:17PM
At #17 (Tim)
You are quite mistaken with Timothy Salthouse. I have gone through his work and he, at best, is a paper pusher and theorist. What many people do not understand with academics is that they live in the world of theory (hence they can never be wrong unlike, say, the world of business where there are winners and losers).
Aside from essays and sitting on panels, what has Timothy Salthouse actually DONE? Anyone can sit on panels, write essays, and even do research, it is much harder to create a product, no matter how correct or flawed, to engage the problem. This is the problem with most academics- they live in the world of theories and words; they lose the name of action. It is like Shakespearan scholars who believe they are the closest to penetrating the secrets of Human Nature but are far surpassed by the average salesman (who would have to apply human nature in action to get his job done). Would a shakespearan scholar acknoledge the salesman as penetrating the secrets of human nature more than himself? Never.
I'll tell you what's going on here. This little Brain Age game will affect more lives then the academics quoted in the Wall Street Journal article ever will (this is why they are desirous to 'share' their expertise and what 'really' works for the brain). All these academics want to believe they are relevant. After all, they have devoted their life to this area. Who wants to have their life's work made to lose authority?
I smell self interest with these academics. Follow the money, people, ALWAYS follow the money. They could put out products of their own on the marketplace but, instead, they are attempting to tear down those who try.
What scares them is that someone will pay $20 for Brain Age for their brain instead of the ridiculously costly panels and products these guys have planned to catch (and get rich from) the incoming aging retiring baby boomer trend. Nintendo has unknowingly disrupted more than one industry here. I expect a similiar response from European academics.
Akira @ Apr 24th 2006 6:32PM
Brain training works on the principle of practice makes perfect. the age part is just to show what group performed at the same speed that you did. It does help, for it's helping you via learning. It's nothing new, except instead of a book or your pc, it's now a DS. It's a good idea, for it makes learning fun especially for kids that see school as pointless, or for adults who don't have the time, but are tricked into learning by a floating head and some clever puzzles. Bottom line, it works. Of course its not a time machine, but bottom line; it works.
BlingBlong @ Apr 24th 2006 6:32PM
I'd say the most important part of any study isn't who does it, but who paid for it.
realvictory @ Apr 24th 2006 7:11PM
I agree with #18 - it's not a cure. The key is, while you keep practicing, your brain will stay better than it would have been - it doesn't stop your brain deteriorating at some point, which is inevitable. But Brain Training can only be good for your brain.
Also, I think #29 is a good point. Then again, though, this field of research is their job, so it's not just that they chose this category because it's popular right now...
Tim @ Apr 24th 2006 7:19PM
At #29 (Varian):
I respect your opinions about academics, and on one level, you are correct about them. Academia, and basic scientists in particular, is not particularly concerned with conducting studies that answer specific questions. They are interested in understanding (in the case of behavioral researchers like Tim Salthouse) human behavior. Thus, if an experiment shows a 1ms change in human response time to a particular esoteric constellation of variables versus an equally esoteric, but slightly modified, constellation of variables, the basic scientist is happy. He has demonstrated, with high statistical probability, an effect on behavior. He then leaves it up to other more applied researchers or those in industry to decide whether the finding is meaningful and if so, to do something with it that can help folks like you and me. Do note, however, that if the basic scientist continues to churn out utterly useless, although statistically significant, findings, his funding may begin to dry up. But sadly, this isn’t always the case, and there are, in my opinion, far too many researchers getting by on conducting research that is, in effect, useless to anyone outside of their niche market in the research field. But I’m getting off topic…
There are several statements you made that I’d like to respond to though.
- “[Salthouse is] at best a … theorist.”
You make it sound like theories are worthless, to be purchased at the local Quik-E-Mart for 99 cents. I’ll not insult you by going into the scientific rigor that is applied to hypotheses before they can be considered theories; I’m sure you have an idea of how science works.
- “Aside from essays and sitting on panels, what has Timothy Salthouse actually DONE?”
Again, I question whether you are in fact familiar with Salthouse’s work. Certainly, he has published a number of essays, but by and large, the corpus of his published work is empirical research. Not, as you imply, ethereal postulations with no basis in actual human behavior.
The research is funded (largely) by the National Institutes of Health (and the NIA in particular). The NIH forms panels comprised of individuals whose goal is to ensure that, while the scientists themselves may only care for seeking knowledge, the results they do come up with will be useful to practitioners and “folks in the real world.” I’m not saying it’s a straight shot from the lab to the shelf, but there is a process for translating this rigorously empirical work into practically relevant material.
- “What scares them is that…”
What may frighten the academic community is not that their funding will disappear (the NIH folks are far more intelligent than that), but that people will be misled by marketing slogans or purported “common sense” notions that this sort activity will increase “brain power” or prevent diseases like AD.
- You say that the academics are “attempting to tear down those who try [to put out products on the marketplace].”
Salthouse and his contemporaries (e.g., Craik, Hasher, Hertzog, Baltes, and others) have been working in the field of cognitive aging for decades. Salthouse did not come out of the hallowed university woodwork just to disprove an ostensible claim by Nintendo that Brain Age makes you smarter, only to slither back under his rock to conduct more arcane experiments and write more insubstantial “essays.” And these scientists will not continue to work simply as a response to this game.
Sorry to write so much, but I felt that you had made an interesting point that, I feel, is only partly correct. And for the record, I am not a proponent of Salthouse’s speed of processing account of cognitive aging, lest I be accused of being, as everyone else is accused of on this site, a “fanboy.” :)
word. @ Apr 24th 2006 7:32PM
"It is like Shakespearan scholars who believe they are the closest to penetrating the secrets of Human Nature but are far surpassed by the average salesman (who would have to apply human nature in action to get his job done)."
Varian, It is nice to read a truly intelligent comment. You have hit upon something I am struggling with in most areas of my life. I studied architecture, but ultimately I turned against design. I realized the rich beauty of dwellings built out of necessity can never be equaled through contrived design.
Unfortunately I mostly find myself in the naive thinking, but not acting camp. However, I have found great satisfaction attempting to "penetrate the secrets of Human Nature." I have done so by studying the work of a few very prolific artists. Here are two incredible music groups I highly recommend and a good album with which to start for each: "Swans - Various Failures," "Current 93 - Thunder Perfect Mind"
Enjoy.
Pickypants @ Apr 24th 2006 7:37PM
True or not, this study will have a negative effect on the "casual older gamers" that Nintendo is attempting to market to stateside.
Americans (yes I am one) especially the "wiser, older" Americans have a particular "If it does something, I will buy it" mentality. We sell them hot tubs because they "do wonders for back pain," we sell artwork and antique furniture because "it increases in value."
Nintendo has (aptly) marketing Brain Age to these consumers promising exactly what is being shot down by the Wall Street Journal.
That sucks. I still hope Ninty can pull it off, but for a seemingly small article, The WSJ might have done more damage than they think.
Fusion @ Apr 24th 2006 8:18PM
It's still a step forward in gaming that nobody wanted to take but Nintendo, and i think that it does help your brain its just common sense.Anything that you exercise on your body will perform better,and i think
that sony or microsoft are behind these so called amercican scientist because of all the attention that
Nintendo is getting.
biggzy @ Apr 24th 2006 8:42PM
Way to rain on our parade MR. WALL STREET JOURNAL! Who reads THAT rag, anyways?
Tony @ Apr 24th 2006 10:50PM
All Nintendo is claiming is that the software "stimulates" the brain. That's all it says on the box in front of me even. I haven't seen them claiming this would radically alter the decline of minds to alzheimers, brain rot or any other thing that we could come up with.
I think people are taking the "age" thing the game gives you far too literally here to begin with. What the hell would make a brain 20 years old anyway?
Pal @ Apr 24th 2006 11:55PM
Isn't playing it better than doing nothing at all?
soopa koopa @ Apr 25th 2006 4:36AM
what a load of tripe.
as a family doctor (with experience of psychogeriatrics) of many years and avid gamer there is a huge body of medical evidence to suggest that these sorts of games slow the age related decline of cognitive abilites. They have been used for years in the treatment of dementing illnesses. one crappy "paper" does not change that overnight. "if you don't use it you lose it" still holds true
WizarDru @ Apr 25th 2006 7:42AM
No disrepct to Salthouse...but a single paper does not conclusive evidence make. Quick:is eating eggs good or bad for your health? Go check it out, I'll wait.
...
Ah good, you're back. So, have conclusive proof, now? Or do you have conflicting studies that don't resolve the issue, because it's too complex to dwindle down to a single sound-bite?
Four things you need to consider, here:
1) Salthouse didn't say that Brain Age wasn't useful...merely that it won't really reverse your 'brain age'. Which is true...playing some simple sudoku and math games are not going to reverse your cognitive loss in later life. However, it WILL help raise the bar you descend from, and it will exercise your brain, which is a good thing to do.
2) The WSJ has an almost ridiculous hate for collegiate academia that borders on near mania. The WSJ editors simply hate them; one can only assume they were graded harshly, once. More likely they dislike the general liberal environment of academia, which carries over to other venues.
3) The Media has a tendency to reduce most scientific studies down to a sound-bite. Regardless of how much the scientist may put boundaries on their study, the media merely wants a good tag for a story. "A New Study say Video Games Incite Drinking and Smoking"...(thoughts, when queried by a leading question and only to mostly self-selected male college students at one university after playing a self-selected set of games, sometimes). See the first part is what makes the news. You wouldn't tune in at 11 for the full story title...if the news even dug deep enough to get those facts.
4) No single study can be conclusive about anything. Because of issues of bias, potentially faulty testing procedure and the ability to falsify data, the only good test is a verifiably repeated one. Do the words "Cold Fusion" mean anything to anyone? Note that most of the 'video games will kill us all' studies are usually by biased researches (working for agenda-based thinktanks) which rarely pass peer-review or are reproduced. Are you going to trust a study funded by 'Focus on the Family' or one published in the American Journal of Health?
Finally, don't forget that academic professors live by the 'publish or perish' philosophy.
Nathan @ Jun 21st 2006 8:17PM
Here's some relevant text that Dr. Kawashima's disembodied head gives you when you start up a new file:
"I've found that quick, simple exercises in reading, writing, and arithmetic can help."
"Modern imaging tools suggest that they [training programs] are all quite effective!"
From the instruction booklet:
"So training your prefrontal cortex could actually raise your intelligence!"
"If you proactively reinforce daily habits of brain training, you can help to prevent a decrease in brain function."
Not the language. The use of the words CAN and COULD and SUGGEST. Dr. Kawashima is a true scientist, and is not proclaiming his test results as pure fact. He's confident in them, for sure, but he realizes he might not know the whole picture.
Also note that Dr. Kawashima has performed experiments with cognitively impaired patients. Ones that performed simple calculations and read aloud were able to prevent the worsening of their condition more than those who hadn't.
They crux of the matter, though, isn't the validity of Dr. Kawashima's results, nor the validity of Salthouse's findings. The real problem is that the article writer thinks that Brain Age claims to prevent mental aging. Nowhere does it do that. Instead, it claims to help you exercise your prefrontal cortex, possibly to the point where your brain is functioning as efficiently as the brain of a 20-year older's.
The next article by the same person, will of course go to the trouble of pointing out that Big Brain Academy does not actually - shocking as it may be! - increase the size nor weight of your game. They'll confuse the simple, abstract, and fun measurement system the game uses, and think that the game is claiming to actually be able to increase the size and mass of your brain.
Standard stuff from people who don't bother to research the subjects of their so-called reporting. Luckily, I seem to be preaching to the choir here, as this post is full of posts that, I daresay, would make Dr. Kawashima VERY happy indeed. Looks like most of us are getting plenty of blood flow to the central cortex...