Fourth Article

Topic: Does Brain Training Work?

Authors name: Steven Novella.
Date: April 17, 2013.
Link: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/does-brain-training-work/
Text:
Websites such as Lumosity.com make some bold promises about the
effectiveness of computer-based brain-training programs. The site claims: Harness
your brains neuroplasticity and train your way to a brighter life. Your brains
abilities are unique. Thats why your Personalized Training Program adapts to fit
your brain and your life goals. Just 10 hours of Lumosity training can create drastic
improvements. Track your own amazing progress with our sophisticated tools.
Wow in just 10 hours I can become smarter by playing fun video games
personalized to my brain. Im a huge fan of video games, and I would love to
justify this hobby by saying that Im training my brain while I play, but what does
the scientific evidence have to say about such claims? Not surprisingly, the
published evidence is complex and mixed.
Before I summarize that evidence, let me describe the variables with which braintraining research must contend. First there are various target populations who
likely will not respond in the same way to brain-training interventions. These
include: healthy children, healthy young adults, healthy older adults, children with
some form of cognitive impairment or developmental delay, adults with traumatic
brain injury, older adults with mild cognitive impairment, and older adults with
Alzheimers disease or other forms of dementia.
Most studies do indeed pick a target population or two on which to focus.
Each of these populations need to be considered separately when reviewing the
literature.
The second important variable is the brain function that is being evaluated.
There is no single measure of brain function or intelligence. Studies typically
identify the following distinct functions:

Memory is the ability to encode, store, and recall information. Memory can
be further divided into recognition, recall, verbal, visual, episodic, and working
memory. Each type of memory has specific tasks associated with that memory
function.
Attention is the ability to focus ones perception on target visual or auditory
stimuli and filter out unwanted distractions.
Executive function is ability to strategically plan ones actions, abstraction,
and cognitive flexibility the ability to change strategy as needed. A classic test
for executive function is trail-making, drawing a line from A-1-B-2, etc., which
requires quickly switching from numbers to letters and back again.
Reaction time and processing speed are related functions that deal with how
quickly someone can react to stimuli and process information, respectively.
Another very important variable in brain-training studies is generalizability
to what extend does training in one specific task increase performance on other
tasks, and how far from the trained task does the effect extend? For example, does
training in a visual memory task improve verbal memory, and does any memory
training improve executive function?
Intervention types generally break down to three categories classic training
tasks, neuropsychological training (which involves multiple tasks at once), and
video games.
Finally, studies need to account for the duration of any training effect. If
there is an effect, how long does it last after the period of training ends?
The above variables must be considered in addition to all the generic factors
that influence the rigor of any clinical study number of subjects, randomization,
effect size, statistical significance, proper blinding, adequate control group,
accounting for multiple comparisons, drop-out rate if any, dose-response (in this
case, duration and intensity of training) and replicability.
With all of these variables to account for it will take a great deal of research
to understand the true effects of computer-based brain training of each type for
various outcomes and on various populations. Not surprisingly, existing research is
just scratching the surface of addressing all the potential questions regarding braintraining.

A 2012 systematic review by Kueider et. al. identified 151 computerized

training studies published between 1984 and 2011 involving healthy older adults.
That is not many studies, resulting in only a few studies for each intervention and
target population. Of the 151 studies identified, only 38 met the reviews inclusion
criteria.
For the full results of this review, I suggest you read the original article,
which is available open-access at the link above. Its not really possible to
summarize the full results in less space than the review itself, so there is no reason
to duplicate it here. To give an overview, however, in each category there were
only a few studies, and most studies were relatively small. My overall impression,
therefore, is that much more research needs to be done.
Studies generally found positive effects from brain-training (not surprising
for small preliminary studies), but in most cases results were mixed with some
positive and some negative studies. Brain-training was generally found to be as
effective as traditional book and pencil training, but less labor intensive.
Effects were strongest for the task that was trained, with highly variable
outcomes in terms of generalizability. Overall tasks generalized either not at all or
only to closely related tasks, but not across the board or to very different tasks. For
example, there seemed to be no cross-over effect between visual spacial cognitive
function and verbal cognitive function.
In this review classic training tasks had the biggest effect on working
memory, processing speed, and executive function. Neuropsychological tasks had
the most improvement on memory and visuospacial ability. Video games had a
positive impact on reaction time and processing speed.
A more recent 2013 review and meta-analysis of studies involving healthy
children and adults concluded: that memory training programs appear to produce
short-term, specific training effects that do not generalize. Possible limitations of
the review (including age differences in the samples and the variety of different
clinical conditions included) are noted. However, current findings cast doubt on
both the clinical relevance of working memory training programs and their utility
as methods of enhancing cognitive functioning in typically developing children
and healthy adults.

A 2013 study of brain-training in older adults with mild cognitive

impairment or dementia found no statistically significant difference in the
treatment and control groups, but a tendency toward better performance in the
treatment group, only for the more mildly affected subjects.
Conclusion
Computer-based brain-training is a promising intervention for maintaining
and improving cognitive function in healthy and perhaps mildly impaired
individuals, primarily because it is convenient, less labor intensive than traditional
methods, and cost effective.
Existing research, however, is inadequate to rigorously address all of the variables
of brain-training interventions. There do appear to be a few patterns in the existing
research, however.
Brain-training is effective, whether designed as classic cognitive tasks, combined
tasks, or video games.
Effects are mostly restricted to the specific tasks being trained and do not
significantly generalize to other tasks or cognitive functions. Effects tend to be
short lived, although evidence here is very mixed.
Computer-based brain-training does not appear to be significantly different
in outcome from traditional pencil and paper-based training, but is less labor
intensive. I could find no published evidence to support any claims for
individualized programs.
In short, brain-training does not seem to make you smarter, but will make
you better at whatever task you perform. This can be simply a training effect you
will get better at anything you do repetitively. This is no more an effect of brain
plasticity than any generic learning. Suggestions that such brain-training makes
your brain function better in any way other than simply learning the task that is
being practiced is not evidence-based.
Another way to look at all this is that the very concept of brain-training is
probably flawed. It is useful as a marketing slogan, but does not seem to be based
in reality. Brain-training is just a fancy term for good old-fashioned learning, but
is meant to invoke an image of cutting edge neuroscience and brain plasticity
which is not supported by evidence. Its just learning.

The bottom-line recommendations I would make from existing data are this:
Engaging in various types of cognitively demanding tasks is probably a good
thing. Try to engage in novel and various different types of tasks. These do not
have to be computer-based. Find games that you genuinely find fun dont make it
a chore, and dont overdo it. Dont spend lots of money on fancy brain-training
programs with dramatic claims. Dont believe the hype. Finally, there is a clear
need for further research. We need many large rigorous studies that control for
multiple variables.

Summary
1. Who is the author of the article? Is it from the reliable resource?
Information in the article is from reliable resource and can be used for the
project. Because the author of the article, Steven Paul Novella, is an American
clinical neurologist and assistant professor at Yale University School of Medicine.
2. What about is this article? What are the main points of this article?
This article said about distinct functions which is typically identified by
studies and describes the variables with which brain-training research must
contend. The next information is that three categories of intervention types
classic training tasks, neuropsychological training and video games.

3. Was this article useful for you? What is the connection of the article
with my project?

This article was useful for the project, because there are 2 noted information
for the project, first is about advantages and disadvantages of the brain trainers and
gave some proved statistics, which can be used for the project.