I’m pretty sure anyone over the age is 55 is petrified that they will succumb to Alzheimer’s. So, we try to do all sorts of activities to try to keep this bogeyman to bay.

(My grandfather never had Alzheimer’s. But, he definitely had succumbed to senility. I know you are going to tell me that senility is the old-time term for dementia. But, I have two separate answers. First, my grandfather has been dead for more than 55 years- so, of course, I would know the old term. But, more importantly to me, dementia affects one’s communication (now this symptom could be confused with Parkinson’s) and the performance of daily activities. My grandfather could do almost anything- but the key factor I recall is that he played pinochle, four handed (yes, three dummies), and would complain that one of them was cheating.)

And, many folks have dropped tons of money on Lumosity and other “brain training” games. All in the desire to protect their brains. Except…

Drs. DJ Simons and EAL Stine-Morrow (Illinois), WR Boot and N Charness (Florida State) , SE Gathercole (Cambridge) , CF Chabris (Geissinger Health System), and DZ Hambrick (Michigan State) examined the various research studies to determine if “Brain Training” Programs Work.

What their analysis showed (there are 378 references!) is these training tools provided enhanced results- doing the tasks the training tools required . So, if your goal is to be able to memorize strands of letters, matching cards and images- then, by all means, buy the programs or use the tools.

But, if you expect these tools to provide ancillary benefits such as enhanced everyday cognitive performance, then there is “little evidence that training enhances performance”. Moreover, most of these brain training exercises have poor design structure and/or little analytical capabilities that would be able to provide proof of concept.

This has been among my complaints about many psychological tests (and that includes proof that psychoactive drugs have any benefit, other than placebo). A valid scientific study must have a control group, one that would provide a stable baseline with which results can be compared. The study also needs to include sufficient subjects to ensure that the statistics on improvement (or decreased performance) will be significant. Some folks also believe that researcher bias may play a role- that those who undertake training games are expected to be smarter; so we need neutral researchers. (This aspect is equivalent to those taking placebos, instead of active drugs, seem to feel better.)

This study presents results that fly in the face of the claims the vendors have made for their products. Sure, I had read the study by Drs. SM Jaeggi, M Buschkuehl, J Jonides (all three from Michigan), and WJ Perrig (Bern) in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory). This study, performed over four weeks with young adults, claimed the subjects had enhanced abilities to solve new problems. Except…

70 other scientists complained (Stanford Center on Longevity) that this study could not be reproduced. Oh, and that there was scant scientific evidence that training games improve our cognitive function. And, Simon et. al. (Brain Training” Programs Work) discerned that none of the published studies met the standards of scientific research, as outlined 3 paragraphs above.

Now, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) seems to be in agreement. It just hit up Lumosity for $ 2 million in penalties and demanded they cease deceptive advertising. (Lumosity no longer claims their games make you smarter; now they aver their program has been “designed by scientists to challenge core cognitive abilities.”)

But, Simon et. al. do hope someone can design a brain training tool that works. And, proves that it does so.

So, do I!

In the meantime, keep moving. Walking 6 miles a week seems to be one of the good ways to keep our brain in reasonable shape. 150 minutes of exercise a week is another.

Share this: