The Anti-Brain Game Brigade Strikes Again

Caution: Rant Mode On.

Yesterday, when a Twitter friend sent me a link to a newspaper article entitled“Brain Training Games Do More Harm Than Good” I couldn’t help myself. I clicked the link.

And even though I noted the article was in the UK’s Telegraph (not known for exactly stellar journalistic standards), I read on.

Then, as expected? I got ticked off.

Ticked off, because there is absolutely no support for the sensationalist claim that brain-training software is harmful.

The sole arguments for harm amounts to the idea that someone, somewhere, might decide that playing Nintendo Brain Age means they don’t need to exercise physically or eat right.

Oh, and that brain training games cost money.

That’s like saying that the common advice “Breakfast is the most important meal of the day” is harmful, because it could lead people to skip lunch and dinner, or substitute expensive, sugary breakfast pastries for healthy salads.

Can it happen? Sure. But that’s the person’s own fault; it certainly wouldn’t justify a headline of “Breakfast causes more harm than good!”

Although they offer a few cautions about relying on brain games at the expense of other methods - he researchers themselves don’t make any claims about “harm” that I see in the publicly available information. If I’m reading things correctly, the study in question (published in Alzheimer’s & Dementia by senior author Peter J Snyder, PhD) is a meta-analysis of available research on brain training software in older, healthy adults.

What they found is no surprise to people who follow these things - there aren’t a lot of quality studies out there, measuring the effects of brain training on healthy adults. Therefore, there’s not a lot of proof and evidence that structured brain-training programs will help in holding off dementia or Alzheimer’s in healthy adults.

Of course, this also means that there’s little if any evidence to suggest that brain-training *won’t* help reduce those risks of severe impairment and disease, or that it won’t reduce the milder symptoms of normal age-related mental declines - ie, senior moments. And while there may not be a wealth of studies that “prove” the specific values of brain-training for specific results - there are plenty of studies that suggest it may have a wide range of positive impacts.

So the conclusions of the study are *not* that brain games may do more harm than good. Rather, the conclusion (if I’m reading things right) is that more research is needed.

Further, the study concluded that consumers should not neglect proven beneficial activities (like physical exercise) in favor of unproven activities (like brain games), and that researchers (and I presume marketers) in the field need to be cautious about their claims.

My own under-eddycated opinion? While researchers and marketers in the brain-fitness industry need to be more cautious and clear about their claims, the media, too, has got to be more responsible in their reporting on brain-fitness studies.

Nearly every day, another sensationalized article about how to prevent Alzheimer’s appears in my Google reader, usually followed by an article claiming ‘it’s all useless bunk’. The truth, as usual, is somewhere in between… the studies are often promising, but preliminary or inconclusive.

Where would I’d like to see more clarity?

A lot of reports seem to lump all “brain games” together into a single entity, as if Nintendo’s entertainment titles, n-Back training (Like MindSpark) and products like PositScience, BrainBuilder and Lumosity are all equivalent. They aren’t the same, and it isn’t reasonable to treat them as if they were identical.

Another aspect that seems to be confused a lot is exactly what counts as a product “working”.

Brain exercises need to be evaluated for a wealth of different benefits; the most controversial are in the prevention of dementia and Alzheimer’s, but they also offer potential for improvement in specific skills/tasks, overall fluid intelligence, problem solving, focus, and improved memory. Each of these needs to be evaluated and reported on separately - and if a particular product turns out to have little benefit for preventing Alzheimer’s in low risk patients, it’s not reasonable to assume it doesn’t

And more clarity from the marketers would be helpful, too - I’d like to see the various products start stressing an overall brain-healthy approach along with the exercises. Some of the companies already seem to do this, offering tips and information on the importance of diet, physical and social activity - but I’d like to see these become even more integrated with the programs as they evolve.

As for the expense - I’ve seen this claim over and over again, that brain games are overpriced and bound to drive seniors into the poorhouse. Yes, some of the programs are very pricey, but others are moderate in cost, and some are very affordable. Many senior centers offer games to members for free - if someone wants to try a brain training program, it really shouldn’t break their budget. And what is with the assumption that only seniors are interested in brain-training? Based on myself and what I know about my readership, I’d say that there’s a pretty strong market among middle aged and younger folk, too.

Bottom line?

In spite of the ongoing complaints of the Anti-Brain-Game-Brigade, it’s tough to see the potential for harm in brain-training programs, especially if they’re approached not as stand alone cure-alls, but “part of a balanced breakfast” (so to speak).

Yes, there are other ways of keeping cognitively fit -some more or less expensive, some more or less engaging, and no doubt, some more or less effective for various goals.

What matters, in my un-eddycated opinion, is not which mental-exercise approaches are the very best for healthy adults according to studies- but that A. they take a form that an individual will keep up with and actually practice, and B. they are part of an overall health program, including physical exercise.

Ok, rant mode off.

I feel better now. Better enough to seek out and share a few links to relevant articles on the topic. So here you go:

Science Daily offers a somewhat less sensational report on the study:
Study Questions Effectiveness Of $80 Million Per Year ‘Brain Exercise Products Industry for Elderly

SharpBrains’ Alvaro Fernandez gives an interesting preliminary response: Cars Don’t Work Because They Don’t Fly

Bupa, a private health care company based in Britain, reports on the study, while contradicting the sensationalism. Jury Out On ‘Brain Training’ Games,

And a big thank you to CoffeeSister, who passed along the link hoping to inspire a rant