FYI.

This story is over 5 years old.

Tech

Neuroscientists Are Fed Up With the Brain Training Industry

Becoming smarter doesn't take some expensive thing purchased from the internet.
Image: baranq/Shutterstock

For those in the general demographic of "people that might donate to NPR," advertisements for brain training schemes are nearly ubiquitous. People who fancy themselves as smart—that is, it's part of their self-identification—tend to be very concerned about whether or not they are indeed smart.

The brain training industry is still fairly new. The basic idea is that with the help of some proper games and exercises, one might gain intelligence. The appeal is intuitive: If I can get into good physical shape by exercising my body in various ways, then it might follow that I could get my brain into good intellectual shape as well. As the baby boomer generation pushes onward into old-age and, with it, cognitive decline, the market for brain training is massive and will only continue to explode.

Advertisement

It seems that actual neuroscientists are pretty fed up with this burgeoning industry and, in a open-letter released this week by the Stanford Center on Longevity and the Max Planck Institute for Human Development, a group of 70 brain researchers offer a pointed critique of an industry that they say is misrepresenting the neuroscience community and neuroscience in general.

"We object to the claim that brain games offer consumers a scientifically grounded avenue to reduce or reverse cognitive decline when there is no compelling scientific evidence to date that they do," they write.

"Being smarter" is a rather more elusive state than being in better physical shape. What does that even feel like? What's the difference between feeling smarter and being smarter? This is where "experts" come in. Every ad I've ever heard for brain training schemes defers to the vague endorsement of neuroscientists.

A few examples. Lumosity: "Challenge your brain with games designed by neuroscientists to exercise memory and attention." Fit Brains: "Enhance your memory, focus and brain speed with our award winning brain training program designed by neuroscientists." BrainHQ: "Posit Science has gotten help in designing these exercises from more than a hundred world experts in this science [neuroplasticity]."

It's not that there isn't science suggesting benefits to some brain training schemes. It's indeed out there and one will find it linked on every brain training website on the internet.

Advertisement

Compelling evidence of general and enduring positive effects on the way people's minds and brains age has remained elusive

"As frequently happens, initial findings, based on small samples, generate understandable excitement by suggesting that some brain games may enhance specific aspects of behavior and even alter related brain structures and functions," the letter notes. "However, as the findings accumulate, compelling evidence of general and enduring positive effects on the way people's minds and brains age has remained elusive."

It's entirely possible that if you or I were to take up some heavily marketed brain training regimen, we would experience actual cognitive improvements. Does that mean the particular brain training scheme is effective? Not really.

"Any mentally effortful new experience, such as learning a language, acquiring a motor skill, navigating in a new environment, and, yes, playing commercially available computer games, will produce changes in those neural systems that support acquisition of the new skill," the letter continues. "For example, there may be an increase in the number of synapses, the number of neurons and supporting cells, or a strengthening of the connections among them."

In this sense, brain exercise schemes are a lot like specific physical exercise schemes. (Yes, the brain is physical, but I'm using the word here as a distinction of convenience.) If you buy some elaborate contraption being sold via late-night infomercial, following its proprietary exercise scheme will probably make you feel better, more in-shape. This is because exercise, generally, is helpful, whatever it is.

Advertisement

Consumers that buy said elaborate exercise contraptions off of late-night informercials are a whole lot more likely to be going from states of no- or little-exercise to some exercise, right? (By the by, this same general idea holds for fad diets too; going from no-diet to specific diet isn't really a way of testing and evaluating the specific diet.)

As such, "we need to establish that observed benefits are not easily and more parsimoniously explained by factors that are long known to benefit performance, such as the acquisition of new strategies or changes in motivation," the neuroscientists write.

"To be fully credible, an empirical test of the usefulness of brain games needs to address the following questions," the letter notes. "Does the improvement encompass a broad array of tasks that constitute a particular ability, or does it just reflect the acquisition of specific skills? Do the gains persist for a reasonable amount of time? Are the positive changes noticed in real life indices of cognitive health? What role do motivation and expectations play in bringing about improvements in cognition when they are observed?"

The neuroscientists close with several general recommendations. First: "In the absence of clear evidence, the recommendation of the group, based largely on correlational findings, is that individuals lead physically active, intellectually challenging, and socially engaged lives, in ways that work for them."

Physical activity, in particular, is long-established as a boost to both cognitive ability and overall mental health. Aerobic exercise increases blood flow to the brain and helps facilitate the formation of new blood vessels and neural connections.

The next point could actually extend to a whole lot of fishy things (including, again, fad diets) just as a general axiom. "A single study, conducted by researchers with financial interests in the product, or one quote from a scientist advocating the product, is not enough to assume that a game has been rigorously examined," the neuroscientists write.

The basic conclusion is this: learn a language, dive into C programming, register for a class, go for a run. These are things that will for-sure make brains smarter, and they might offer some actual learning in the process. After all, what's the use of intelligence if it's not being applied?