Can Computerized Brain Training Prevent Dementia? (newyorker.com) 49
"Researchers believe they have found a link between speed-of-processing training and a reduction in cognitive decline among the elderly," reports the New Yorker. An anonymous Slashdot reader quotes an article about how this new long-term study actually contradicts much of the previous science. In October of 2014 a group of more than seventy academics published what they called a consensus statement, asserting that playing brain games had been shown to improve little more than the ability to play brain games... no brain game, nor any drug, dietary supplement, or lifestyle intervention, had ever been shown in a large, randomized trial to prevent dementia...until today, when surprising new results were announced at the Alzheimer's Association annual meeting, in Toronto.
Nearly 3,000 participants with an average age of 73.6 participated in the study, with some receiving "speed of processing" training -- and some later receiving four hours of additional training. "The researchers calculated those who completed at least some of these booster sessions were 48% less likely to be diagnosed with dementia after ten years than their peers in the control group." Signatories of the 2014 consensus statement panning brain games are now calling these new results "remarkable" and "spectacular".
Nearly 3,000 participants with an average age of 73.6 participated in the study, with some receiving "speed of processing" training -- and some later receiving four hours of additional training. "The researchers calculated those who completed at least some of these booster sessions were 48% less likely to be diagnosed with dementia after ten years than their peers in the control group." Signatories of the 2014 consensus statement panning brain games are now calling these new results "remarkable" and "spectacular".
It's one study... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's one study. Wait for independent duplication before calling it remarkable. It could still be proven to be as much of a hoax as vaccines causing autism, global warming, or evolution. Exercise caution in believing a single study.
Re:It's one study... (Score:4, Informative)
Wait for independent duplication
Well, the study took 10 years, so hopefully there are others going on in parallel. Because that's some pretty slow progress on a real bane of a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait for independent duplication
Well, the study took 10 years, so hopefully there are others going on in parallel. Because that's some pretty slow progress on a real bane of a problem.
What is fascinating is that this might now extend the "All of your problems are your own fault" crowds finger pointing to the final frontier - dementia.
It even seems like a plausible premise, that using the mind keeps it healthy, but it could very well mimic a slow cognitive decline. If a person disengages from intellectual activity, it might just be that they were already naturally declining anyhow.
anyhow, if it is true, I shouldn't have much problem - since retirement I've taken on many new mental e
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They calculated the results? (Score:2)
Re:They calculated the results? (Score:5, Informative)
No, they performed a measurement. FTA:
"Ten years after ACTIVE began, ... more than three hundred met the criteria for dementia, but their odds varied significantly based on which group they had been assigned to. Among those who had been given no training whatsoever, fourteen per cent met the criteria for dementia. ... The comparable rate of dementia for the speed-of-processing group was slightly lower, at 12.1 per cent. And among those who had been invited to receive the additional training, 8.2 per cent developed dementia."
Re: (Score:1)
This is a well-known con. They gave a a group the initial "training", then monitored them and gave those with the least signs of dementia the "additional training", thus invalidating the study from a factual basis.
Re: (Score:3)
That would be a major accusation if it was based on facts, rather than rank speculation.
Re: They calculated the results? (Score:2)
They tracked the participants for 10 years; how much more time do you want? Every study can have some criticism poked at it but number of subjects and time spent don't look like good candidates to call this one on.
I know this is slashdot, but ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Dust off all those Martin Gardner puzzles in print or PDF, plus various other puzzles and you've got the same thing whether it is on a monitor, tablet or paper.
Easy answer: (Score:1)
Since Alzheimer apparently already sets in at the age of three [slashdot.org], the answer would be "no".
Re: (Score:2)
Give him a break, he can't tell the difference, he's not as sharp as he used to be.
Re: (Score:2)
That's one particular gene that is associated with Alzheimer's. There is no "Alzheimer's" gene, despite what the summary says. Even if there were, it doesn't mean you can't do anything to delay it. You could make an argument that the disease called death starts having an effect at the age of zero, but you should still buckle up and not smoke.
Gut feeling says: no (Score:1)
I worked in a related field, and my gut feeling says no. How much arithmetic can you teach someone in a few hours of training? How much of a foreign language? Almost nothing, and it will be forgotten in a matter of months. So it's very unlikely that a few hours of training is enough to dramatically reduce dementia or whatever mental health problem.
Re: Gut feeling says: no (Score:2)
Ffs. I hope your related field is not very related.
Do you really think that is a valid comparison? Really? Teaching versus dementia avoidance?
Perhaps you think moderate exercise is not good for general health because 10 active minutes a day can't teach you to run a marathon?
And.. I knew the bar to pepper in medical research had got quite low.. But... Gut feeling? That's your standard to rebut ten years of research? You should work in psychology, sociology or economics.. You will fit right in.
Leave the rest
Re: (Score:3)
> Teaching versus dementia avoidance?
I'd have to agree it's probably harder to control the processes that grow dementia.
But first, they would have to have a damn good explanation why previous training methods did not improve speed of execution.
> Leave the rest of the grown-ups to do some real work.
Well, the grown-ups in psychology and psychiatry have fucked up quite a bit, haven't they? There's no base for trust in spectacular results. That requires really solid evidence and either replication or a mo
Re: (Score:2)
I'll give you a hint: remembering what happened in the study has as much to do with the benefit as remembering running has to do with the benefits of running. Exercise benefits you when you do it, not when you remember it.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, they did. The 10 years was in 2014, this conference presentation appears to be after a couple years follow-up work to see the results of refresher training.
https://www.nia.nih.gov/newsro... [nih.gov]
Horrible disease. (Score:1)
I watched this horrible disease reduce two of the most powerful men in my life (direct relatives) to living corpses that could not even remember their own names. Truly, I hope no one ever has to face the horror of this disease either in themselves or someone they know.
What is even more saddening is the amount of ignorance that surrounds this disease. I had a friend whom, upon finding out that I had relatives who had Alzheimer's, say he was glad that he had no family history of the illness, because he would
Re: (Score:2)
Dementia is a category of symptoms, not a disease. This story is not about Alzheimer's. I am astounded at the aliteracy.
From TFA: (Score:1)
Streaming ads straight to the brain (Score:2)
Even better, implants that will deliver ads straight to the patient's brain coupled with a re-defintion of dementia will lead to 100% reliable results.
Now if you'll excuse me I have to start my zombie walk, mumbling: "I will buy the latest Taylor Swift album, I will buy ..."
The premise is wrong (Score:2)
Computerized brain training one of the sources of dementia. Proof? It causes otherwise normal people to hand over money for an app of magic beans rather than simply going to the library and reading some science books...for free.
Great study (Score:2)
those who completed at least some of these booster sessions were 48% less likely to be diagnosed with dementia
The other 52% simply forgot about the booster sessions.
Re: (Score:2)
Now it's IQ, which coincidentally is affected by class and race, but clearly society is/was IQ-based so better IQ must mean better person, right?
Yeah I often wonder where they will run to next once there's a gene therapy to activate IQ related gene expression in the brain, for the tiny sliver of IQ for which it is worth. Next thing you know it'll be golf scores.
Correlation is not causation (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
on the other hand (Score:2)