Slashdot Mirror
Computer Use Could Help Predict Early-Stage Alzheimer's (thestack.com)
An anonymous reader cites an article on The Stack: Infrequent use of a computer in later life could be an early sign of reduced cognitive ability, according to research from Oregon Health and Science University. A study, which involved 27 'cognitively-healthy' adults aged 65 or older, used MRI scans to measure the volume of the hippocampus -- a small area of the brain with a key role in memory function used to pick up early biomarkers of dementia and Alzheimer's. Data was also collected on computer use among participants via mouse movement detection software. Results showed an additional hour of computer use each day was linked to a 0.025% larger hippocampal volume(PDF), thus indicating that lower computer usage could help predict cognitive decline.
I'm running Windows, so my computer has all the signs of Alzheimer's disease..... what does that say about me?
So does cognitive decline cause low computer use or does high computer use prevent cognitive decline?
In otherwords, should doctors be saying "go surf some ***n" to prevent dementia. Watch out for visual symptoms though.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
The word "study" has lost all scientific credibility. It should almost always be read as "opinion" or "guess".
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Is that a lot in terms of hippocampal volume for humans? Were there confoudnkng factors like more computer use associated with more work or volunteer activity or communication with others? How much does an increase of 0.025% decrease the relative risk of contracting Alzheimer's? A lot lacking from the summary...
The geek tends to think that everyone's life revolves around the keyboard or tablet That isn't necessarily so, perhaps particularly for the elderly.
Yeah, sure we believe you. The thing in the computer window helps. Sure! Mice in the walls? Probably
and her computer usage hasn't declined at all. She actually ends up spending MORE time on it since using apps like QuickBooks takes her longer to use.
when I'm retired and reading books on my kindle or whatever ereader a lot, does that count as computer use ?
I done something like this a few years, but forgot all about it.
Before Google or Amazon starts tracking mouse movement and keyboard dexterity to diagnose, I would like to see a double blind study with alcohol use et al to sift out other forms of impairment.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
thus indicating that lower computer usage could be help predict cognitive decline.
Does it say anything about not being able to write cromulent English?
Anyway. Why is the link being made in this direction? It seems to me - not knowing anything about the study, I will admit - that using a computer seems more likely to cause a larger hippocampus than the other way around.
The research results showed that an additional hour of computer use each day was linked to a 0.025% larger hippocampal volume. The scientists thus concluded that lower computer usage could be used to predict cognitive decline.
Right, so why did they "thus conclude"? It does say:
A causative relationship has not been ruled out
By which from context I assume they mean the internet use causing the larger hippocampus (though of course a smaller hippocampus could also cause less frequent computer use)
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
So using a computer for 1000 hours per week gets me a 25% increase in hippocampal volume. Sounds good to me. When do I start?
how do you measure 2 one hundredths of one percent? Is it significant?
Remember, if you run an experiment like this one a hundred times, you'll get this result once on average by pure statistical chance. The other 99 don't get published. There were a couple other things they measured (education and MMSE) that could have been interesting enough to publish, too, so knock the odds down to 1/33. Or, since they tried a couple different methods to normalize the data, odds are up to 1/20 that this study would have produced numbers this significant on a single variable by pure chance.
nothing new about that. why is this news ? because it mentions a computer this time ?
The problem is many elderly people 65+ don't use computers to begin with. My dad is 83, and really hadn't ever even touched a computer or related technology until recently. He just never wanted to learn, and didn't want it in his life. My 79 year old mom did learn somewhat and did all the e-mail correspondence with me. Well she recently passed. I flew out to be with my dad and when I initially got there I walked past my mom's iPad on the table. I mentally figured I'd be going home with the iPad because I thought there was no way he'd want to learn it. I was wrong. Not only did he want to learn how to use it to do e-mail and do some easy searches (I installed the Google app for ease of use/explanation), but he wanted to get a smart phone too. I was stunned, but I went with him to get an iPhone.
It's been rough going since he's gotten it, but he has friends who have smart phones and can help. He can usually figure out how to e-mail me or text me with it, and he's called me with it several times, so positive steps in the right direction. I guess since his computer use has increased nearly infinitely (from nothing to something) that bodes well for staving off Alzheimers. My point was lack of computer use among the elderly may just mean they're resistant to technology, not that they are developing Alzheimers.
So we're talking about maybe one gram of difference in mass? How is this considered significant and not just a measurement error?
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Is it researching on Google or doing online puzzles? Or is it posting cat pics on Facebook/Instagram?
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
If that's true, then the younger generation (I call them "generation selfie") is NEVER going to get Alzheimer's!!!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
He forgot how to access his bookmarks and email. I still check his email today. He past away last year, but his spam emails will never die. :(
Or maybe....
Decreased computer use (or any other moderately intellectual endeavour) is a symptom of decreased cognitive function.
Meaning this is the opposite of prediction.
Because I do IT services in a place with a lot of retirees, all of the people I work with are ongoing computer users. But when I find someone who has to use the password reset link every time they log onto a site they don't go to every day, I count that as Stage 1. Stage 2 is when they are writing their passwords down (as I instruct them! Geezer IT rules are not the same as workplace rules.) but are no longer organized enough to associate the right password with the right site.
Results showed an additional hour of computer use each day was linked to a 0.025% larger hippocampal volume
Cuz if it does, then I have over a 1% bigger hippocampal volume.
I can see the fnords!
An earlier indicator is loosing stacks on the share market.
Inability to use the computer was one of the big signs of dementia for Dad.
Luckily when he couldn't use the computer, he couldn't trade anymore.
It's sad seeing a once top engineer unable to do anything,
now he's just waiting for God.
Go well
an additional hour of computer use each day was linked to a 0.025% larger hippocampal volume
My hippocampus is 0.6% larger.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Just because two different things are correlated to the same variable, that doesn't mean you can use one to predict the other. It *might* be so, or the two things might affect hippocampus size independently, without any causal link from one to the other.
This is like saying that people who like ice cream tend to gain weight, and people with cancer tend to lose weight, so we can predict whether you like ice cream based on whether you have cancer or not.
...and now I just need more hours in the day, so I can make my hippocampus grow more.
(It is a causal relation, right? :-)