Slashdot Mirror
Can Computerized Brain Training Prevent Dementia? (newyorker.com)
"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. 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.
There was no real time measurement to prove or disprove that this works. They favorably calculated the possibility that in ten years some people would do better with their computerized brain training. This seems like a sham to me. I want to see results that verify, not predict, improvement.
I know this is slashdot, but the computers here are just a delivery system not the content.
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.
Since Alzheimer apparently already sets in at the age of three, the answer would be "no".
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 of the grown-ups to do some real work.
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 never have to worry about this terrible affliction. It was quite a shock to him when I advised him that people with no family history of Alzheimer's make up a good portion of new Alzheimer's diagnosis every year. He flat out refused to believe me, going as far to assert that he KNEW that ONLY people with a family history of the disease capable of getting it. I was astounded at the ignorance.
Society in in general still has a lot to learn about this disorder and the risks that everyone faces.
> 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 model that explains how it's supposed to work. Neither is provided.
> Gut feeling? That's your standard to rebut ten years of research?
Jesus Christ. I explicitly say it's "gut feeling". I did not write "to my best expert judgement". By the tone of your reply, you feel attacked. If so, ask yourself why.
"Of course, Edwards’s findings may not stand up to peer review" This study has not even been through peer review and therefore is not complete. This leaves me to wonder why the results have been published so early, smells fishy to me.
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 ..."
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.
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.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
It's just as likely (if not more likely) that cognitive decline reduces training. What were these people thinking? Oh,..., wait,...
Oh, I'm sorry sir, I thought you were referring to me, Mr. Wensleydale.
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.
Someone had to do it.
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...
Someone had to do it.
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.
There's a long list of activities that have been shown to slow or mask cognitive decline in the elderly, e.g. reading, being bilingual, learning a second/foreign language, and physical exercise but most of all, social engagement. There have been a number of studies that have shown remarkable improvements in not only cognitive function but also quality of life in retirement homes where they've enacted programmes where small children visit. The residents talk to the children, read them stories, and various other activities. Also beats crappy day-care where the carers barely have enough time to feed and change the children in their care, let alone engage with them socially and play with them.
I suspect that belief that computerized brain training can prevent dementia is probably a symptom of early dementia.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.