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.
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."
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.
> 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.
That would be a major accusation if it was based on facts, rather than rank speculation.