I am sure that, like any kind of training, you will get positive results when engaging your brain on a regular basis and challenging it with new tasks. Like the muscles in your body need regular exercise that varies as well.

My conclusion? Don’t believe something is true just because it was shown on TV!

First, everyone involved in providing the games has a profit motive: only the consumer has what may be considered a transcendent need: to overcome cognitive decline as they age.

And that leads me to consider this: the distinct demographics for game use that we are speaking of (as opposed to violent video games): users will primarily be people of AARP candidacy, or to borrow a term from amateur athletics, ‘masters’ contestants. Thirty-somethings indeed may be invigorated by these games, yet fundamentally if they are intelligent and formally educated I would think this pre-occupation to be somewhat boring.

Now then what we want to consider is ‘transferability’ and ‘plasticity’.

Think: if I take a carpenter and teach him chess do I anticipate that he will use his nail gun any better? There are too many variables at work to effectively isolate him in his job? Furthermore, we must remember that transferability apparently arises from the application of IQ tests: effectively stating that people who score high on these tests frequently perform poorly in everyday life. As my strawman above shows, transferability is a pleasant but unnecessary characteristic to apply to our games.

‘Plasticity’ however is more important. Writers for the past score of years have sought to prove to the public that you can spontaneously ignite neurogenesis particularly in the aging brain. Almost all anecdotal evidence suggests plasticity arises in extremely challenged cortical regions (even this keyboard I write on, junk that it is, does not threaten my very existence.) Real-life existence indeed is threatened.

So, am I to conclude with BGTT that the games are fundamentally useless? No. I am sufficiently apprised that I want to age well and aging well suggests that my brain is indeed a valuable component as to how will interact with my environment, and challenge is a necessary component for brain maintenance. It is time now for BGTT to answer the objections being brought to the forefront by concerned participants in the burgeoning frontiers of aging and the brain. Thanks for the forum.

In your brain games tests, the results showed that there was an improvement for the the group who did the games. The delta was not large, but it was enough to be significant.

The published data, and how its reflected in the media states the games did not have beneficial effects.

However what is not taken into consideration is what results would be over more time, and most significantly what are the degenerative effects over time of those who trained vs, not Brain game players.

Now while these games could just be puzzles without all the hyped effects could still be true…you experiment fails to show this. It draws a conclusion over a short period of time, and in no ways shows what time does to brain as it ages. THESE are the goals of these games.

Your study does not meet the criteria of what users of these games are looking for. Further you publishing of data as a conclusion of the merits of such games, is a disservice to those who would try to use such games.

The design of the study is hopelessly flawed. The conclusion is too broad, and not supported by data. The goals of the study are not the goals of the end-users, and the users are what these games are for.

The use it or lose it argument in human cognition is a sound theory. Designing a study that does not reflect the impacts of time and loss of function, is flawed science.

Regards,
Mr. Wolff