Undoubtedly, the issue of whether or not the training of brains by use of computer programs leads to beneficial effects on subjects is a hotly debated topic. Despite the existence of this raging debate, the world has not established whether such computer games facilitate improvement in computer skills for different groups of subjects – both old and young. Specifically, it has not exhaustively been proven that such computer games lead to marked improvements in cognitive skills, such as reasoning, learning, and memory (Fernandez, & Goldberg, 2009). As such, commentators and critics have been ideologically divided into 2 groups; with one holding that computer brain training leads to enhancement of certain mental skills, for instance, reasoning, learning, and memory, while the other opposes this view. What remains is thus a debate whose resolution remains obscure. A closer scrutiny of the arguments advanced by both groups however indicates that the opposing group appears to be more believable. These arguments and the ensuing counterarguments stem from various studies as enumerated in the following discourse.
To illustrate, Adrian Owen – an opposing neuroscientist – conducted a six-week online study whose outcomes indicated that computer training does not enhance cognitive abilities. Owen’s research did not witness even a single participant improving any of their learning, reasoning, and memory mental abilities. In addition, this study did not prove that re-coaching in a single brain task area shifted to other regions such as those linked to age-linked mental deterioration (Wiley Online Library, 2010). Owen refuted claims that practice in certain mental tasks improves mental abilities, adding that such allegations lacked empirical evidence.
In line with Owen’s conclusions, Peter J. Snyder – a neuroscientist with Brown University’s Warren Alpert Medical School – noted that Owen’s study design had several limitations. For this reason, Snyder observes that Owen’s study derived the correct answer but for the wrong reasons. To demonstrate, Snyder opines that Owen’s research was not meant to evaluate improvements among older people. This concept derives from the choice of participants in Owen’s study. Snyder notes that Owen’s participants consisted of TV viewers having their own personal computers. This participant group is more likely to comprise young computer skilled persons as opposed to older people who are more prone to mental deterioration. In addition, Snyder notes a flaw in Owen’s research, namely, the limited intensity of the training sessions that would not reliably affect changes in cognition (Katsnelson, 2010).
In addition, Snyder led a group of researchers to conduct a Meta analysis regarding the medical proof on brain training among older persons who are prone to Alzheimer’s disease. From this study, Snyder and his team did not find any proof that controlled mental intervention programs slow or delay the onset of Alzheimer’s dementia among healthy aged persons. For this reason, Snyder concludes that mental retraining promises no better results than related general methods – notably pursuing hobbies or exercising – that are advocated for maintaining brain sharpness (Sousa, 2005). In this regard, Snyder observes that organized intervention technology is limited in that it fails to lead to substantial benefits over and above those resulting from conventional recuperation methods. The neuroscientist thus concludes that habitual aerobic exercises are significantly better with regard to scope and quality. In relation with this concept, Snyder explains that the important issue is whether or not retraining is able to safeguard cognition as well as whether or not the resulting modifications can last or be transmitted to related brain performance areas (Wiley Online Library, 2010). The neuroscientist then notes that the proof is overwhelming with physical exercises.
With a view to putting dampers on Owen’s study, Glenn E. Smith – a Mayo Clinic neuropsychologist – concurs with Snyder that Owen’s study’s participants’ demographics constrain the relevance of the resultant findings. Further, Smith notes that the exercise regimen employed in Snyder’s study limits the relevance of the results. This is in relation with the fact that in the study, only twenty-four aged people were involved. Moreover, the aged persons were trained for approximately four hours over a six-week period. Smith also notes the age of Owen’s participants limited the significance of the study. To expound, Smith observes that Owen’s participants had a mean age of above forty years, with about 50% being younger. To expose the flaw in Owen’s study design, Smith explains that cognitive functioning remains stable until one is over forty years. For this reason, Smith notes that Owen’s subjects were mostly at the prime of their mental capabilities. Smith notes that people aged above sixty years are the ones who normally experience mental degradation, observing that this is the ideal group that should be studied. Smith also notes that in Owen’s study, the young age of most of the participants evidently tilted the observations in their subjects’ favor (Wiley Online Library, 2010). This is because the young subjects have more responsive brains besides being more conversant with computers.
To effectively demonstrate the design limitations in Owen’s study, Smith conducted the 8-week Memory with Plasticity-Based Adaptive Cognitive Training (IMPACT) study that included only older people (500) besides subjecting participants to more brain training. In this study, the aged persons were trained for one hour every day for five days every week. Fifty-percent of the participants employed a commercial mind training program (Chiao, 2009). Smith’s study saw participants who employed the commercial mind training program significantly improving in their attention and memory abilities.
This discourse has thus proven that the brain game training debate is so far inconclusive as no definite research has been conducted. The existing research and evidence however shows that brain game training has no verifiable benefits with regard to improving cognitive abilities.
References
Chiao, J. Y. (2009). Cultural neuroscience: Cultural influences on brain function. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Fernandez, A., & Goldberg, E. (2009). The sharp brains guide to brain fitness: 18 interviews with scientists, practical advice, and product reviews, to keep your brain sharp. San Francisco, CA: SharpBrains.com.
Katsnelson, A. (2010). No gain from brain training.Nature 464, 1111. Web.
Sousa, D. A. (2005). How the brain learns to read. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.
Wiley Online Library. (2010). Game theory – cognitive retraining gets another midterm. Annals of Neurology, 68, A13-A14. Web.