It’s far too early for us to talk about results, but I can say that our first four participants have been very enthusiastic about working with us. We are using a combination of software packages for each condition, and participants have been very positive about working in our small computer lab.

We’re looking forward to the chance that our cognitive training battery has positive effects on our participants. We are not only looking at cognitive abilities but also the effects of training on self-efficacy and mood.

The study, reported in the journal Nature, highlights the problem called generalization. Most studies of computer-based brain training have shown, for example, that people can readily learn to do better on the tasks on which they train, People who work on learning how to remember a list of words will usually get better at it. If you train at solving mazes, you will probably get better at solving a maze puzzle.

What’s not clear, though, is that the training you do will help you on other things. You can learn a list of words and that may help you memorize a grocery list, but all that work probably won’t help you remember where you put your keys, or help you do better on a test for your job. In the same way, you may get pretty good at solving a maze, but it not likely that will help you be a better driver.

In the study reported in Nature, viewers of a popular BBC television show names “Bang Goes the Theory” participated in six weeks of online brain training. Participants completed baseline measure of reasoning, working memory, and paired associates learning and were randomly assigned to different training groups. Participants were aged 18 to 60 years, and 11,430 completed enough of the training to contribute data.

What did the study show? Consistent with a great deal of other research, the study showed that people who trained got better on the tasks they trained on, but there was essentially no evidence that they got better on the baseline tasks. The authors of the study give an illustration: people in the memory training group improved in their ability to remember numbers by about 3/100 (three hundredths) of a digit. They suggest that it would take almost four years of training to remember just one extra digit. Further, the control group in the study got better by 2/100 (two hundredths), and they didn’t even get memory training.

There are a number of legitimate criticisms of the study.Researchers could argue about the selection of tests, how participants were trained, and the small amount of training completed by some of the participants. Including a large age range may have masked improvements in some groups, such as older adults.

As always, more research is needed. But this study shows that at least short-term computer-based brain training may not make a big difference in daily life.

Reference:

Owen AM et al. Putting brain training to the test. Nature near-final version, 20 April 2010 (doi:10.1038/nature09042). Click here to go to the report.

The computer-based training involves a procedure called n-back training. It’s been used for a long time in neuropsychological or cognitive assessment activities as a way to evaluate working memory. In single n-back, you have to remember, for example, the position of an object that appears intermittently in various positions on a computer screen. If you’re doing the task, you have to press a key on the computer when the object appears in the same place. In single n-back, you would watch to see if the object appears in the same two times in a row. If you are doing 2 n-back, then the object has to appear once in a specific place, then can appear somewhere else on the screen, and then appears again in the first position. The number refers to how many positions back you have to keep track of. It can go up to as many as 6 back.

In dual n-back, you have to do two n-back tasks at the same time. The other one can be auditory, for example. One task asks you to listen to numbers played on the computer’s speakers, with the same basic task. You have to remember whether a number you hear is the same as the one you just heard, or heard before the last one, and so on. It’s easier to understand if you try it out.

You can try it out in several places for free. It can be pretty challenging, but the original study showed that how well a person did the task didn’t matter so much as that the person did the task at the level that worked for them. Doing the task is a great way of training your attention, and another study has shown that this kind of training can make changes in the brain’s chemistry.

You can find try the task out at Soak Your Head (this site requires a browser plug-in called Silverlight, so you may see a message about installing it) and you can download a version for your own computer (free) at  Brain Workshop. Another free online version is at The Mindflow.

Several studies have shown that computer training can improve mental abilities. It’s not clear that any one program is better than any other. Having worked with a number of these programs, I see some elements in common that I think are likely make them helpful.

Working with computers seems to help people develop sustained attention. When a computer is giving you new tasks like math problems every few seconds, you have to pay close attention for as long as you’re working. Some programs promote sustained attention to what you hear and others do it for what you see. Both modalities may be helpful.

Another cognitive ability that is improved by computer training is processing speed. Processing speed may be a key ability that underlies other mental abilities. We slow down as we age, but training is clearly effective in speeding us up.

One widely-cited study showed that a particular kind of working memory training (dual n-back task) improved performance on a measure of fluid intelligence. Fluid intelligence is the kind that declines most drastically with age, so this finding is especially intriguing.

So if you’re interested in maintaining and improving your brain fitness, it makes sense to spend some time every day in computer-based activities that engage your attention and demand that you think quickly. You can use one of the expensive computer packages, but I think you are likely to get similar effects from less expensive and even free programs. See my computer training page for links to computer training programs, with my comments on each. Click here to go to the computer training page.

For those of you not familiar with Posit’s programs, they are based on key ideas developed by the company’s president Dr. Michael Merzenich. He has argued that it’s possible to change the functioning of the brain through targeted computer training, and the software focuses on key abilities such as the ability to detect rapidly-changing sounds and following lengthy sets of directions. Users of the software are encouraged to use it for about one hour a day, five days a week, for eight weeks.

One of the best things about this study is the control group used by the investigators. People in the control group (the one compared) were asked to do cognitive stimulation activities that are similar to those many people believe might be helpful — viewing an educational video and answering questions about it.

The IMPACT study showed that people who completed the computer-based training did better on outcome measures than the people in the control group. These outcome measures were neuropsychological measures in a battery given to participants both before and after they either used the program or were in the control group.

Statistical analyses showed that people who used the computer program scored better on these measures than the people in the control group. The authors conclude that the program may be helpful.

The differences between the groups were statistically significant, and that’s important for all of us to know. But it’s also important to look at how big the effect of using the program was. One measure, the Auditory Verbal Learning Test or AVLT, showed a significant difference. The AVLT asks someone to remember a list of 15 words. In this study, the people who used the computer program remembered, on average, about six tenths of a word more after using it.

This doesn’t mean the program isn’t useful. This amount of improvement is similar to that seen with some prescription medications used for Alzheimer’s disease, for example, and some people may have done much better than the average. It also doesn’t tell us how much change would occur for people who use the program over longer periods, too. But it seems to me that most people would want a clear idea of how well the program works before investing in it.