Verified by 
The concept of brain plasticity is one that offers hope for those seeking to reverse the tide of aging’s effect on mental processes. This is the idea that brains can be shaped by experiences, including those that promote better brain functioning. If we could only keep our brains in shape, according to the plasticity principle, we could stave off declines in memory, learning, and response time. In other words, can brain training really protect us from aging?
For several decades now, cognitive scientists who study aging have sought the holy grail of brain training approaches. Back in the mid-90s, VA psychologist R.E. Dustman developed his own (rather primitive) videogame and tried to show how playing it could help older adults perform more speedily and found evidence for positive effects.
In the intervening 20 years, scientists around the world have attempted to use various approaches to brain training to demonstrate that it’s possible to stabilize, if not reverse, what might otherwise be declines in the kinds of abilities that we need in our everyday lives. Others have investigated the effects of aerobic exercise on various types of mental abilities. Perhaps not surprisingly, all of these studies have produced conflicting results, a point I’ll return to shortly.
One reason that the concept of plasticity holds so much appeal is that it gives us hope about what what we’ve previously believed would be inevitable declines with age. Adding to this is the extensive media coverage given to the ravages of aging on the brain, terrifying millions of middle-aged and older adults, about how Alzheimer’s disease is almost an inevitable consequence of aging. It’s no wonder that commercial enterprises would step in to capitalize on these fears, which is exactly what happened when Lumosity opened its virtual doors to sell its brain training products. For $80 a year, or $15 a month ($300 for life), its 1 million subscribers get access to the brain training games exclusively developed by Lumosity and marketed as the cure to aging's destructive processes.
Now, however, it’s evident that Lumosity has overreached. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) slapped Lumosity with a $2 million fine and directed it to stop making its deceptive claims throughout all of its wide-ranging advertising venues. The action spurred an insightful analysis by New York Times reporter Paula Span. Citing a review article on brain training's effects written by one of my former UMass doctoral students Joel Sneed (now at Queens College CUNY), she quotes Sneed's conclusion that “The field is far, far, far from demonstrating any reduction or delay in cognitive decline.” Indeed, Span quotes Michelle Rusk, an FTC lawyer, as stating: “The research it [Lumosity] has done falls short because it doesn’t show any real-world benefits.” The key here particularly is “real world benefits.” The holy grail’s main requirement for these games is “far transfer,” or the ability to translate improvements in game playing to tasks such as driving or performing household tasks that drain cognitive resources.
Looking more broadly, scientists involved in laboratory research on cognitive training programs come down on both sides of the training's potential to produce far transfer. For example, University of Washington psychologist Sherry Willis, one of the originators of an impressive 10-year cognitive training study, was one of 70 scientists signing on to a formal criticism of Lumosity’s claims. However, she also signed on to a counter-argument in the form of an open letter whose purpose was to express concern that readers of a statement denouncing brain fitness training programs "might wrongly conclude that there is no evidence that any cognitive training regimen can improve cognitive function.”
As part of my own interest in plasticity and aging, I ventured into this area in a study involving casual videogames and reaction time in older and younger adults (Stroud & Whitbourne, 2015). This followed a 2012 American Psychological Association symposium that I helped organize in which participants addressed the benefits of cognitive training through videogames. None of the studies the panelists presented looked at Lumosity specifically but instead examined the benefits of a variety of free online games (such as Bejeweled Blitz) and laboratory tasks meant to simulate other popular videogames (such as Nintendo Wii).
Based on my research, and the evidence of my colleagues in the field, it seems fair to conclude that plasticity is possible, but the effects of training may not always be measurable. Theoretically, the old “use it or lose it” principle should be valid, and engaging your so-called “gray cells” should keep them alive and vital. The problem is demonstrating this with laboratory studies but even more so, with commercial ventures such as Lumosity.
One huge limitation is that people who play videogames on their own, or who decide to invest in Lumosity, aren’t a representative sample of the population. They’re people who are interested in preserving their mental abilities. I found in my own study with Michael Stroud that the videogame players showed some cognitive benefits not seen in non-game players. Maybe people who play videogames do so because they’re good at it. The people who aren’t give up. Thus, maintaining experimental control in studies of real-life people (vs. lab rats) becomes a huge issue in the videogame area.
Another problem relates to compliance. Some of the previous investigators using first-person shooter games, which should presumably have the most attentional benefits, found that the older adults in their sample didn’t want to play those games at home. They would show up to the lab, thank the investigators kindly for providing them with the equipment, and then put it away in a drawer until the next lab visit. It’s hard to demonstrate benefits of training if the participants don’t engage in the actual training. A few doses of trials in the lab won’t be enough to counter the effects of aging. This, by the way, was another criticism of Lumosity, because its claims included the false information that a few minutes a day is all you need to keep your brain sharp.
The biggest criticism I think I have about Lumosity, and one that hasn’t been raised by others, is that it costs money. Marketers prey on our fears about aging to sell their products, but quite honestly, you can easily get many of these games for free. You don’t have to spend a nickel (unless you want to) to play Candy Crush, Bejeweled Blitz, or Words with Friends. Each of these games could theoretically promote different types of abilities and if you divide your time among them, you can get plenty of mental exercise at no cost. Candy Crush taps what psychologists call “executive functioning” as you have to plan your moves quite carefully in advance. Bejeweled Blitz taps reaction time and visual search. Words with Friends involves verbal skills. One of the newest entries to videogames is “Blossom Blast,” which involves the abilities tested by a well-known neuropsychological test, Trail Making.
The reason these videogames are so popular, particularly with the middle-aged and older crowd, is that they’re kind of cute and fun. Flowers and candies might be exploding, which is a little violent, but they’re also colorful and pretty to look at. Some of these games can also be socially engaging. You can connect with your virtual or real friends anywhere in the world while you work on your vocabulary and strategy skills.
The debate on brain training won’t be settled until we have a great deal more data, are able to control for some of the inherent confounds I mentioned, and take commercial enterprises out of the picture. We need good, rigorous evidence that includes data on far transfer before it’s even slightly ethical to have people pay a high premium for these games. In the meantime, there’s no evidence that they are harmful, and improving on your game play itself may prove rewarding and enjoyable.
To sum up, I hope I’ve given you inspiration to fulfill your own desires to stay cognitively sharp and, while you’re at it, have a little (free) fun.
Follow me on Twitter @swhitbo for daily updates on psychology, health, and aging. Feel free to join my Facebook group, "Fulfillment at Any Age," to discuss today's blog, or to ask further questions about this posting.
References:
References
Motter, J. N., Pimontel, M. A., Rindskopf, D., Devanand, D. P., Doraiswamy, P. M., & Sneed, J. R. (2016). Computerized cognitive training and functional recovery in major depressive disorder: A meta-analysis. Journal Of Affective Disorders, 189184-191. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2015.09.022
Stroud, M.J. & Whitbourne, S.K. (2015). Casual Video Games as Training Tools for Attentional Processes in Everyday Life. Cyberpsychology Behavior and Social Networks, 2015 Nov;18(11):654-60. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2015.0316. Epub 2015 Oct 8. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26448498
