No gain from brain training
nature.com
nature.com
"To illustrate the size of the transfer effects observed in this study, consider the following representative example from the data. The increase in the number of digits that could be remembered following training on tests designed, at least in part, to improve memory (for example, in experimental group 2) was three-hundredths of a digit. Assuming a linear relationship between time spent training and improvement, it would take almost four years of training to remember one extra digit. Moreover, the control group improved by two-tenths of a digit, with no formal memory training at all."
This is far from the first study of its kind. People have been trying for decades to find any sort of training task that can improve general cognitive ability, and there is simply no evidence that one exists. Tests with sufficiently high g-loading are virtually impervious to any form of preparation or training. The closest anyone has ever come to finding one that works is the discovery that the dual n-back task improves scores on Raven's Progressive Matrices (which is very much the gold standard of g-loaded tests), and that's highly suspect given that both n-back and RPM involve the very idiosyncratic task of holding three-by-three matrices in working memory.
As important as discovering a general IQ-raising task would be to psychology, there's nothing especially depressing about one not existing. Remember: You can still learn things. All this research tells you is that if you want to get good at some particular task, you have to train either at that task specifically, or something that's in some way related to it. Playing Tetris, memorizing chess openings, or practicing Bach's Goldberg Variations is simply not going to help you become a better programmer. For that, you need to program.
That's leaving out the benefits from practicing general problem solving skills, logical reasoning, analyzing design trade-offs, etc., though. You make it sound like programming is all about remembering where to put the semicolons!
Meditation also seems to have positive cognitive effects, though they probably come from improved focus rather than intelligence.
Yes. I do so explicitly and intentionally, as there is no evidence these benefits exist. That was my whole point.
This guy is a true scientist and a man after my own heart. He admits that he could be wrong, and responds with an honest analysis of the limitations of his results and a suggestion to go do some more tests to explore those dark corners.
How much benefit can one expect from three hours of investment? If this were about, say, weight resistance training, would you expect to have bigger muscles after this program?
Yes, absolutely, and you will have better muscles. You can have big changes in performance in a few days if you spend more time per day (but whether your muscles look bigger maybe not).
I'm not saying that you get significantly bigger muscles quickly, but you can get better muscles quickly (or perhaps it's due to the lungs/heart?).
BTW 10 lbs per year is a lot. It's more than 12 grams per day which is about 12 cm^3 per day. This is definitely noticeable. Where do you have this information from? Do you have other information like this? I'd be interested to know what exactly makes muscle tissue grow.
Changes in Cortical Dopamine D1 Receptor Binding Associated with Cognitive Training
McNab et al. Science 6 February 2009: 800-802
Working memory is a key function for human cognition, dependent on adequate dopamine neurotransmission. Here we show that the training of working memory, which improves working memory capacity, is associated with changes in the density of cortical dopamine D1 receptors. Fourteen hours of training over 5 weeks was associated with changes in both prefrontal and parietal D1 binding potential. This plasticity of the dopamine D1 receptor system demonstrates a reciprocal interplay between mental activity and brain biochemistry in vivo.
There is a tremendous body of published evidence showing that certain specifically designed cognitive training programs drive real benefits: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19220558 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17565162
If the BBC researchers want to contest those results, they should use the programs and methods used in those studies. This is a fundamental principle of the scientific method, and its surprising to have to point it out to working scientists.
The only conclusion from the BBC study is that very limited amounts of everyday cognitive stimulation does not improve cognitive function. This is an interesting conclusion, and the study should have reported it as such.
Henry Mahncke http://www.positscience.com I am a researcher at Posit Science, where I design and test cognitive training programs.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19220558
you kindly shared? The overlapping confidence intervals show that the effect size is meager, even if there is "statistically significant" differences in outcome between the treatment group and the control group, don't they? That's always an important issue in interpreting research,
http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html
as pointed out in Warning Sign I5 of Peter Norvig's famous article.
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100420/full/4641111a.html?s=...
may be out from behind the paywall for many readers.
The story is interesting and important.
This claims to have the support of a scientific study.
(They've actually made me worse at go; blitz builds bad habits.)