When Brain Training Works – Points of Controversy
Pre-publication publicity for a new book on the value of brain training claims that there are 5 conditions that make it effective. While this discussion surfaces some important considerations, it is likely to disappoint anyone who adheres strictly to the five conditions.
Here’s where the advice falls short:
Condition 1: It must engage and exercise a core brain-based capacity or neural circuit identified to be relevant to real-life outcomes.
The shortfall: First of al, if there is a brain-based capacity or neural circuit that hasn’t been identified as relevant to real-life outcomes, then it probably doesn’t exist. The purpose of our brain is survival, so all mental capacities are arguably relevant to real-life outcomes. But more importantly, it is insufficient to say that training must target a mental process shown in research to be relevant to real-life performance. The training should actually be able to demonstrate improvement in whatever that real-life performance is. This is actually where much brain training falls down. It’s not that the training can’t explain who the exercise relates to a specific neural process, but that it can’t demonstrate actual change in real life application.
Condition 2: It must target a performance bottleneck.
The shortfall: The issue here is the model of brain functioning that underlies the statement. A bottleneck is relevant for a linear process. If step 2 of 10 in a manufacturing plant is slow, then that produces a “bottleneck.” Speeding up step 2 will speed up the whole manufacturing process. But our brains are not manufacturing processes. Rather, they are complex systems with multiple processes occurring simultaneously (and hopefully in coordination). In fact, recent research supports the idea that multiple mental processes are involved in just about everything we do and they have to work together. While there is some truth to targeting weaker functions, it is at least as true that brain training, to be effective, must address the integration of multiple systems.
Condition 3: It requires a minimum “dose” of 15 hours total per targeted brain function performed over 8 weeks or less.
The shortfall: It’s refreshing, actually, to see a consensus emerging that a few minutes or hours of training here and there won’t do much for cognitive fitness. But there is a fundamental flaw in the implication that each brain function must be trained independently. If that were the case, then a training regimen of 150 hours would be required to address 10 targeted brain functions. In the research on BrainWare SAFARI, we have found that a dramatic impact on multiple brain functions is achieved in 35 to 50 hours of training 41 cognitive skill areas in an integrated fashion (using BrainWare SAFARI 3 to 5 times per week, in 30-45-minutes sessions over about 12 weeks). We can agree that noticeable differences start to appear at the 6-8 week mark, but much more can be accomplished than this description of the “minimum dose” suggests.
Condition 4: Training must adapt to performance, require effortful attention, and increase in difficulty.
The shortfall: This is all true, but it neglects what we know about what actually motivates effortful attention and persistence in training. Parents and clinicians we talk to tell us, over and over, that most other brain training programs they have experienced are BORING. Even when they are adaptive, increase in difficulty, and require focus (effortful attention). Human beings don’t expend effortful attention when things are not engaging. Students don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care. The design of the training program needs to be motivational, engaging and reward, not just demand, persistence.
Condition 5. Continued practice is required for continued benefits.
The shortfall: This condition suggests that one needs to continue training essentially forever. First, we want to say, “Wrong,” but then we want to relent and acknowledge that, “It depends.” It also requires that we consider what “practice” means.
When children complete a brain training program (which we think is better termed cognitive training), they bring their improved attention skills, working memory, or visual-spatial processing to an educational environment that, in most cases, continues to put demands on those very cognitive skills. In other words, they are using and practicing those enhanced cognitive skills every day.
If you are an adult in the workplace, the same would be true, by and large. You are in an environment where you “practice” your improved skills constantly. After all, if they haven’t transferred to real life, what’s the point? If your goal, as an adult, is not to perform better, but to be a “high functioning couch potato,” then that is another story altogether.
One situation where continued benefits may require ongoing training is for those who want to build cognitive reserve and/or mitigate the effects of the declining demands of everyday life as they age. For many individuals who are not as active as they used to be in intellectually demanding activities, ongoing training makes sense.
The idea behind brain training is that getting skills to the level of automaticity so that they are used in real life, means that real life becomes the practice. While continued training may be useful for some, the better the training, the better the transfer, the better the individual applies their stronger cognitive functions in everyday life, the more challenges they take on, the more problems they solve … and the less need they will have for ongoing training.
We welcome the opportunity to explore the fascinating topic of brain training – and everything we know and don’t know – with you. il us at