Brain Training Study

[floramaria]

Hi Y'all. I was just signing in to do some training on Brain HQ, and they have a banner across the page about this study. Here is the first paragraph.

"A newly published paper shows that one particular type of brain training exercise—called “speed of processing training” in the study—cut the long-term risk of dementia by 29%. This is a big deal: it’s the first study to show any activity or drug to do that. While other studies have shown that people who exercise, eat well, and have cognitively stimulating lives have a lower risk of dementia, scientists have never been sure if healthy living reduces dementia risk, or if it's just that people who aren't on the way to dementia are the ones who can still engage in healthy activities. These new results are from a gold-standard randomized controlled clinical trial—and allow scientists for the first time to say that doing the brain training directly reduces the risk of dementia."

https://www.brainhq.com/active-results- ... d-dementia

This made me feel very happy because "Double Decision", Brain HQ's "speed of processing training", is one of the ones that I like.

[Jan]

Very interesting!

[Searcher]

Unfortunately, a closer look at the original paper reveals a different picture.

Supplemental Table 2 shows that the speed processing training can be relied on (with 95% statistical confidence) to have an effect of only 0.2 percent. Hazard ratio 0.71 (0.5 – 0.998, 95%CI).

In other words, the claimed 29% reduction in risk is actually 29% +/- 28.8% (95% confidence interval).

What does that mean? Play Double Decision if you enjoy it and have time and money to spare. But don't rely on it to reduce your risk of dementia.

[Stavia]

thanks Searcher
I personally don't believe in brain training games but prefer functionally useful activities.

[Jan]

Welcome, Searcher, and thanks for the critical eye on the fine print. Look forward to more contributions from you on the site. If you'd like to introduce yourself a bit, we have an Our Stories Forum.

(To access the list of Forums, click Board Index at the top left of any page.)

[Yobetty]

thanks Searcher
I personally don't believe in brain training games but prefer functionally useful activities.

Can you share a few examples of a functionally useful activity? For instance, I'm learning music theory right now. I suspect that could be along the lines of what you are referring to. I have noticed myself drifting away from BrainHQ and have been considering Lumosity to add some variety, but I'd rather find more activities that have the same good effect and have benefit beyond just exercising the brain - like learning music theory.

[Stavia]

exactly!
Here is what I do:
I started learning to play the piano with a teacher 4 years ago from scratch. Never played an instrument before. I practise every day. It's hard, but fun.
Another thing I do is boxing (non contact) which involves many fast (each one completely new sequences) drills during class, also having to mirror the drills when holding pads for one's partner. Working memory and lateralisation.
I keep meaning to learn Yiddish but have not enough spare time atm.


Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[MarcR]

the claimed 29% reduction in risk is actually 29% +/- 28.8% (95% confidence interval).

Yes!

I am especially skeptical of studies like this one where the P value (0.049) is near the boundary of statistical significance (0.050). The authors have strong professional incentives to produce a statistically significant result, and they're only human. I wonder about all of the data analysis decisions that could have pushed that number over the threshold. I skimmed the paper and was struck by its complexity. And when I factor in the study's ties to a commercial brain training service that just happens to be the only intervention with (barely) statistically significant benefit, this study just doesn't pass my own personal smell test.

[Lucy5]

Welcome to the group Yobetty!

Regarding brain training games - I tried Lumosity for awhile and then moved on to BrainHQ - I'm not certain one is much different/better than the other. I have read that most of the published observable benefit is derived from games that improve processing speed (which I'm interested in). But as to whether improved processing speed actually leads to real reduction in individual risk is another, more complex discussion. So, like others here, I'm focusing now more on language study which I really enjoy (Spanish and Italian) and also piano. Next up: yoga.

As you probably know, this site is focused on those carrying the ApoE4 allele. But regardless of your status (which I don't believe you mentioned?), you may enjoy digging into our site Primer written by our member doctor Stavia. As you have more questions, ask away! Looking forward to seeing you on the forums Yobetty.
-Lucy

[Searcher]

prefer functionally useful activities.

Nice perspective.

I might have 4/4, or other relevant genes, but decided not to test in case I don't have them. Then I might grow complacent and start neglecting my health.

Much better to live as if I have them, I feel. Helps me to make the most of life. Especially if I stick to functionally useful or delightful activities.

I love playing the piano. Luckily, it's good for my brain and wellbeing. Most teachers make it hard, but it can be taught in a way that makes it a joy for anyone. I'm hoping that if my time comes, this music-making ability will be the last to go. I know there are case reports where this one ability was preserved when much else was lost.

re: interpretation of trials

Magnitude of effect is distinct from statistical significance. Trials with small numbers tend to lack power to achieve statistical significance for even a large effect. Trials with large numbers tend to yield statistical significance even if the effect size is small. The underlying biology and theory help to separate what works, from chance occurrences.

Most scientific journals these days require disclosure of conflicts of interest. When the researcher has received funds from an entity with a commercial interest, then the results tend to be reported in a way that favours the commercial interest. Often this involves misrepresenting pale gray as dark gray, or the reverse. Sometimes it involves pretending that black is white, or the reverse.

The charitable interpretation is that the researcher genuinely did not know better. In any case, caveat lector. Let the reader be aware and beware. Nothing can be taken at face value in scientific reports, especially because of the aura of reliability. The more impactful the claim, the greater the scrutiny required.