Talk:Brain fitness

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article still reads like an advertisement for brain training products. It completely ignores the negative point of vue of the question of scientists like these : [1] I'm thus adding the POV-check banner. Joelthelion (talk) 09:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That NY Times op-ed was a little unusual. Here is a press release from a few days ago from some people who work on the commercial products http://www.positscience.com/newsroom/press_releases/pr/111907a.php The press release DIRECTLY addresses the criticisms in the op-ed. First, it compared gains in mental function between one group using a Posit Science product, and a second group performing a different computer based learning routing. Therefore, the results are not because the training group had an impoverished environment, it was because one brain fitness training was significantly superior to a second. Second, it shows generalization to everyday life ie: people (who were blinded to which intervention they received) reported that they remembered phone numbers more easily, and lost their keys less often, etc, when they were trained using the Posit Science program. Third, the study was commissioned science. The company, Posit Science, gave their training program for the study, and paid for it, but allowed the academic scientist to conduct the science and report the results without interference. The idea that improvements in the brain's executive function capabilities can come from physical, but not mental, exercise is just not true. And senior scientists such as those who wrote the op-ed should know better. --Animalresearcher (talk) 17:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I've had the distinct pleasure of corresponding with the author of this article who will be editing under a new, less promotional username. This user is intelligent, charming and the type of editor we can't get enough of. I'm AGF and allowing her the privilege of bringing the article up to standards. This is a user we can't afford to let slip away IMO. - Lucky 6.9 20:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Lucky 6.9, you are good at what you do!--Gondola 10:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest using the articles on Nutrition and Physical Fitness for some guidance in the composition and structure of your article. Or you could find other articles that could guide you in refining and fleshing out yours.--Gondola 11:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Both paragraphs of the intro contain statements that need to be supported--the first three sentences seem ok to me. The intro of Wikipedia articles serves to mainly define the topic and perhaps outline the main issues involved with the topic. Perhaps if a study could be listed that deals with the points that are being made in that paragraph. Also any studies that are opposing to the proponents of Brain Fitness need to be listed. If there are any controversies, a controversy heading can be used. --Gondola 11:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

For inspiration, you can also browse through the featured articles and critera used for judging them: [[2]]--Gondola 11:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Truly guys - thanks for your help and support. I'm working on it and will try to include all your suggestions. Dendritelady 19:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Article is much more factual and impartial. Kudos. I suggest your inserting particular references regarding the studies that show that brain 'workouts' promote brain fitness in the body of your article text.--Gondola 18:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Gondola! The references are what I want to do next, and then add a few more text sections. I would also like to change the headers on the page to delete the neutrality and advertising warnings, leave the clean up box, and add the "citations needed" box. Is it legit to do that myself or should I wait for an administrator? Dendritelady 19:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your suggested edits concerning the 3 templates that are at present at the top of the article and adding an another. Just explain why you are removing and adding templates when you do.--Gondola 14:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

If you can find any relevant public domain images, insert them in the article. There are never enough images in Wikipedian articles!--Gondola 14:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Gondola, we definitely think alike! I plan to look for a good picture or two in a bit! Thanks as always.Dendritelady 17:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed the advertisement and neutrality tags after confirming with several people that the article no longer reads like an ad. Added "citation needed" tags to show where citations are needed, and I will work on getting the right ones. Dendritelady 17:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this page is quite good. You might use the book "The Mind and the Brain" by Jeffrey M. Schwartz and Sharon Begley as support for a number of the statements that need citations. That book is very well documented, but now getting to be somewht dated. For the very latest in brain plasticity as applied to aging (which is much of brain fitness as it exists today), I'd recommend the recent article "Brain plasticity and functional losses in the aged: scientific bases for a novel intervention" by Mahncke HW, Bronstone A and Merzenich MM in Progress in Brain Research (Prog Brain Res. 2006;157:81-109) which is a heavily footnoted white paper on the theory behind applied plasticity with many citations supporting your text, and which also includes a randomized, controlled study showing the effectiveness of plasticity-based cognitive training among a population in a senior retirment community. I got a copy from the lead author after reading the abstract on the Posit Science website and emailing Dr. Mahncke through the link on that page. You might want to also reference "Memory enhancement in healthy older adults using a brain plasticity-based training program: A randomized, controlled study" published in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (Aug 3 2006 10.1073/pnas.0605194103), which is the first article I know of that shows cause and effect in use of a trianing program, generalization and endurance. I found a free copy of that article on the Posit Science website. There certainly is a lot of new research coming out which supports what you have written. I hope these comments are helpful. Helpingeditor 01:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Helpingeditor! I added in a bunch of references that I already had, but will go back and look the ones to mention to see where they might fit in. Please feel free to edit or cite as necessary. I appreciate everyone's help! --Dendritelady 13:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Misleading Article

This article is misleading in three main ways.

1. The construct 'brain fitness' is not obviously definable in a way that distinguishes it from ordinary notions such as 'intelligence', except perhaps by relying on biological ideas concerning neuroplasticity and neurogenesis. Neither intelligence nor the ability of the brain to form new neurones/synapses is amenable to practice or 'brain training'. Of course, practice and training in any activity will improve performance in that particular activity. But this is a separate matter to there being changes in the underlying function of the responsible organ.

2. This article relies on standard prejudices about cognitive function in older adulthood (that it always declines) to advance a particular perspective (i.e., that unless you engage in 'brain training', you will decline cognitively). It seems to me that is done as a means to market 'brain training' software and games. In reverse, therefore, is the offensive implication that older adults with dementia are in some way responsible for their situation.

3. The evidence cited in this article is used inappropriately. The core of studies relied upon (references 14 - 16) do not concern normal adults, and do not involve 'brain fitness'-type tasks. They are studies on cognitive remediation in dementia and mild cognitive impairment; for example, they show that 'quality of life' improves when persons are shown how to use mnemonic strategies.

Throughout the article (and in response to critiques of it) the authors repeatedly confuse memory functions (which are subtended by the hippocampal areas of the brain) with the executive functions (that are subtended by the frontal lobes) suggesting that the authors are not experts in the neurosciences field. Londonmatty20 (talk) 22:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC) Until the clinical neurosciences community adopts the term (and begins research into) 'brain fitness', this construct remains a marketing tool, and articles such as this are merely advertisements. Londonmatty20 (talk) 11:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Part of the motivation comes from the work done on physical exercise (some good human work by JA Blumenthal at Duke, and animal work by Fred Gage). To summarize, people perform better on tests of executive function if they get regular physical exercise. This has been found in older people, younger people, lab rats (although their cognitive tests were more memory than executive function per se). Gage has related these changed to neurotrophins in the brain, which are also related to neurogenesis.

So we have these findings. If you physically exercise regularly, your brain makes more neurons in the parts of the brain that still make neurons, and your performance on executive function tasks improves. That leads to a hypothesis the prevalence of which has risen substantially in the last 10-15 years. Brain fitness is also dependent on brain exercise. At first glance it seems OBVIOUS. If physical exercise improves brain function, what would you expect from brain exercise? And how would you construct the brain exercises to maximize their improvement of brain function? What control measures would you adopt to ensure that the tests of improvement are not contaminated by practice effects? These are all relevant issues on the page and should be expanded based on third party reliably sourced content related to brain fitness. And the evidence is emerging, and the POV presented on the page should be a reflection of the prevalence and range of POVs presented in third party reliable reporting. There is a wide range of third party sources available, and if their consensus is that the idea of brain fitness is bunk, then this consensus view on brain fitness should be fairly represented on the Wikipedia page on brain fitness. But as an expert in the field of brain fitness, and someone who does research on Alzheimer's and MCI, I don't see that as the consensus among scientists. Most are optimistic while remaining skeptical as the existing work seeks to address potential shortcomings in the main hypothesis. --Animalresearcher (talk) 14:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, I don't know what part of the clinical neurosciences field you are familiar with, but in my neck of the woods the concept of brain fitness is not only recognized, but many doctors recommend ad hoc brain exercise solutions for their older patients who complain of losing executive function skills (mainly memory). --Animalresearcher (talk) 14:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleaning up POV

I will try to add a section later today on this principal caveat - separating practice effects from fitness effects. It is an important issue and a section of the page should be devoted to it, with appropriate third party reliable references. I altered the LEAD to reflect that the scientific community is not one-sided on this issue currently ie: the alternate POV is in the lead as well. --Animalresearcher (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of neutrality tag

I added a caveat to the LEAD about the significant issue that the effects may be practice and not fitness based, and added a section near the end on this portion of the brain fitness literature. And to whomever wishes to nominate it for neutrality checking, please add other points of view yourself. When you have problems with other editors when you try to add material that refers directly to statements in reliable third party sources, then add the neutrality tag. --Animalresearcher (talk) 01:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] UFOV

The UFOV is a training task designed for brain fitness research, and Karlene Ball and colleagues have written multiple peer review articles about its effect (they created it). It was recently purchased by Posit Science. However, that does not impact the peer review work done before Posit Science bought it, which is the referenced topic of discussion. The reference in this case is a review written by Karlene Ball. --Animalresearcher (talk) 12:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Just doing a quick Google search shows up this "Evaluate whether a driver is at risk for accident involvement in 15 minutes or less with Useful Field of View (UFOV®). UFOV is a computer-administered and computer-scored test of visual attention that determines the size of a driver's perceptual window, or useful field of view."

All five top Google searches on "Useful Field of View" refer to it as a test, not a training program.

This UFOV mention adds more confusion than value, and the timing of its inclusion in Wikipedia coincides with the timing of Posit Science Corporation purchase of the technology, so I propose leaving out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.236.65.43 (talk) 02:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The included material is referenced to a reliable third party source, and is included consistently with the text in the reliable source. It meets Wikipedia standards for reliable sources, and verifiability as in WP:RS and WP:V. This material is probably the highest quality work in existence to address the issues that segregate brain fitness from practice effects. Whether some company takes the UFOV and markets it for some other purpose is not relevant to the inclusion of the references third party material. For the sake of clarity, if the term UFOV is not used consistently, then material could be added to remove ambiguities. However, I would recommend reading the referenced review, and the studies to which it refers (as I have) before coming to judgement about relevance for inclusion. It is highly inappropriate to remove material that is relevant and referenced to reliable third party sources unless some other Wiki guiding principle is violated (like WP:UNDUE or WP:NPOV ). Material that comes from companies is not third party material like peer-review articles or academic journals are, and that is the basis for rejecting them. You may also find it useful to read Wikipedia:Spam --Animalresearcher (talk) 17:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)