as this has been discussed on this forum before, the article by DocJohn may be of interest:

to read more please go to
http://psychcentral.com/blog/archive...brain-fitness/

DocJohn has this nailed.

Not only is the research weak, but it also does not normalize the study cohort. They do not remove the power of suggestion as they analyze the 'self-reporting' of improvements.

Is the self-report of improvement a true improvement or is it just a "I did not know I could do that" ?

Remember the old axiom about lies. There are three kinds of lies: Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

I have been saying for ages that these programs do not cause new brain functions but rather strengthen under-developed brain functions.

Learning better focus will provide better recall. It is not a change in the brain's function. It is a change in how the person uses their brain.

It is no different than exercising balance skills. Did the exercise cause a skill to develop that was not there? or did the exercise just strengthen a skill that was lazy?

The evidence appears to support the second concept.

The value with those of us with memory and cognitive struggles is simple. It can help us strengthen skills that are weak but undamaged so we can use them to compensate for other skills that are poor because they are damaged.

But, do we need to spend $15 per month at Luminosity or $400 at Posit Science to get this exercise? If money is not an issue, go for it. But if it squeezes the budget, there are plenty of free ways to exercise our brains.

In the old days, we developed these skills by being more active and connected to the various activities in our world. My generation did not grow up with the limited focus of Sesame Street and Electric Light Company. We got out and used our imaginations and brains to understand the world. We were not fed 'what to think.' Instead, we were given opportunities to learn how to expand our thinking. No $15 monthly payment and computer time needed.

Thanks DocJohn.

As a scientist myself these kind of people really disappoint me. As Mark said, it is so easy to manipulate results and/or conclusions and claim scientific support.

I'll stick with learning Japanese to keep my mind stimulated.

There are better performed studies out there that show an improvement in cognitive function when training the brain:

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/20...68105.abstract

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0901082851.htm

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%...l.pone.0029676

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2011-1...crossword.html

I also think it makes a big difference if the brain is healthy or damaged. I know for a fact that people with brain damage benefit from training specific skills many hours a day using software. In Denmark the professionals use Cognisoft for this purpose. I personally don´t think a healthy individual would gain much from this and would probably be better of doing math, learning a new language or play an instrument.

-GlassHead

These studies presented by Glasshead are quite common in that they did not normalize the studied cohort. In fact, some may have had bias from the start due to the selection process.

The concept that developing or strengthening lazy brain functions may be the cause of the measured improvement still fits.

Brain training and neuroscience start-ups are the new dot coms of this decade.

Most of the studies even claimed a need for further study with larger groups and also a lack of understanding how these improvements will impact daily life.

The HBOT industry is a good example. They show that 40 to 80 HBOT treatments results in an increase in the capillary blood flow thought to be caused by an increase in the number of capillaries.

Altitude training shows the same. Sleep therapy with reduced oxygen content similar to an 8000 foot altitude results in the same increase in capillary growth.

So, if the money is not an issue, go for it. Just don't knock yourself out.

Glasshead is right that there has not been any studies published that relate this to a damaged brain.