This story raises the issue of whether so-called “brain games,” like Lumosity, actually do what they’re advertised as doing — improving brain function. The story includes comments from sources both supporting and opposing these games and cites authoritative evaluations of the evidence. It also includes an extensive list of alternative approaches that may be better than games for improving cognitive function.
However, the story offers little real data to underpin the coverage, only anecdotes. And while it does raise most of the appropriate questions about such programs, readers expecting a definitive answer, or at least a sampling of existing data, are going to be disappointed. Then again, many readers will likely be satisfied to learn the bottom-line conclusions that trustworthy third parties have drawn regarding these games. And for those readers, this story provides a valuable service.
The idea that a computer-driven game can enhance cognition and brain function is enticing and, to some extent, seems to make sense. Mental exercises would seem to strengthen the brain. But the brain isn’t a muscle and, so far, it isn’t known whether such efforts will pay off. With the apparent increasing rate of patients with Alzheimer’s and other dementias in the U.S., an easy way to delay, or even halt, that mental deterioration would be a great advance for both personal and public health.
The story doesn’t mention the costs for such brain games. It mentions the product Lumosity specifically at several points but doesn’t say what it costs. While there is a free membership to Lumosity, it is limited and the full program requires paid membership — $14.95/month, or $6.95/month with a one-year commitment, $4.95/month for a two-year commitment, or a one-time payment of $299.95, based on some Internet sources. Lumosity requires that viewers create an account before they reach the company’s payment information. The story does mention that the brain-game industry “is expected to hit $6 billion a year by 2020.” Six billion dollars a year is impressive for games that are potentially no more effective than a placebo and a distraction from more effective brain stimulation.
This is a borderline Not Satisfactory. The story references a mixed bag of studies, some of which are “promising” while others indicate the games “offer little more than recreation.” But what sorts of benefits do the promising studies show on what outcomes? There are few details. The story does describe one such study that resulted in enhanced reading comprehension and “discipline,” but no numbers are provided to document the benefits.
More generally, the story does make it clear that there is no definitive evidence supporting a benefit from these games. And it points out that the writer asked Lumosity for the independent research backing its claims of improvements but the company failed to provide it. That’s good journalism, but surely there are other brain game studies that could have been referenced to provide context. The story discusses one clinical trial underway but adds that results are a year away.
The story mentions no harms from these brain games, but such harms are difficult to imagine. The chief harms we can think of are that these games could reinforce sedentary behavior, when in fact the opposite — exercise — is likely to have a bigger beneficial impact on brain function. But we won’t penalize the story for not explicitly stating this — we’ll rule it Not Applicable.
This story does a good job of presenting the quality of evidence available, which is fairly poor, but that isn’t the story’s fault. It mentions multiple research projects that have investigated short-term results, some of which appeared promising, but rightly points out that those results may not translate into improved brain function and healthier behavior in the long run. It also juxtaposes the existing research with anecdotal comments from college students involved in some projects. It does so while clearly presenting them as individual opinions — not data.
The Inquirer’s story uses information from multiple sources. There is no apparent conflict of interest.
The story does a thorough job of exploring alternatives. First, it mentions that studies have shown that physical activity improves cognitive function, and second, it suggests that doing cognitively challenging things like learning a language or taking music lessons should not be replaced by computer-driven brain games. The story also includes a box highlighting beneficial factors including exercise, staying socially and intellectually active, healthy diet, getting good sleep, and keeping your heart healthy.
We’ll give this one a satisfactory rating since it mentions Lumosity and calls it a “popular brain game,” implying widespread availability. Through an extensive television advertising program, this game is indeed widely known. However, the story focuses only on Lumosity, when certainly there are other alternative products, given that this is supposed to be a $6 billion industry in half a decade.
Brain games are not novel, but the story establishes what is new here, which is the National Cancer Institute-sponsored research designed to generate more definitive evidence about the benefits of such games.
The story doesn’t rely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like