Not all brain training is effective. The training that worked was "finding quickly."

Not all brain training is effective. The training that worked was "finding quickly."

"Does brain training really help?" A recent study has provided a concrete answer to this question for the first time in a while. The key point is not the "memory and thinking skills training" like crosswords or mental arithmetic, but rather "processing speed," which is closer to reflexes. According to the content introduced by the German newspaper WELT, a follow-up analysis of a long-term study in the United States found that people who underwent a specific type of brain training had up to a 25% lower risk of developing dementia, including Alzheimer's disease, 20 years later.


The "6-week intervention" that made a difference 20 years later

The framework of the study is as follows: Participants aged 65 and over were divided into groups according to different brain training menus, with each group undergoing multiple sessions of 60 to 75 minutes over 5 to 6 weeks. The training was broadly categorized into three types: "memory," "reasoning (logic)," and "processing speed," along with a control group that did not undergo training. Additionally, some participants received "booster" training about one year and three years later. Over a 20-year span, the combination of "processing speed training + booster" showed a clear difference.


According to an explanation from Johns Hopkins, the group with processing speed training and boosters had a lower "rate of being diagnosed with dementia" compared to the control group, showing a statistically significant difference. Specifically, 40% of the processing speed group with boosters were diagnosed, compared to 49% in the control group, resulting in a "25% lower incidence rate (relative reduction)."


The WELT article also mentions that this study highlights the point that "the effect does not diminish even if the training starts at an older age." In other words, there's no need to start like a prodigy from decades ago; it's worth starting even after the age of 65.


So what exactly is "processing speed training"?

Processing speed training is more akin to training to "quickly spot something with your eyes while also paying attention to the surroundings" rather than memorizing or thinking. According to the NIH, it involves identifying a target in the center of the screen while also detecting another target appearing in the periphery. The presentation time gradually shortens, and the difficulty increases.


The important aspect here is the "adaptive" nature. The more you improve, the more challenging the tasks become (meaning you never get too used to the same level of difficulty). Johns Hopkins and the NIH suggest that while memory and reasoning training tend to involve learning the same strategies for everyone, the processing speed training updates challenges based on individual performance, which may have led to the difference.


Why does "speed" work? Two hypotheses

The researchers have not definitively determined the mechanism. However, several plausible hypotheses have been suggested.


One hypothesis is "brain circuitry building (network enhancement)." The WELT article touches on the possibility that processing speed training physically changes the brain and creates new connections.


Another hypothesis is that it stimulates "automated processing (implicit learning)" rather than "conscious thinking ability." The NIH explains that processing speed training may relate to "strategies that primarily use unconscious thinking." In other words, it's about training the habit of instant judgment and attention distribution before you start mulling over words in your head.


In real life, driving, shopping, cooking, and medication management often involve situations where "thinking slowly won't get you the right answer," but rather "processing quickly without overlooking things." The training may have directly addressed that aspect.


However, beware of misunderstandings: "Prevention" or "Delay"?

This point quickly emerged on social media. Questions like "Was the diagnosis just delayed?" and "Is it 'reduced' or just 'postponed'?" were raised.


In fact, in a Reddit discussion, someone questioned whether delay is synonymous with "reduction," and another participant responded that "since there is a possibility of dying from other diseases in old age, the delay itself could be a 'substantial reduction' in public health." There was also skepticism about whether it just increased the ability to "mask symptoms."


This exchange is important. The study's expression is "lower incidence of dementia diagnosis (fewer diagnoses)," and it does not go so far as to say that it completely stopped the pathological changes in the brain. The NIH and health-related media convey it with a tone of "not a cure" and "a possibility of delaying onset and diagnosis."


Nevertheless, the value of "delaying" is not insignificant. If the period of independence extends by even one or two years, it can change the individual's freedom of life, the caregiving burden on families, and the overall medical and caregiving costs for society. Researchers have stated that "even a small delay can be significant for public health," reflecting this reality.


Social media reactions: Three points that sparked interest

 

This topic simultaneously spread "hope" and "caution." Social media reactions can be broadly divided into the following three categories.


① The "What exactly should we do?" problem
On Reddit, questions like "What specific training/games should we do?" were prominent, and another user quoted the NIH explanation to introduce the task content. There were also mentions of services like "BrainHQ."


② Caution against "brain training business"
The point that "not just any brain training will do" also spread. In fact, the difference shown 20 years later was in "processing speed," and memory and reasoning did not show similar differences. This acts as a brake to prevent the misunderstanding that "all commercial brain training will prevent dementia."


③ The "Is it prevention or just postponement?" debate
As mentioned earlier, there were questions like "If the diagnosis was just delayed, does it matter?" while others argued, "If it improves the quality of life, it has value," and "Delay in old age is a substantial benefit." The fact that a debate arose itself is evidence that this study was received as a theme directly connected to life rather than just trivia.


So what should we do? Practical ways to incorporate it

Reading this far, one might hastily conclude, "Okay, just do processing speed training," but researchers are actually in a context of recommending "combinations." The NIH also touches on the potential synergistic effects with lifestyle interventions such as exercise and diet, which are said to reduce the risk of cognitive decline.


In reality, the following priorities are good.

  • First, incorporate "processing speed" in a sustainable way (preferably something "adaptive" with increasing difficulty even in short periods)

  • Second, manage cardiovascular risks (blood pressure, blood sugar, lipids, weight management, exercise)

  • Third, maintain sleep, social interaction, and intellectual stimulation that is not too difficult ("fun" is the fuel for continuation)


The point is not to treat brain training as a "panacea." However, the fact that "just a few weeks of training can leave a difference on a 20-year scale" is quite strong in the context of preventive medicine.


Sources

Related Articles