The debate on whether brain training apps really do work is not a new one. There are hundreds of expert opinion fighting on both ends, but what really does the consumers think about it? Do the apps fulfill the claims they offer?
An article by David Hambrick published on Scientific American, informs us of the following statistics- that one of the most popular brain training apps called Lumosity, “boasts 50 million subscribers”. What is so compelling about a brain training app that attracts so many of us? Is it a “solution” for attention problems like Cogmed claims, or an opportunity to “make the most of your unique brain” as BrainHQ promises. These magical technological interventions seem to hold the key to success, to becoming a better you, at the convenient click of a button.
While these apps are advertised as tools embodying principles derived from neuroplasticity, what they are actually tapping onto is the exploitable consumer’s psyche. The paper by Torous et al.(2016) elucidates this by pointing out that the app users have reported to have high expectations from these apps even before they begin using them.
A general consensus was found after perusing through several reddit threads discussing on the matter of personal experiences using these apps, and it was skepticism. But what is interesting is that the users did believe the apps were neuro-scientifically sound, but their skepticism stemmed from the lack of generalization of the game tasks to their real life. The users believed they were getting better only at the game, one user summed it up so- “adding lanes for a faster commute to work does not help when getting groceries”.
Several users commented that learning a language or instrument was a more reliable way to ‘train the brain’ than the apps available. Curiously somebody suggested swapping these apps with Duolingo, which is a language learning app, bringing in the question of what services should be termed ‘brain-training’. In fact one of the first neuroplasticity based computerized interventions was targeting improvement in language learning. This intervention is called ‘Fast ForWord’, and has proven to be effective and accurate.
But all the same, Torous et al.(2016) in their study assessing the beliefs of consumers of brain training smartphone apps, found that the consumers believed their abilities were getting better, with 66.9% feeling an improvement in thinking, 70.3% having better memory, and 69.3% reporting better attention. A significant proportion [53.3%] also reported feeling a positive effect on mood. But the authors conclude that this positive attitude could be a result of the preexisting positive outlook towards brain training apps, and not a measure of the efficacy of the app itself. Also the driving force behind the sheer number of downloads of these apps might be the preexisting positive outlook towards brain training apps.
References:
- Torous, J., Staples, P., Fenstermacher, E., Dean, J., & Keshavan, M. (2016). Barriers, benefits, and beliefs of brain training smartphone apps: an internet survey of younger US consumers. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 10, 180.
- Strong, G. K., Torgerson, C. J., Torgerson, D., & Hulme, C. (2011). A systematic meta‐analytic review of evidence for the effectiveness of the ‘Fast ForWord’language intervention program. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 52(3), 224–235.
- Hambrick, David Z. “Brain Training Doesn’t Make You Smarter.” Scientific American, Scientific American, 2 Dec. 2014, www.scientificamerican.com/article/brain-training-doesn-t-make-you-smarter/.
