Sharp Brains: Brain Fitness and Cognitive Health News

Neuroplasticity, Brain Fitness and Cognitive Health News

Icon

Can Intelligence Be Trained? Martin Buschkuehl shows how

Today I had a great con­ver­sa­tion with Mar­tin Buschkuehl, one of the Uni­ver­si­ty Martin Buschkuehl of Michi­gan Cog­ni­tive Neu­roimag­ing Lab researchers  involved in the cog­ni­tive train­ing study that has received much media atten­tion (New York Times, Wired, Sci­ence News…) since late April, when the study was pub­lished at the Pro­ceed­ings of the Nation­al Acad­e­my of Sci­ences.

Ref­er­ence: Jaeg­gi, S. M., Buschkuehl, M., Jonides, J., & Per­rig, W. J. (2008). Improv­ing Flu­id Intel­li­gence With Train­ing on Work­ing Mem­o­ry. Pro­ceed­ings of the Nation­al Acad­e­my of Sci­ences of the Unit­ed States of Amer­i­ca, 105(19), 6829–6833 (You can read it here, with sub­scrip­tion).

Before you keep read­ing, let me clar­i­fy a cou­ple of terms:

- “Work­ing Mem­o­ry” is the abil­i­ty to hold sev­er­al units of infor­ma­tion in our minds and manip­u­late them in real time. For exam­ple, imag­ine I ask you to remem­ber, and then say back­wards, the 7 dig­its of my phone num­ber.

- “Flu­id intel­li­gence” can be described as the abil­i­ty to deal with new chal­lenges and new prob­lems, those that we encounter for the first time.

Dr. Buschkuehl, nice to talk to you. Can you first pro­vide us with some con­text on your research?

My col­lab­o­ra­tor Susanne Jaeg­gi and I start­ed our train­ing work four years ago in the Lab of Prof. Wal­ter Per­rig at the Uni­ver­si­ty of Bern, Switzer­land. Now we are both Post Docs in Prof. John Join­des Lab at the Uni­ver­si­ty of Michi­gan. We devel­oped a com­plex com­put­er­ized task and have tried it in a num­ber of stud­ies. We report­ed our results in two unpub­lished dis­ser­ta­tions, but this is the first time it has been pub­lished in a peer-reviewed jour­nal.

Could you please explain the train­ing involved in this par­tic­u­lar study?

We recruit­ed 70 stu­dents aged around 26 years and set half of them on a chal­leng­ing com­put­er-based cog­ni­tive train­ing reg­i­men, based on the so-called “n-back task.” This is a very com­plex work­ing mem­o­ry task that involves the simul­ta­ne­ous pre­sen­ta­tion of visu­al and audi­to­ry stim­uli. The exper­i­men­tal group watched a series of screens on their com­put­ers, where a blue square appeared in var­i­ous posi­tions on a black back­ground. Each screen appeared for half a sec­ond, with a 2.5 sec­ond gap before the next one appeared. While this hap­pened, the trainees also heard a series of let­ters that were read out at the same rate. task.jpg

At first, stu­dents had to say if either the screen or the let­ter matched those that popped up two cycles ago. The num­ber of cycles increased or decreased depend­ing on how well the stu­dents per­formed the task. The stu­dents sat through about twen­ty-five min­utes of train­ing per day for either 8, 12, 17 or 19 days, and were test­ed on their flu­id intel­li­gence before and after the reg­i­men using the Bochumer-Matrizen Test (this is a prob­lem-solv­ing task based on the same prin­ci­ple as the very well known Raven’s Advanced Pro­gres­sive Matri­ces. How­ev­er, it is more dif­fi­cult and there­fore espe­cial­ly suit­ed for aca­d­e­m­ic sam­ples).

What were the results?

Par­tic­i­pants in the exper­i­men­tal group did sig­nif­i­cant­ly bet­ter on the flu­id intel­li­gence test (which was not direct­ly trained) than par­tic­i­pants in the con­trol group. Those in the con­trol group had not gone through any train­ing. The con­trol group did improve slight­ly, but real “trainees” out­per­formed them (see Fig­ure Xa). Fur­ther­more, we found that the improve­ment was dose-depen­dent: the more they trained, the larg­er the gain on flu­id intel­li­gence.

graphs.jpg

Images: PNAS.

We just pub­lished a mar­ket report to cov­er the grow­ing brain fit­ness soft­ware mar­ket. A com­mon ques­tion we get is, “How are com­put­er­ized pro­grams like the one you used fun­da­men­tal­ly dif­fer­ent from, say, sim­ply doing many cross­word puz­zles?

First, thank you for send­ing the report along. Fas­ci­nat­ing to see what is start­ing to hap­pen in this field.

In terms of why our pro­gram worked, I could say that the pro­gram has some inher­ent prop­er­ties that are at least in this com­bi­na­tion unique to our train­ing approach. Our pro­gram is:

  • Ful­ly adap­tive in real-time: The per­son using the pro­gram is tru­ly pushed to his or her peak lev­el all the time, there­by “stretch­ing” the tar­get­ed abil­i­ty.
  • Com­plex: We present a very com­plex task, mix­ing dif­fer­ent forms of stim­uli (audi­to­ry, visu­al) under time pres­sure.
  • Designed for Trans­fer­abil­i­ty: The tasks can be designed in a way that do not allow for the devel­op­ment of task-spe­cif­ic “strate­gies” to beat the game. One needs to tru­ly expand capac­i­ty, and this helps ensure the trans­fer of to non-trained tasks.

This is very dif­fer­ent from enhanc­ing task-spe­cif­ic capac­i­ties, such as mem­o­riz­ing lists of 100 num­bers, which have been shown not to nec­es­sar­i­ly trans­fer to relat­ed domains.

Can you give an exam­ple of the lack of trans­fer­abil­i­ty of oth­er train­ing meth­ods?

In Ericsson’s clas­sic paper (Eric­s­son, K. A., & Delaney, P. F. (1998). Work­ing mem­o­ry and expert per­for­mance. In R. H. Logie & K. J. Gilhooly (Eds.), Work­ing Mem­o­ry and Think­ing (pp. 93–114). Hills­dale, NJ: Erl­baum), peo­ple who could mem­o­rize 100 num­bers, using a vari­ety of mnemotec­nic tech­niques, could not get even close to 100 let­ters. Remem­ber­ing num­bers didn’t trans­late into remem­ber­ing oth­er things, so it wasn’t a gen­er­al mem­o­ry capac­i­ty that had been improved.

What are the par­tic­u­lar aspects of the Uni­ver­si­ty of Michi­gan study that sur­prised you the most?

First, the clear trans­fer into flu­id intel­li­gence, that many researchers and psy­chol­o­gists take as fixed.

Sec­ond, I was sur­prised to see that the more train­ing the bet­ter the out­come. The improve­ments did not seem to peak ear­ly.

Third, that all trained groups improved, no mat­ter their respec­tive start­ing points. In fact, stu­dents with low­est flu­id intel­li­gence seemed to improve the most. But that was not the main focus of our study, so we can not say much more about it.

How did par­tic­i­pants describe the expe­ri­ence, and their ben­e­fits?

Many liked the train­ing. They saw the chal­lenge, and tried hard to push them­selves through the train­ing to see how far they could go.

We did not ana­lyze how the flu­id intel­li­gence gains trans­ferred into real life. But from an anec­do­tal point of view, many par­tic­i­pants have shared sto­ries of how they per­ceive a major ben­e­fit. Now they can fol­low lec­tures more eas­i­ly, under­stand math bet­ter etc.

There is a degree of arti­fi­cial con­tro­ver­sy these days in the media and the sci­en­tif­ic com­mu­ni­ty on the respec­tive ben­e­fits of phys­i­cal or men­tal exer­cise. Your thoughts?

We obvi­ous­ly need both. Phys­i­cal exer­cise keeps the body in a good shape but espe­cial­ly in old­er peo­ple also leads to cog­ni­tive ben­e­fits. Men­tal exer­cise, like the one we used, can enhance impor­tant abil­i­ties and is most like­ly the most effi­cient way to improve a spe­cif­ic cog­ni­tive process but also gen­er­al­izes to a broad­er range of skills, as we showed.

Research will need to help clar­i­fy who needs what type of exer­cise more. Some peo­ple may get enough men­tal exer­cise through very com­plex jobs and what they need is phys­i­cal exer­cise. For oth­ers, it may be the oppo­site.

What are your plans now?

First, to con­duct fol­low-up research to ana­lyze the neur­al basis of the improve­ment via neu­roimag­ing stud­ies and try to mea­sure ben­e­fits in real life.

But our main hope is to be able to inves­ti­gate and devel­op appli­ca­tions for peo­ple who need it most: chil­dren with devel­op­ment prob­lems, stroke/ TBI rehab, and old­er adults.

Also, let me note that there is a cross-plat­form appli­ca­tion avail­able (Note: Here), that allows to train with the dual n-back task and sev­er­al oth­er train­ing tasks that we devel­oped for oth­er stud­ies. Although the appli­ca­tion is avail­able in Eng­lish, the Man­u­al and the Brain­Twister Web­site are not at the moment. We are about to release an Eng­lish ver­sion, but unfor­tu­nate­ly I can­not give you a release date right now. If the train­ing pro­gram is used for research (i.e. a train­ing study), it is pro­vid­ed free of charge.

Mar­tin, many thanks for shar­ing your time and insights with us. Please keep us informed of new devel­op­ments.

My plea­sure. We will.

—————————-

Ref­er­ence: Jaeg­gi, S. M., Buschkuehl, M., Jonides, J., & Per­rig, W. J. (2008). Improv­ing Flu­id Intel­li­gence With Train­ing on Work­ing Mem­o­ry. Pro­ceed­ings of the Nation­al Acad­e­my of Sci­ences of the Unit­ed States of Amer­i­ca, 105(19), 6829–6833 (You can read it here, with sub­scrip­tion).

For relat­ed inter­views on work­ing mem­o­ry train­ing, see

Mem­o­ry train­ing and atten­tion deficits: inter­view with Notre Dame’s Bradley Gib­son

Work­ing Mem­o­ry Train­ing: Inter­view with Dr. Torkel Kling­berg

Work­ing Mem­o­ry Train­ing from a pedi­a­tri­cian per­spec­tive

And, if you want to try the task your­self before the offi­cial web­site men­tioned above is ready (and we’ll keep you updat­ed), you can do so Here.

Leave a Reply...

Loading Facebook Comments ...

8 Responses

  1. dg says:

    hello.……i’m 88.…..is it still pos­si­ble for me to train the brain…even at this age i just love to be inquis­i­tive.…. about everything!!.…..thanks

  2. Alvaro says:

    Hel­lo Dg! of course it is pos­si­ble! evry day you main­tain that curios­i­ty, you learn new things, you mas­ter new skills, you are stim­u­lat­ing your brain! check out this arti­cle on Ten Impor­tant Truths About Aging
    http://www.thecompletelawyer.com/volume3/issue4/article.php?ppaid=3811

  3. james a. bellanca says:

    I recent­ly dis­cov­ered your web­site. I am hap­py to see it. How­ev­er, I am dis­ap­point­ed to see that you make no ref­er­ence to the work of Israeli cog­ni­tive psy­chol­o­gist, Rueven Feuer­stein. In the ear­ly 60’s, his words caused a furor with Amer­i­can edu­ca­tors when he dared to sug­gest the flu­id and plac­tic mind and
    its role in chang­ing intel­li­gence. His the­o­ries of struc­tur­al cog­ni­tive mod­i­fi­a­bil­i­ty and the medi­at­ed learn­ing expe­ri­ence along with the applied sys­tems for chang­ing the intel­lec­tu­al per­for­mance of spe­cial needs, chil­dren of pover­ty, brain dam­aged sol­diers and oth­ers have shown their effec­tive­ness in schools and clin­ics around the world. The use of his applied sys­tems to change minds pro­vides, I believe, a gold­mine of research­able meth­ods to iden­ti­fy the most effec­tive prac­tices not only for young per­sons, but also for seniors. Of spe­cial note in Feuerstein’s sys­tems is the way he takes mind devel­op­ment well beyond the mem­o­ry to medi­ate the devel­op­ment of cog­ni­tive func­tions
    (e.g. pre­ci­sion, using mul­ti­ple sources of data, log­ic) and oper­a­tions (e.g. clas­si­fi­ca­tion, hypoth­e­sis test­ing, com­par­ing).
    You will find a more com­plete intro to his work at http://www.icelp.org.

  4. Erik says:

    My wife and I have looked at this pro­to­col and devel­oped a web appli­ca­tion that imple­ments it. It’s freely avail­able, and it’s at:
    http://www.soakyourhead.com/

  5. Alvaro says:

    Hel­lo James:

    Thanks for stop­ping by. Please don’t “be dis­s­a­point­ed”. It doesn’t help any­one. You don’t hear us talk much about Vygot­sky or Luria, either, sim­ply because we focus on cur­rent research and cur­rent appli­ca­tions, which obvi­ous­ly often build on pre­vi­ous researchers’ work.

    Feel free to share with us spe­cif­ic sci­en­tif­ic ref­er­ences for us to take a look at. What you say sounds very inter­est­ing, but, again, we are not a his­tor­i­cal site, but one that looks at lat­est tri­als and pro­grams.

    What spe­cif­ic pro­grams are being used today based on Dr. Feuerstein’s work? what recent clin­i­cal tri­als have been pub­lished on their effi­ca­cy?

    Look­ing for­ward to hear­ing from you!

  6. SwedishChef says:

    Here is a link to a group that dis­cuss­es dual n-back expe­ri­ences, suc­cess­es, prob­lems, and FREE resources for the dual n-back exer­cise!

    http://groups.google.com/group/dualnback/sub?s=SGnkqAgAAADagWTzMPUDG2kY4aq5Vm9M&hl=en

    Enjoy!

  7. Sabrina Anderson says:

    My 9 yr old has HFA/Aspergers and sev­er work­ing mem­o­ry issues.…cogmed was rec­om­mend­ed but I’m hold­ing out for some­thing with more range/variety..please keep me post­ed on any new devel­ope­ments or stud­ies.

  8. Alvaro says:

    Sab­ri­na, a trained neu­ropsy­chol­o­gist is the best per­son to know how to help your child.

    In order to be informed of lat­est research or pro­gram announce­ments, you can sim­ply sub­scribe to our newslet­ter (again, it will be your kid’s neu­ropsy­chol­o­gist the one best placed to put any news in per­spec­tive).

    Regards

Leave a Reply

Categories: Cognitive Neuroscience, Education & Lifelong Learning, Health & Wellness, Neuroscience Interview Series

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

All Slidedecks & Recordings Available — click image below

Search for anything brain-related in our article archives

About SharpBrains

As seen in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, BBC News, CNN, Reuters, and more, SharpBrains is an independent market research firm and think tank tracking health and performance applications of brain science.