Brain training and its effect on cognitive skills

Discuss About The Research In Vocational Education And Training.

This essay emphasizes on the brain training and to justify that it actually works in increasing the performance of the individuals or groups. Some tests and researches were done on the group of people. Out of multiples tests, only few were on the positive note that brain training works. Later some more evidences were found out which concluded that brain training improves the individual’s performance and cognitive skills. There are some of the approaches which were taken by few researchers to know about brain training. This essay focusses on those approaches and researches as well.

Brain training is actually a type of cognitive training in which the use of intense exercise of mind is done for targeting the cognitive skills of the brain. The cognitive skills which are strong are complicated as they use brain for reading, Accounting, reasoning and paying attention. These are the skills which verify the IQ of a person. The skills include attention, speed for processing, long and short term memory and logic. This essay explored the argument that is made on the brain training as to find out if it is actually works (Nouchi, et al., 2012).

There was a study which was published in Journal of Neuroscience, 128 adults went under the training and were tested in terms of performance they given based on their mental abilities after playing brain training games related to luminosity or normal games continuously for more than 10 weeks. After the tests, the researchers had no leads or proofs which could say that the training of the brain could lead to the improvement in the memory or decision making etc. Most of the brain training ideas are actually based on the practice of simple cognitive skills in limited context would lead to development on a huge range of skills in daily life (Ven, Murre, Nijboe, Doesborgh, & Nijboer, 2017).

In all 75 scientists who have signed the anti-brain training statement, 54 researchers were behavioral ones and 11 were of neuroscience.  This means that majority of the scientists believed that brain training does not work after they have studied the topic of performance of behavior. Remaining 15 percent researchers of this training, the scientists investigated the topic from the physiological point of view. On the contrary, 131 scientists sighed up for the pro brain training. 29 people were behavioral researchers out of them and 88 were neuroscientists or medical researchers. This explains that the major number of researchers argued that again the brain training does not work after seeking results by investigating the physiological point of view whereas the small number of people investigated behavioral point of view.

Research on brain training

When scientists measure the person’s behavioral performance with the help of the tests and exploring the explicit abilities and achievements, they found out that brain training programs were effective (Hardy, Sarkar, & Drescher, 2011).

For investigating the brain training as to if it leads to the cognitive function improvement, the viewers of program “Bang goes the theory” took part in 6 weeks training program of brain. The inception of the training happened with the broad neuropsychological battery of 4 tests which were susceptible in the cognitive function changes in terms of health and disease 6-12. The boundary actions reasoning 6, VSTM 7, 12, spatial working memory 8-10 and paired associates 11, 13 were acquired. All the people who took part in the research were put into factions or third control group and then logged in to the BBC Lab UK site for practicing six training tasks for 10 min per day and three time per week. In the experiment 1, the tasks in training focused on the, preparation and problem solving capabilities and reasoning abilities. In group 2, the training was done for the cognitive functions such as short term memory, mathematics, attention and visuospatial processing etc. (Owen, et al., 2010). Problems in the exercise tasks were being increased as the contestants continued to improve their performance in term of cognitive skills and maximized benefits of training. At the last week, the assessment of benchmarking was recurrent and the prior and after training totals were competed with each other. The result of the compared scores gives the calculation of the general development in cognitive skills. In the same way, the first and the last scores were compared to give the details of the improvement on the task. Out of 52,617 contestants who initially registered were of age 18-60 and 11,430 completed the assessments and they took full two trainings within the period of six weeks. If the average is taken out, the contestants completed 24.47 trainings (Pereira, Ninaus, Prada, & Paiva, 2014).

Such results provided absolutely no proof for any generalizes improvement in cognitive functions which follows training of brain.

There are two ideas on which the theories of transfer of training is based on. One is Formal discipline theory and second is transferal by similar basics.

The formal discipline theory refers to the brain which contains the abilities such as absorption and memory etc. which could easily be upgraded via exercises. According to William James (1890), the formal discipline theory could be experimented and that is why he was the first one to do it. He argument that if memory could be taken as a usual capacity, then memorizing a single poem will improve the speed so much that a person can memorize two at a time.  He recorded a baseline rate of 50 seconds per line to memorize 158 lines from Victor Hugo’s Satyr. As a result, he could find out that no savings in remembering an unusual set of 158 lines from Satyr. After that he hired four new students for repeating the same experiment. Out if those four, two of them showed savings and two did not (Sawami, Kimura, Nakagawa, Kitamura, & Suishu, 2017). This was such a weak proof that James has a view that the retentiveness of a person cannot be changed. Though, formal discipline and similar features are usually displayed as contradicting theories of generalization from learning, it cannot be differentiated simply and theoretically as none of the theories provide operational details which differentiates capacities from elements.

Theories and findings

Moreover, with the usage of tough approaches in lab and also in the investigation, Edward Throndike verified the formal discipline too (Stanic, 1986). The students who researched the area of rectangles, their estimation was upgraded but those developments could not transfer in the skills where they could estimate area of other forms. He then determined that mind is very much focussed in multi-tasking of self-governing capacities with which human nature is altered in only minor spots. According to Thorndike (1906), he referred a view to as transfer by alike elements where the skills which are gained at the time of trainings are tightly linked to the outcome, tasks and answers which are needed at the time of learning (Astorga, 2014).

On the other hand, Thorndike’s idea was taken hugely by the transfer of language. Transfer tasks which share multiple elements with the tasks which are practiced are said to demonstrate near transfer while tasks which has less elements are said to demonstrate far transfer (Tonhauser & Buker, 2016).

By see in such examinations, the conclusion can be drawn that extensive proofs are found where brain training improves the functioning on the tasks that are skilled and few proofs that such type of interventions upgrades the functioning on tasks which are near and very little on proof about the training which increases far tasks or cognitive skills which improve daily performances. There were multiple of the interventions which had many shortcomings in the framework that prevent exact conclusions about the effectiveness of the training. Also, it was analyzed that none of the studies which are cited conforms to all best practices that are identified as necessary conclusions about the profit of the training of brain in daily life (Simons, et al., 2016).

References

Astorga, M. L. (2014). The Theory of the Formal Discipline and the Possible Interpretations of Conditionals: Material Versus Defective Conditionals. Abstracta, 8(1), 31-39.

Hardy, J. L., Sarkar, K., & Drescher, economics. (2011). Enhancing Visual Attention and working memory with a Web Based cognitive Training Program. Mensa Research Journal, 42(2).

Nouchi, R., Taki, Y., Takeuchi, H., Kawashima, R., Tsukiura, T., & Kotozaki, Y. (2012). Brain Training Game Improves Executive Functions and Processing Speed in the Elderly: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Plos One, 7(1).

Owen, A. M., Hampshire, A., Grahn, J. A., Stenton, R., Dajani, S., Burns, A. S., & Howard, R. J. (2010). Putting brain training to the test. Nature, 465.

Pereira, G., Ninaus, M., Prada, R., & Paiva, A. (2014). Free Your Brain a Working Memory Training Game.     Researchgate.

Sawami, K., Kimura, M., Nakagawa, H., Kitamura, T., & Suishu, C. (2017). Achievement of Brain Training Course for the Elderly. Journal of Health Education Research & Development, 5(2).

Stanic, G. A. (1986). Mental Discipline Theory and Mathematics Education. For the Learning of Mathematics, 6(1).

Simons, D. J., Boot, W. R., Charness, N., Gathercole, S. E., Chabris, C. F., & Hambrick, D. Z. (2016). Do “Brain-Training” Programs Work? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 17(3), 103-186.

Tonhauser, C., & Buker, L. (2016). Determinants of Transfer of Training: A Comprehensive Literature Review. International Journal for Research in Vocational Education and Training, 3(2), 127-165.

Ven, R. M., Murre, J. M., Nijboe, T. C., Doesborgh, S. J., & Nijboer, T. C. (2017). Brain training improves recovery after stroke but waiting list improves equally: A multicenter randomized controlled trial of a computerbased cognitive flexibility training. Plos One, 12(3).

Tonhauser, C., & Buker, L. (2016). Determinants of Transfer of Training: A Comprehensive Literature Review. International Journal for Research in Vocational Education and Training, 3(2), 127-165.