forgets to focus on the addiction factor. Pen and paper works as well, if they are used. If a child does maths with the DS and it is addictive, ... I know it from my own experience. I play more often brain age on my DS than I sit down and solve math equations :)
While Brain Age's advertising contains a number of questionable correlations (increased brain blood flow indicates beneficial mental exercise; improved game scores indicate a delay of cognitive decline), I found it odd that a researcher trying to disprove them would pile on a few more assumptions:<p><i>The study tested Nintendo's claims on 67 ten-year-olds. "That's the age where you have the best chance of improvement," Professor Lieury said. "If it doesn't work on children, it won't work on adults."</i><p>I also found it dubious that the Nintendo and pencil-and-paper groups both improved 10% in logic tests, while the control group improved 20%... So both Nintendo and pencil-and-paper training effectively degrade your logic ability? Or perhaps his 10-year-old subjects are improving in all areas so rapidly that the extra hours spent doing the exercises are detracting from something more important to development -- which might not be the case for adult subjects.<p><i>In Stimulate Your Neurones, a book due out this month, Professor Lieury says: "There were few positive effects and they were weak. Dr Kawashima is one of a long list of dream merchants."</i><p>Ah, a book... It looks like someone wants to add his name to the list. :)
the fact that the article fails to mention that people, children specifically, enjoy the interactive nature of handheld devices and would thereby have a positive effect on engagement undercuts the investigators argument to a degree.<p>certainly nintendos numbers have a tad bit of pr thrown in for good measure but surely there is some truth there. additionaly, at a fundamental level much of what we do can be distilled to a paper and pencil implementation. we could calculate trajectories and load bearings with a slide rule - but should we? i find that these studies are a throwback to Luddite times. bottom line for me is that the device itself is a major breakthrough and the opportunity it provides to enhance content delivery to the end user outstrips its early simplistic software applications at this time. no doubt, future iterations will be much more compelling.
One to file under "no shit Sherlock" maybe? Doesn't really seem fair to compare it against mentally challenging things though, probably more fair to compare it against other video games or watching crap TV...