Thank you

I find it concerning that many of these programmes have been marketed to target older adults in particular without making any specific statement on whether the activities are beneficial and have been supported with empirical research.

i have recently conducted a cognitive intervention study which used a large array of outcome measures which focus on a number of different cognitive functions. The measures investigated both objective and subjective behaviours. The results confirmed that attempting cryptic crosswords for one hour per day increased subjective awareness of older adults own memory. However there was no evidence of a tangible increase in episodic, verbal memory with both recall and recognition. There was also no evidence of increases in metacognition. It is important to note that the intervention period was only six weeks. However this demonstrates that there is a need for products to be clear on what functions the activity will promote and whether it is affected by any confounding variables. For example we found that the beneficial effects were more apparent in individuals with a lower number of years in education. This is important because it is likely that people who purchase such intervention products will tend to have a higher socio-economic status and significantly more developed educational background.

Overall, there is a need in psychology for an overhaul of how we measure cognitive interventions. We also need to ensure that we use the correct methodology (i.e. within subjects designs) and that we used the sorrect sample population. Unfortunatly many of the previous research which the cognitive reserve hypothesis and use-it-or-lose-it theory are based on have not done so.