The 40-page whitepa­per “11 Sharp Brains Debunk 10 Myths on the Sci­ence Behind The Nascent Brain Fit­ness Indus­try”, fea­tures 11 in-depth inter­views with lead­ing neu­ro­sci­en­tists, psy­chol­o­gists and experts in the field of cog­ni­tion, con­ducted by Alvaro Fer­nan­dez dur­ing the last 12 months. The quotes below come from those interviews.

Myth 1: It’s all in our genes.

Real­ity: A big com­po­nent of our life­long brain health and devel­op­ment depends on what we do with our brains. Our own actions, not only our genes, influ­ence our lives to a large extent. Genes pre­dis­pose us, not deter­mine our fates.

“Indi­vid­u­als who lead men­tally stim­u­lat­ing lives, through edu­ca­tion, occu­pa­tion and leisure activ­i­ties, have reduced risk of devel­op­ing Alzheimer’s. Stud­ies sug­gest that they have 35–40% less risk of man­i­fest­ing the dis­ease — Dr. Yaakov Stern, Divi­sion Leader of the Cog­ni­tive Neu­ro­science Divi­sion of the Sergievsky Cen­ter at Colum­bia University.

Myth 2: The field of Cognitive/ Brain Fit­ness is too new to be credible.

Real­ity: The field rests on solid foun­da­tions dat­ing back more decades — what is new is the num­ber and range of tools that are now start­ing to be avail­able for healthy individuals.

“Rig­or­ous and tar­geted cog­ni­tive train­ing has been used in clin­i­cal prac­tice for many years. Exer­cis­ing our brains sys­tem­at­i­cally is as impor­tant as exer­cis­ing our bod­ies. — Dr. Elkhonon Gold­berg, neu­ropsy­chol­o­gist, clin­i­cal pro­fes­sor of neu­rol­ogy at New York Uni­ver­sity School of Med­i­cine, and dis­ci­ple of Alexan­der Luria.

“Today, thanks to fMRI and other neu­roimag­ing tech­niques, we are start­ing to under­stand the impact our actions can have on spe­cific parts of the brain.” — Dr. Judith Beck, Direc­tor of the Beck Insti­tute for Cog­ni­tive Ther­apy and Research.

Myth 3: Med­ica­tion is and will remain the only evidence-based inter­ven­tion for a num­ber of brain-related problems.

Real­ity: Cog­ni­tive train­ing pro­grams are start­ing to show value as com­ple­ments to drug-based interventions.

“Cog­ni­tive train­ing rests on solid premises, and some pro­grams already have very promis­ing research results”- Pro­fes­sor David Rabiner, Senior Research Sci­en­tist and Direc­tor of Psy­chol­ogy and Neu­ro­science Under­grad­u­ate Stud­ies at Duke University.

Edu­ca­tion

Myth 4: We need to buy very expen­sive stuff to improve our brains.

Real­ity: Every time we learn a new skill, con­cept or fact, we change the phys­i­cal com­po­si­tion of our brains. Life­long learn­ing means life­long neuroplasticity.

“Learn­ing is phys­i­cal. Learn­ing means the mod­i­fi­ca­tion, growth, and prun­ing of our neu­rons, con­nec­tions called synapses and neu­ronal net­works, through experience…we are cul­ti­vat­ing our own neu­ronal net­works. — Dr. James Zull, Pro­fes­sor of Biol­ogy and Bio­chem­istry at Case West­ern University,

Myth 5: Schools should just focus on basic skills like Read­ing and Math.

Real­ity: “Men­tal mus­cles, such as work­ing mem­ory, are fun­da­men­tal to aca­d­e­mic per­for­mance and are cur­rently over­looked by the school system.

“I don’t see that schools are apply­ing the best knowl­edge of how minds work. Schools should be the best place for applied neu­ro­science, tak­ing the lat­est advances in cog­ni­tive research and apply­ing it to the job of edu­cat­ing minds. — Dr. Arthur Lavin, Asso­ciate Clin­i­cal Pro­fes­sor of Pedi­atrics at Case West­ern School of Medicine.

Cor­po­rate Train­ing

Myth 6: On-the-job train­ing is the only way to train one’s mind.

Real­ity: Computer-based pro­grams can be more effec­tive at train­ing spe­cific cog­ni­tive skills.

“What research has shown is that cog­ni­tion, or what we call think­ing and per­for­mance, is really a set of skills that we can train sys­tem­at­i­cally. And that computer-based cog­ni­tive train­ers or “cog­ni­tive sim­u­la­tions are the most effec­tive and effi­cient way to do so — Dr. Daniel Gopher, Pro­fes­sor of Human Fac­tors Engi­neer­ing at Tech­nion Insti­tute of Science.

Myth 7: Brain exer­cise is only for seniors. And, only about memory.

Real­ity: Peo­ple of all ages can ben­e­fit from a vari­ety of reg­u­lar brain exer­cises. For active pro­fes­sion­als, man­ag­ing stress and emo­tions is often a good first step.

“The elite per­form­ers are dis­tin­guished by the struc­tur­ing of their learn­ing process. It is impor­tant to under­stand the role of emo­tions: they are not “bad”. They are very use­ful sig­nals. It is impor­tant to become aware of them to avoid being engulfed by them, and learn how to man­age them. — Dr. Steen­barger, Asso­ciate Pro­fes­sor of Behav­ioral Sci­ences at SUNY Upstate Med­ical Uni­ver­sity, and author of the book Enhanc­ing Trader Performance.

Myth 8: This all sounds too soft to be of real value to man­agers and professionals.

Real­ity: There is noth­ing soft about the hard science-based train­ing of spe­cific cog­ni­tive and emo­tional skills.

“I can eas­ily see the rel­e­vance in highly com­pet­i­tive fields, such as pro­fes­sional sports and mil­i­tary train­ing. — Dr. Bradley Gib­son, Direc­tor of the Per­cep­tion and Atten­tion Lab at Uni­ver­sity of Notre Dame.

Seri­ous Games

Myth 9: Videogames are always a waste of time.

Real­ity: Scientifically-designed, computer-based pro­grams can be a good vehi­cle for train­ing spe­cific skills. For exam­ple, it has been shown that short term mem­ory can be expanded by such programs.

“We have shown that work­ing mem­ory can be improved by train­ing.”  Dr. Torkel Kling­berg, Direc­tor of the Devel­op­men­tal Cog­ni­tive Neu­ro­science Lab at Karolin­ska Institute.

Myth 10: This means kids will spend more time play­ing videogames.

Real­ity: In Japan  the world’s ear­li­est adopter of brain-related videogames– over­all home videogame sales have declined, with chil­dren play­ing less over time. Inter­est­ingly, adults in Japan have started to play brain-related video games more, and we are start­ing to see the same trend with adults in the US and Europe.

“The sales of soft­ware on home game machines have declined (in Japan) from its peak of 533 bil­lion yen in 1997 to 53% of that amount, 315 bil­lion yen in 2005″ — Go Hirano, Japan­ese executive.