The interpretation of this study is astonishingly over-reaching. The BBC researchers designed their own cognitive stimulation program, applied it at a very low

The interpretation of this study is astonishingly over-reaching. The BBC researchers designed their own cognitive stimulation program, applied it at a very low intensity in healthy young people, and then saw no effect on cognitive function. To then claim that their data shows that "computerized mental workouts don't boost mental skills" is akin to saying "sugar doesn't help with a headache, and sugar and aspirin are both molecules, so aspirin must not help with headaches either." This is an elementary logical fallacy. There is a tremendous body of published evidence showing that certain specifically designed cognitive training programs drive real benefits: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19220558 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19220558 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17565162 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17565162 If the BBC researchers want to contest those results, they should use the programs and methods used in those studies. This is a fundamental principle of the scientific method, and its surprising to have to point it out to working scientists. The only conclusion from the BBC study is that very limited amounts of everyday cognitive stimulation does not improve cognitive function. This is an interesting conclusion, and the study should have reported it as such. Henry Mahncke http://www.positscience.com http://www.positscience.com I am a researcher at Posit Science, where I design and test cognitive training programs.