Research changes, and that’s okay!

Written by Bernadine Sengalrayan

Cognitive science is the study of how our brains think, learn, and remember. Cognitive science research says that brain games can help keep our memory sharp and improve thinking skills (Dresler et al., 2017). This is perplexing, because a different set of researchers found that playing chess had little to no effect on bolstering concentration capacity and academic achievement (Jerrim et al., 2016). But then, playing mahjong was observed to improve attention, focus, and coordination (Zhang et al, 2020). However, a recent study now suggests that there is no difference between the memory skills of participants who trained their brains using computerized games, and those who did not (Stojanoski et al., 2021).

You may start to wonder “how does one follow what cognitive science research has to say, when they seem to have something new to say every day?”

It is okay that research changes

It is important to understand that cognitive science, or just science in general, is not an absolute. Science is a process of discovery and refinement. Science is an accumulation of evidence. As new data and methods become available, our perception and awareness of the world around us evolves. This is particularly true in the field of cognitive science. New techniques and technologies are constantly being developed to better our understanding of the mind and of learning.

How do you follow what cognitive science research has to say?

With so much new research on cognition being published every day, it can be overwhelming to wade through all the information, and to know which research results are reliable and accurate. Here are three details to consider so that scientific research is less confusing.

1. Consider the source

Critically evaluate any source of information. Look at the credentials of the researchers. Are they experts in their field? Where is the article reported? Is it a reputable and reliable source? Is it an opinion-piece or is it a research paper that has been evaluated and supported by other experts in the field?

2. Check how the study was done

Was the study well-designed and conducted in a careful and precise manner? A well-designed study usually has a large and diverse sample so that the results can be applied to many different people. In cognitive science, researchers sometimes use small groups of people to study the brain. Such sample sizes may be appropriate for research questions that involve a restricted or hard-to-find population. Even though the group is small, the results can still be trusted and replicable. In fact, some small studies have found the same results as larger studies.

Were clear and appropriate steps taken to reduce any unfair influences on the results of a study? This can happen if, for example, a researcher has a personal interest in the outcome of the study and interprets the data to support a certain finding.

Were the right measurements used in the study, including selecting appropriate tools and methods for the study, and making sure that those tools and methods are accurate? For instance, if a study is looking at links between brain games and cognitive function and the researcher started measuring how many sit-ups participants can do in a minute, this might not be a well-designed study. Sit-ups might be a good physical fitness test to measure abdominal strength, but they may not be the best method to assess cognitive abilities. A valid cognitive test should be able to evaluate various cognitive functions, such as attention, memory, and processing speed, depending on the context in which they are used.

3. Look at what the researchers say

Do the findings and conclusions of the researchers make sense, and are they supported by the evidence? Did the researchers think about other possible explanations for their results? It is important to think carefully about what researchers say before accepting it as true.

It is okay that research changes, because our understanding of the world is always growing and improving. We can cut through the confusion by knowing how to understand good research. We should remember to always think critically and evaluate the evidence before accepting any conclusions.

If you enjoyed this blog post, check out our other blog posts!

References

Dresler, M., Shirer, W. R., Konrad, B. N., Müller, N. C. J., Wagner, I. C., Fernández, G., Czisch, M., & Greicius, M. D. (2017). Mnemonic training reshapes brain networks to support superior memory. Neuron, 93(5), 1227–1235.e6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2017.02.003

Jerrim, J., Macmillan, L., Micklewright, J., Sawtell, M., & Wiggins, M. (2016). Chess in schools: Evaluation report and executive summary. Education Endowment Foundation.

Stojanoski, B., Wild, C. J., Battista, M. E., Nichols, E. S., & Owen, A. M. (2021). Brain training habits are not associated with generalized benefits to cognition: An online study of over 1000 “brain trainers”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 150(4), 729–738. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000773

Zhang, H., Peng, Y., Li, C., Lan, H., Xing, G., Chen, Z., & Zhang, B. (2020). Playing mahjong for 12 weeks improved executive function in elderly people with mild cognitive impairment: A study of implications for TBI-induced cognitive deficits. Frontiers in Neurology, 11(178). https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2020.00178

Disclaimer

The blog posts are for informational and educational purposes only. The posts should not be considered as any type of advice (medical, mental health, legal, and/or religious advice). All blog posts have been researched, written, and edited by the undergraduate students and alumni of the Lifespan Cognition Lab. As a teaching and research-based lab, we encourage all lab members to help make knowledge more accessible to all communities through these posts.

Do we really 'achieve what we believe'? The power of a growth mindset