User:Jondel/Mentalcalcdiscussion

Mental calculation

Does mental calculation improve concentration, memory and other mental capabilities unrelated to calculation? I need conclusive , authoritve proofs from Doctors, psychologist and am searching the web. I believe it does, it's just that a cite source is demanded at the mental calculation page. --Jondel 07:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You're may be using Google Scholar, which is ok. You could also try PubMed ([1]) with some keywords. I did have a quick try on PubMed but didn't find anything immediately relevant.--inks^T 08:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the PubMed. Yes I 've been using google.--Jondel 09:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Could you define 'mental calculation'? Do you mean doing math in your head, thinking four moves ahead in chess, doing the word puzzles in the paper without writing anything down, or...?--Anchoress 08:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Math in your head. No chess and puzzles just things like 37 x 48 in your head , square roots , etc.--Jondel 09:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

4 moves ahead in chess and word puzzles also improves concentration, memory and other mental capabilities, I believe. But that's aside the topic of mental calculation.--Jondel 09:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Yes it does, but if you want authoritive proof, asking a doctor or psychologist directly is going to help you much more than searching the web. Mental excersize (calculation, puzzles, riddles and the like) improve the neuron connections in your brain which is good when it comes to memory and other things you use your brain for. It's been proven that people who do puzzles on a regular basis are less likely to suffer dementia and other brain problems in the long run. As for concentration, the more you practice it, the easier it gets. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I know. But we need authoritive sources.--Jondel 09:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Mgm, are you sure about this statement: "It's been proven that people who do puzzles on a regular basis are less likely to suffer dementia and other brain problems in the long run."? How have the studies you refer to been able to separate cause and effect? People with a latent or beginning dementia might be less likely to want to do puzzles on a regular basis than those who have no latent brain disease.

I searched PubMed for (cognitive[All Fields] AND (("aptitude"[TIAB] NOT Medline[SB]) OR "aptitude"[MeSH Terms] OR abilities[Text Word])) AND ("training"[All Fields] OR "excercise"[All Fields]), and for (cognitive[All Fields] AND (("aptitude"[TIAB] NOT Medline[SB]) OR "aptitude"[MeSH Terms] OR abilities[Text Word])) AND mental[All Fields] AND (calculation[All Fields] OR computation[All Fields] OR arithmetic[All Fields]), with very few relevant hits.

• A 1992 review paper, Nolan KA, Blass JP, Preventing cognitive decline. Clin Geriatr Med. 1992 Feb;8(1):19-34. (Abstract) states, rather disappointingly that "Although they are rapidly becoming more numerous, the efficacy of cognitive training programs in preventing or slowing cognitive decline has not yet been demonstrated."

• This paper: Martini L, Domahs F, Benke T, Delazer M. Everyday numerical abilities in Alzheimer's disease. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2003 Sep;9(6):871-8. (Abstract) did not appear to be relevant in itself, but if you could get a copy from the library, it might have some relevant references.

• The abstract of this paper: ACTIVE: a cognitive intervention trial to promote independence in older adults. Jobe JB, Smith DM, Ball K, Tennstedt SL, Marsiske M, Willis SL, Rebok GW, Morris JN, Helmers KF, Leveck MD, Kleinman K. Control Clin Trials. 2001 Aug;22(4):453-79. (Abstract) states that cognitive training interventions (memory, reasoning, and speed of information processing), have previously been found to be successful at improving mental abilities under laboratory or small-scale field conditions. Maybe there is something in the references of that paper which may be relevant.

• This paper, Dehaene S. Varieties of numerical abilities. Cognition. 1992 Aug;44(1-2):1-42. (Abstract) might also have relevant references.

If any reliable data exists, I would expect it to be either from training regimens for the elderly, or perhaps some early work in experimental psychology. The results of the search suggest that there simply is no experimental data to support the claim. It may, of course, still be true. My guess is that this assumption has never been tested rigorously. When you think about the study design that would be needed, and the amount of work that would be involved, that is perhaps not so surprising. --vibo56 ^talk 17:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

MGM's statement is correct, I believe, and it doesn't make any assumptions as to cause-and-effect. I had to read numerous articles on this in neuroscience classes back in college, and it's been shown both for people who do crosswords on a regular basis, and for people who were more verbose and descriptive in their writings during young adulthood (I could possibly dig up the references). What has been shown, as you rightly note, is a correlation, not a causation. However, cognitive reserve has been possibly shown in a number of cases, which seems to show that people who use their brains more show fewer signs of dementia, even after onset of pathologies such as Alzheimer's. So the reserve doesn't prevent the neural damage, but it does seem to prevent, or at least delay, their effects. A moment of searching finds this as a pretty good recent review article. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 18:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

In the context that MGM presented it, I read this as an argument of a causal relationship, but you are right in pointing out that the statement, in itself, does not imply causality. As for the mental reserve argument, the attraction towards intellectually stimulating activities and the slower progression of dementia may have a common cause (the mental reserve), or the mental training may lead to a greater mental reserve, and therefore be the cause of slower onset of dementia. The original question was whether data exists to support the hypothesis that doing mental calculation has other, positive effects on cognitive function. I doubt that the such data exists, but would be delighted in being proven wrong. --vibo56 ^talk 19:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[Unindenting] Well I guess it probably wouldn't be any use, but a couple of years ago I saw a piece on Animal Planet or something where geriatric beagles who were put through mazes and given memory exercises and taught new tricks retained their faculties better and longer than the 'control beagle' group.--Anchoress 19:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Animal studies could certainly be the way to go to prove causality, if the study was well designed. If mental training can be shown to delay dementia in animal studies, I would find it reasonable to assume that the association observed in humans is indeed causal. --vibo56 ^talk 20:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Well if you think it's any use, here is an article on the beagle study.--Anchoress 20:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC) ADDENDUM Actually it looks like there may be some interesting data on humans on the same page. Check it out.--Anchoress 20:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

If you want a citation, I read this in A User's Guide to the Brain by Dr. John Ratey, a psychiatrist. It's a very approachable book for laypeople. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · contribs} 20:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)