Research Article: Naming is not explaining: future directions for the “cognitive reserve” and “brain maintenance” theories

Date Published: April 2, 2018

Publisher: BioMed Central

Author(s): Jonna Nilsson, Martin Lövdén.

http://doi.org/10.1186/s13195-018-0365-z

Abstract

Contemporary imaging measures of the human brain explain less than half of the differences in cognitive functioning and change among older adults. Researchers have advanced several theories and concepts to guide research that aims to better explain these individual differences in cognitive aging. Taking the fundamental measurement model in the empirical sciences as a starting point, we here scrutinize two such complementary theories, brain maintenance and cognitive reserve, in an attempt to clarify these theories, gauge their usefulness, and identify ways in which they can be further developed. We demonstrate that, although both theories are highly useful for spawning theorizing and empirical work, they can be further developed by detailing the theoretical and operational definitions of the concepts that they propose. We propose a few ways forward in these directions.

Partial Text

Science has a long way to go in mapping cognition to the brain. People differing in cognitive ability may have identical brains, as currently measurable. Individuals with different brains may display identical cognitive functioning. In fact, contemporary imaging measures of the human brain cannot explain much more than 40% of the differences in cognitive functioning and change among older adults [1–3]. Several theories and concepts have been proposed for guiding research that aims to increase our understanding of why individuals perform differentially, age with more or less success, and display variable resiliency to adversity [4–11]. Using the fundamental measurement model in the empirical sciences as a framework, we here scrutinize two such theories, brain maintenance [8] and cognitive reserve [12–14], in an attempt to clarify their meaning, gauge their usefulness, and identify ways in which they can be further developed.

In science, there are many examples of concepts that were imagined before the precise theoretical definitions and measurements of these concepts were developed. In the case of brain maintenance and cognitive reserve theories, the vagueness of theoretical and operational definitions has provoked productive efforts to refine their meaning. However, as we have shown, none of the theories currently propose adequate operational definitions of their theoretical concepts. They function more as useful research programs than as stringent scientific theories. To avoid the (nominal) fallacy of thinking that naming is explaining, researchers must intensify efforts to operationally define the theoretical concepts so that their explanatory potential can be directly investigated.

 

Source:

http://doi.org/10.1186/s13195-018-0365-z

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.