Cited by 204Neurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanismsAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and ApplicationsCognitive Abilities and Testing

Teaching an adult brain new tricks: A critical review of evidence for training-dependent structural plasticity in humans

Thomas, Cibu, Baker, Chris I.·2013·NeuroImage

Abstract

A growing number of structural neuroimaging studies have reported significant changes in gray matter density or volume and white matter microstructure in the adult human brain following training. Such reports appear consistent with animal studies of training-dependent structural plasticity showing changes in, for example, dendritic spines. However, given the microscopic nature of these changes in animals and the relatively low spatial resolution of MRI, it is unclear that such changes can be reliably detected in humans. Here, we critically evaluate the robustness of the current evidence in humans, focusing on the specificity, replicability, and the relationship of the reported changes with behavior. We find that limitations of experimental design, statistical methods, and methodological artifacts may underlie many of the reported effects, seriously undermining the evidence for training-dependent structural changes in adult humans. The most robust evidence, showing specificity of structural changes to training, task and brain region, shows changes in anterior hippocampal volume with exercise in elderly participants. We conclude that more compelling evidence and converging data from animal studies is required to substantiate structural changes in the adult human brain with training, especially in the neocortex.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.03.069

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Voxel-based morphometry studies have been criticized for confounding factors such as differences in cerebral blood flow.

    “The main criticism of VBM studies focused on various confounding sources such as differences in blood flow (Franklin et al., 2013) or faulty study designs, statistical methods and methodological artifacts (Thomas and Baker, 2013).”
  • Voxel-based morphometry studies have also been criticized for faulty designs, statistical methods, and methodological artifacts.

    “The main criticism of VBM studies focused on various confounding sources such as differences in blood flow (Franklin et al., 2013) or faulty study designs, statistical methods and methodological artifacts (Thomas and Baker, 2013).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Thomas, C., & Baker, C. I.
Affiliations
National Institutes of Health (US)
Corresponding author
Thomas, Cibu
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-06
Volume
73
Pages
225-236
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2144958108
Cited by
204
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 28 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 4
FWCI
2.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Intramural Research Program of NIMH
  • Department of Defense in the Center for Neuroscience and Regenerative Medicine
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Developmental Neuroscience › Neurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanisms
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
Keywords
adult brain plasticity, gray matter density, white matter microstructure, methodological artifacts, replicability, dendritic spines, neocortex, cognitive training
MeSH terms
Adult, Behavior, Brain, Brain Mapping, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Learning, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Neuronal Plasticity, Psychomotor Performance, Reproducibility of Results, Diffusion Tensor Imaging, Signal-To-Noise Ratio, Neuroimaging

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review