Brain Gym - Scientific Debate

Scientific Debate

In 2007, certain statements from the Dennison's 1994 edition of Brain Gym: Teacher's Edition were criticized as being unscientific in a review of research into neuroscience and education published by the UK Economic and Social Research Council's Teaching and Learning Research Programme. The Dennisons have since published the 2010 Brain Gym: Teacher's Edition which offers theories based on the latest thinking on movement, learning, and neuroplasticity.

The UK report noted that "short sessions of Brain Gym exercise have been shown to improve response times" but that doing any exercise can improve alertness, and systems like Brain Gym, may help for that reason. The Dennisons note that “ . . . the Brain Gym 26 aren’t exercises in the usual sense.. . . Although some can be used for aerobic benefit, they’re more oriented to balance, alignment, and coordination than to muscle building or cardiovascular toning. . . . they’re often more subtle than traditional exercise—for example, when they involve directional skills, fine-motor dexterity, or visual and auditory attention.” Each activity takes only seconds to a minute to complete. The Dennisons further say that the "Lengthening Activities" use muscles in their lengthened positions, allowing them to more fully contract (and so relax) for the ease of both moving and sitting in a classroom.

In 2008, Sense About Science published a briefing document in which thirteen British scientists responded to explanations taken from the 1994 Brain Gym: Teacher's Edition. Each rejected a hypothesis as to why an activity was effective; overall, the statements given were described as "pseudo-scientific". The Dennisons wrote a public response addressing each concern, and also updated the statements in question in their 2010 version of the teacher's edition. One of the scientists, Professor of neuroscience Colin Blakemore, said that "there have been a few peer reviewed scientific studies into the methods of Brain Gym, but none of them found a significant improvement in general academic skills." Based on concerns about the 1994 version of the book, Sense about Science, along with the British Neuroscience Association and the Physiological Society, wrote to every Local Education Authority in Britain to warn them about the program.

In 2007 Dr. Keith Hyatt of Western Washington University wrote a paper in which he analysed the few available peer-reviewed research studies into Brain Gym. The authors of these five studies reported in each case that the Brain Gym activities were an effective intervention. However, Hyatt found the studies themselves to be poorly designed and concluded that the Brain Gym work is not supported by peer-reviewed research. He also cited research from the 1970s and 1980s into Brain Gym's theoretical basis: the field of Perceptual-Motor Learning, including Vision Training. He concluded that the work's theoretical basis did not stand up. The paper also encouraged teachers to learn how to read and understand research, to avoid teaching material that has no credible theoretical basis, such as that of perceptual learning. In their latest book, the Dennisons refer to the work of several scientists who, in their writings cite more recent evidence of the brain's plasticity for perceptual (sensory- and motor-based) learning.