Hi Paul,

Interesting question, and I believe that the short answer to it would be 'yes, learning a mathematical or programming language would likely confer a benefit to an individual's risk of developing dementia'.

In a review by Lovden and colleagues (1), the authors suggest that any task that involves prolonged engagement in a cognitively challenging task will provide the necessary means to stimulate plastic changes within the brain that likely underpin these cognitively protecting effects. Progressively learning the intricacies of a mathematical language, as long as it remains a cognitive challenge (i.e. the learning and maintenance of complex information is occurring), seems to satisfy these proposed requirements.

As you mention in your question, learning a second language, probably in a classroom setting, involves other factors that are also related to dementia risk, such as social engagement (on this, however, it may be that social isolation increases risk to a greater extent than very high levels of social engagement may decrease risk; 2). But still, there is no suggestion that further education and cognitive engagement only lower dementia risk if the activity involves verbal communication.

For a review of the lifetime activities that have been associated with protection from expressing symptoms of dementia, as well as more information on the theoretical explanations of these protective effects, you might like to see this recent publication by Arenaza-Urquijo and colleagues (3).

Cheers,

David.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0020080

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arr.2015.04.006

http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2015.00134

Hi Paul,

Interesting question, and I believe that the short answer to it would be 'yes, learning a mathematical or programming language would likely confer a benefit to an individual's risk of developing dementia'.

In a review by Lovden and colleagues (1), the authors suggest that any task that involves prolonged engagement in a cognitively challenging task will provide the necessary means to stimulate plastic changes within the brain that likely underpin these cognitively protecting effects. Progressively learning the intricacies of a mathematical language, as long as it remains a cognitive challenge (i.e. the learning and maintenance of complex information is occurring), seems to satisfy these proposed requirements.

As you mention in your question, learning a second language, probably in a classroom setting, involves other factors that are also related to dementia risk, such as social engagement (on this, however, it may be that social isolation increases risk to a greater extent than very high levels of social engagement may decrease risk; 2). But still, there is no suggestion that further education and cognitive engagement only lower dementia risk if the activity involves verbal communication.

For a review of the lifetime activities that have been associated with protection from expressing symptoms of dementia, as well as more information on the theoretical explanations of these protective effects, you might like to see this recent publication by Arenaza-Urquijo and colleagues (3).

Cheers,

David.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0020080

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arr.2015.04.006

http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2015.00134

Dear Paul,

Natural language and formal language share some networks in expert math. However, naive subjects seem to use other brain networks. Thus, regarding brain stimulation to delay dementia, learning maths probably could help but acting on different networks than second language acquisition.

I added a nice paper describing brain activity in mathematicians.

Cheers,

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27071124

Hi David,

Many thanks for the references. While it will take a while to absorb them, these are my immediate thoughts:

In a situation that would not provide much opportunity to actively converse in a second language, self-study of advanced maths might provide a cognitive challenge comparable to teaching oneself a second language.

However, the reference provided by Jose’s contribution, below, says

"results suggest that high level mathematical thinking makes minimal use of language areas"

If so, how might the cognitive benefits differ between the two? Perhaps someone might one day study retired software engineers versus retired language teachers…

Further, the likely stimulus of social engagement obviously argues against study in isolation. Indeed, I was interested to see whether anyone would respond to the Question by mentioning the well-known Nun Study [1] or an up-to-the-minute popular survey of the latest research in AD, which also covers the Nun Study [2]. In fact this Question was motivated in large part by a review of [2] in which the reviewer suggests that social interaction is a significant factor.

As is obvious, perhaps, being a retired physical chemist my field is remote from yours, and I’m attempting to evaluate the potential benefits of extending my studies of advanced maths (in relative isolation) versus available (but comparatively undemanding) social interaction.

Perhaps participating in ResearchGate itself provides the best compromise?

Regards

Paul

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nun_Study

http://www.jayingram.ca/books/the-end-of-memory.html

Dear Jose’

Although this isn’t my field (as mentioned earlier), the second reference within the one you cite, Hadamard’s mid-C20th “Essay on the Psychology of Invention in the Mathematical Field”, (1945) Princeton Univ Press, has long been one of my favourite books.

So it’s particularly intriguing to learn that fMRI studies have now been made of the brain networks involved in high-level maths and their relationship to language areas.

This confirms one of the items Hadamard reports (I’m trusting now to memory): that only one leading mathematician or theoretical physicist thought about maths in words, whereas the majority reported thinking in (sometimes vague) geometric images – points, lines etc. – or else in abstract algebraic symbols.

Einstein was an exception in that he claimed to think, partly, kinaesthetically (i.e. with his muscles), which to me [1] seems to make a sort of sense, perhaps, if you’re trying to model curved space in your imagination.

However, I do recall discussing this variation, at a conference in the late 1990s, with an educational psychologist who claimed that her research suggested these categories were far from fixed, and I can report that I use all the above modes to some degree (except for the kinaesthetic mode!)

So I will be reading the paper you cite with great interest.

Regards - Paul

Dear Paul,

It's a pleasure take part in this activity because it helps me to understand a little more my field through your vision.

Thanks,

Jose

For framework, this discussion would benefit from considering the unifying "cognitive reserve hypothesis". The is basically the idea that any prolonged cognitive stimulation that results in enriched synaptic connections will provide some protection against cognitive decline and/or dementia. Multiple language are especially good for this because verbal skills have dispersed pathways and nuclei and can be used so intensely as to shape our realities. However, boosting mathematical powers are limited to specific brain regions, and it is hard to find a prolonged social support from engaging in that mode of thinking. Finally, you would STILL need language to talk about the math. In my informed opinion, MUSIC has far more potential to boost cognitive research in a meaningful way on par with a second language.

Thank you Xeno. Do you have any references on mathematical powers being limited to specific brain regions ?

Regards - Paul

I did not have a reference in mind - but applying logic and certainly could be wrong, however, just consider the lifespan of language - we begin processing sounds in utero and newborns show recognition of voices they heard during their fetal period; similar studies with recognizing drumming rhythms hear in utero. Our brain are build to acquire language which is present in basic forms from the beginning - but the "formal language of math" cannot be built up until later. Combining different language tasks (listening, reading, speaking, etc.) end up activating most of the brain - but I am not sure that different math operations (addition, subtraction, etc.) will go beyond the usual parietal and associated activation - here an abstract that makes it seem less clear, but has good methodology and presumably good lit review and discussion in full form:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0028393299000688

Here is another activation study looking at how much VERBAL REGIONS activation contributes to calculations compared to VISUO-SPATIAL REGIONS activation - this may help make my point that even math requires verbal intervention meaning language areas get activated even to do math.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/284/5416/970

From a small article in the Sunday Times (UK, 10 March 2019 ) I see that the person recognised as the current world's longest-living person, one Kane Tanaka, now 116 years of age, is described as "...an amateur mathematician and calligrapher."

Proves nothing, but is not inconsistent with the Question; though it might mean no more than the lady enjoys sudoku...

Xeno,

Many thanks for your second answer and the references (I must have missed it all at the time you sent it). By 'advanced maths', my Question concerned topics considerably more demanding than arithmetic.

Your second reference asks whether ‘the human capacity for mathematical intuition depend on linguistic competence or on visuo-spatial representations’.

You’ve probably come across Jacques Hadamard’s ‘The Psychology of Invention in the Mathematical Field’ (https://www.amazon.com/Psychology-Invention-Mathematical-Field/dp/0486201074) wherein he reports the results of his mid-C20th survey of fellow mathematicians and theoretical physicists. Most of them described their mathematical thought processes as mainly either visuo-spatial or abstract algebraic, rather than in natural language terms (only one of his respondents claimed to think mathematically in verbal terms; Einstein, reportedly not a first-class mathematician, claimed he thought partly with his muscles – kinaesthetically; perhaps not so surprising if one is trying to model a sense of curved space?)

While I readily agree that one needs natural language to achieve mathematical/formal language ‘lift-off’, I still wonder whether the processes associated with the construction of progressively more abstract mathematical/logical concepts exercises, and maybe stimulates the development of, brain regions beyond those that Dehaene et al. identify as involved in ‘exact’ or ‘approximate’ arithmetic.

Regards - Paul